Remove this Banner Ad

Maxwell Cleared

  • Thread starter Thread starter Merv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

magpie_militia said:
That is not illegal. What is your point?
Click to expand...

It is illegal actually, if you clearly take your eyes off the footy and go for the man, and they get severely injured, then you get suspended...

If it happened to Dale Thomas or Allan Didak, I'm prety sure you wouldn't be on the bumper's side, especially if it was in the nab cup...
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

ashs35 said:
It is illegal actually, if you clearly take your eyes off the footy and go for the man, and they get severely injured, then you get suspended...
Click to expand...
No, it is perfectly legal so long as the intent was not to cause major damage, the feet are on the ground, the elbow tucked in and the shoulder doesn't intentionally hit the head. All legal.

The injury is unfortunate, but irrelevant. Remember, this wasn't even a free kick! Had McGinnity not broken his jaw then this wouldn't have even gone to the MRP. That in itself screams injustice!

ashs35 said:
If it happened to Dale Thomas or Allan Didak, I'm prety sure you wouldn't be on the bumper's side, especially if it was in the nab cup...
Click to expand...
I don't want anyone to get a broken jaw on any team, but if the player is doing all the things I stated above then there is no case to answer.

People have knees go in tackles which is a 12 month injury. There's no issue if someone is executing a legal part of the game.
 
FIGJAM said:
No, it is perfectly legal so long as the intent was not to cause major damage, the feet are on the ground, the elbow tucked in and the shoulder doesn't intentionally hit the head. All legal.

The injury is unfortunate, but irrelevant. Remember, this wasn't even a free kick! Had McGinnity not broken his jaw then this wouldn't have even gone to the MRP. That in itself screams injustice!


I don't want anyone to get a broken jaw on any team, but if the player is doing all the things I stated above then there is no case to answer.

People have knees go in tackles which is a 12 month injury. There's no issue if someone is executing a legal part of the game.
Click to expand...


Was going to say Maxwell had a big win.

But

I reckon Aussie Rules had a big win today.

The mothers club with its cheif mother Andy Demetriou failed:thumbsu:
 
Mark Robinson you are a bed wetting sook.
You were wrong.

Suck it up and move on.

All the best to McGinnity.

Carn the Pies
 
Pie eyed said:
Mark Robinson you are a bed wetting sook.
You were wrong.

Suck it up and move on.

All the best to McGinnity.

Carn the Pies
Click to expand...

Well said thank god its over.

Now all we need is AA and Vlad to get on board and stop tampering with rules.
 
Obeanie1 said:
We're here!!!! But this isn't a West Coast versus Collingwood issue so what's your point? It's an issue about clarifying the rules on duty of care with the bump.

So great news isn't it?

So everything is now crystal clear on what is or isn't a legal bump.:cool:

A player can shirt front another player or go the bump, ignor the ball and have no duty of care to ensure head high contact is "accidently" the result.:cool:

Hey, but didn't Waters do exactly that last year to O'Bree and get weeks?

Didn't Ginseracusa (SP:confused:)do exactly that to Kosi in 2007 and get weeks?

If people think this appeal decision has cleared up questions about the bump and duty of care think again. All of a sudden the smoke and mirrors of legal arguement has made this issue even more confusing and uncertain.

This result will simply mean more and more clubs will pay expensive QC's to appeal more and more decisions.

What a mess!!!
Click to expand...

I may be a magpie supporter, but I totally agree with you!!.And as for those "idiots" saying that the bump would become extinct because of this incident, how stupid are you?? The bump would have stayed regardless of the outcome. I mean the LEGAL bump, not the ILLEGAL bump like Maxwell's!! Just look at Scarlett's LEGAL bump on Franklin in the GF..
This has now set a precedent in our game, it seems you can tackle,bump etc anywhere on the body, doesn't matter how high.It's open slather.I just hope that a player will not end up brain damaged, or a paraplegic because of ILLEGAL bumps,& tackles, the judiciary may have a lot to answer to if this happens.
(And who knows, with Maxwell being found NOT guilty the AFL may ban the bump, at least there would be no grey area any more. To bring QC's etc into this is absolutely ridiculous.:mad:)
 
FIGJAM said:
No, it is perfectly legal so long as the intent was not to cause major damage, the feet are on the ground, the elbow tucked in and the shoulder doesn't intentionally hit the head. All legal.
Click to expand...

Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could!

