Merged: Maxwell and that bump

[greennick]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

exactly, i really see this as standing up for the fabric of our game. I just saw the incident again on fox twice and if that is weeks then our game, as i've said in regard to the bump many times, is RUINED!!!!

It is not ruined, just don't crack blokes front on in the head.

 

[Zvim]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

God, I hope they give him a Pickett-like suspension for the appeal.

It was not a legal bump, breaking someone's jaw and putting them out of football for 3 months is not within the guidelines of being legal.

Video clearly shows contact with the arm to the guys face, there may have been incidental head contact but if Maxwell hit the guy coming at that speed with the side of his head he would KOed himself.

Collingwood's evidence is just not consistent with the video evidence.

Maxwell came running in off the line with the intent to clean him up and he did, if he wasn't a well known sniper with a track record he would have only got 2 weeks reduced to 1 with an early plea and Collingwood wouldn't have bothered to appeal it. His growing bad record is just causing even minor offenses to blow out.

Collingwood should just give it up. Even if you win this case, Maxwell is a lost cause. He is a dinosaur of our game in an era when players use to play to be thugs and cause harm to other players.

He should go back to Perth and visit the kid, see him sucking his meals through a straw and him being out of football for three months. This is the consequent of his actions and it is what he is going to do other players if he continues to play like he does. Is this the person he wants to be remembered for?

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Um...I'm tipping they might not appeal if only 1 week!!

Er, so Collingwood at the moment should be thinking 'If Nick didn't do this and this a few years back, we would only be losing him for a week'?

Why would they bother worrying about that when it can't be undone?

 

[Paddywhackers]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I think you're kinda on the money of what the AFL/Tribunal is trying to tell the AFL community.

Yes you can hip and shoulder somebody but there is a limit to the extent of force you should do it with (depending on the circumstances).

Executing a hip and shoulder does imply a players intent to not go for the ball, but for the man instead. If a player decides to block the man and not go for the ball they face the risk that any injury or head high contact occurs will be deemed intentional.

In the case of a hip and shoulder a player executing should provide a duty of care and not OVERDO it (as in the case of Maxwell). Really Maxwell only needed to slightly bump him or nudge him to have executed a sheppard for his teammate, he didn't need to go full brunt.

If this is the argument for trolls, people who havn't played and don't understand the spirit of the game, or the AFL tribunual than you are clutching at straws. A bump or a tackle should be used with force as it is the sort of act that lifts the players around you. If that is the argument of the AFL tribunual, than should some of them lose their jobs as a result of disgraceful interpretations of the rules that suggest a complete lack of understanding and appreciation of the spirit of the game?

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I'm not sure whether that's an actual quote from the Match Review Panel, or a journalist's interpretation of the decision. I suspect it's the latter.

I think it is the gist of the MRP's summary but have not seen the MRP report.
I don't know if it is up anywhere yet.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Quite easily.

A perfectly-executed bump that results in your opponent having a dislocated shoulder is not going to draw a suspension as a result of this.

A perfectly-executed bump that results in your opponent falling over, striking a teammate's knee and being knocked out cold is not going to draw a suspension.

It was the fact of Maxwell's head-high contact on McGinnity that caused his suspension. The bump isn't being banned. Head-high contact is.

And what about accidental head clashes? Are they being banned?

 

[Sloth]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I'd suggest that a properly and perfectly executed bump doesn't involve your head hitting your opponent's head.

Exactly, therefore it was an accident

 

[Bollox]

Re: We still won't know what Nick Maxwell did wrong.

Gets a month for getting him high.

It was the Gia kozi bump that brought in the rule change. The AFL actully used that bump as the example in the DVD sent out to all clubs 2 years ago.

It was supported by all 16 clubs and the AFL players association. Also the clubs or AFLPA didn't request a change this year even after several players were cited last year under the rule.

Suggest you read this.
http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2009.pdf

Fair enough cheers. Didnt realise that. Hellova bump.

 

[likka]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I'd suggest that a properly and perfectly executed bump doesn't involve your head hitting your opponent's head.

So accidental head clashes are illegal also?

 

[ChipDouglas]

Re: Maxwell's shirt front breaks Eagles jaw

Verdict upheld and still Pie supporters don't understand that head high contact is unreasonable when laying a shepard.

All we need now is for the Tigers to roll them and for Maxwell not so Smart to be watching the first three rounds of the season with a long face and bottom lip hanging out

Don't the pious anal dimwits come out in force when a Collingwood player is up at the tribunal. Have a listen to Kevin Bartlett's segment on SEN today, he's on the rules of the game committee and said Maxwell did nothing wrong according to the rules of the bump as damage inflicted from accidental contact previous to this case has never been assessed. Even the AFL's own councel in the case said "We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with good technique" So how was it negligent or unreasonable?

If the dullards put their glee at a Collingwood player copping four matches to one side they would realise what a disastrous wider impact this asinine decision will have on the game and they'll be the first to bitch and moan when one of their players is rubbed out based on based on the new lay of the land. Less Adrian Anderson mini me semantics and some common sense please.

 

[bourbons]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Quite easily.

A perfectly-executed bump that results in your opponent having a dislocated shoulder is not going to draw a suspension as a result of this.

A perfectly-executed bump that results in your opponent falling over, striking a teammate's knee and being knocked out cold is not going to draw a suspension.

It was the fact of Maxwell's head-high contact on McGinnity that caused his suspension. The bump isn't being banned. Head-high contact is.

But initial contact was shoulder-to-shoulder, then a head clash occured, which is where the 'head-high contact' and damage was done.

FFS, the AFL advocate even said it was a perfectly executed bump during the hearing last night! How can someone be rubbed out for a perfectly executed bump?? Pies are right, its intrinsically wrong

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

God, I hope they give him a Pickett-like suspension for the appeal.

It was not a legal bump, breaking someone's jaw and putting them out of football for 3 months is not within the guidelines of being legal.

Video clearly shows contact with the arm to the guys face, there may have been incidental head contact but if Maxwell hit the guy coming at that speed with the side of his head he would KOed himself.

Collingwood's evidence is just not consistent with the video evidence.

Maxwell came running in off the line with the intent to clean him up and he did, if he wasn't a well known sniper with a track record he would have only got 