If this kind of play is deemed 'legal' then there's gonna be a massive increase in injury's this year... Is that what we really want to see ? more injury's ?

And like I said before if it had of been Judd on the receiving end of the broken jaw, he would of atleast got 2 weeks...easy!
 
ashs35 said:
Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could!

If this kind of play is deemed 'legal' then there's gonna be a massive increase in injury's this year... Is that what we really want to see ? more injury's ?

And like I said before if it had of been Judd on the receiving end of the broken jaw, he would of atleast got 2 weeks...easy!
Click to expand...

Oh FFS, you should really just stop watching footy. Start following Soccer or something.
 
ashs35 said:
Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could!

If this kind of play is deemed 'legal' then there's gonna be a massive increase in injury's this year... Is that what we really want to see ? more injury's ?

And like I said before if it had of been Judd on the receiving end of the broken jaw, he would of atleast got 2 weeks...easy!
Click to expand...

Perhaps your judgment is being tainted by your own personal experience with being hit in the head?

It would of explained certainly the injury's you of caused to the English language there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

mdc said:
Perhaps your judgment is being tainted by your own personal experience with being hit in the head?

It would of explained certainly the injury's you of caused to the English language there.
Click to expand...

Just read that last sentence of yours for me, and let me know whether you think it is linguistically correct or not...? :rolleyes:
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

RUNVS said:
This is a victory for everyone, not just Collingwood.
Click to expand...
Correct. :thumbsu:

smiddaz123 said:
Bend over and take it bitches.
Click to expand...
Quite right. :p

Zvim said:
It is stupid and undermines the whole tribunal system and again reinforces there is no consistency in the AFL, you are innocent or guilty based on which way the public opinion pendulum is swinging. Lets just have an online vote and get rid of the puppets in the MRP and Tribunal, if these guys got something so simple so wrong then what are they doing there in the first place?

AFL need to sort this shit out and define properly what is legal and what is not because atm there is no confidence. If the player was from Bulldogs or Melbourne or North Melbourne and it wasn't pre-season when all the journos are bored and have nothing to write about it would never have been over-ruled.
Click to expand...
Sure. And your hatred of Maxwell as a "sniper" has nothing to do with it.
:rolleyes:
sdb4884 said:
****in Collingwood and AFL in bed together as usual. The guy gets a broken jaw from Maxwell's unsavory act. If Dale Thomas got knocked out and had his jaw broken by a young eagle rookie I reckon there would have been uproar in the east and he would have served time.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, nice try.

smiddaz123 said:
You're right. He should be proving his manliness in bar fights and hitting people who aren't looking.

Spare me. He plays the game tough and fair.
Click to expand...
Oooh, zing.

flyinghi64 said:
I guess the precedent has now been set, let's see how consistent it is throughout the year.
Click to expand...
The AFL don't act on precedent, so expect plenty of outraged supporters to scream "but Maxwell got away with it!" for the rest of this season if not next when their player gets rubbed out.

The bottom line is;

  • if it's a reasonable option to bump
  • if the bump is executed correctly
  • if the player being bumped is within 5m of the ball
  • if any contact to the head is incidental
Then it's not worthy of a suspension. Incidental head contact is legal, and should remain so... especially if KB gets his wish of writing the word "accidental" into the rules.
 
A fair result.... after a fair bump and a fair bit of controversity finishes up in a fair bit of activity on the board. Lets hope the rest of the year is as lively as this!!
 
Watching it at the time it seemed a legal bump but it did happen very quickly. There's no doubt watching the replay that it was a shirt-front that resulted in a head injury. Under the letter of the current AFL laws it is punishable. Not saying I agree with that as like all of us the physical side of our game is part of what I love about it.

Today's result has huge ramifications on our tribunal system going forward - its more of a mess than it was a week ago... :eek:
 
ashs35 said:
Maxwell ran RIGHT PASSED THE BALL & hit him as hard as he possibly could!

If this kind of play is deemed 'legal' then there's gonna be a massive increase in injury's this year... Is that what we really want to see ? more injury's ?

And like I said before if it had of been Judd on the receiving end of the broken jaw, he would of atleast got 2 weeks...easy!
Click to expand...


You are making a fool of yourself with your outburst.
Even your own supporters agree it was a fair bump. There is no other requirement to have any concern for the ball in a shepherd other than that the ball is within 5m of the event.
You assert that others don't understand what they are talking about and then prove you do not.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom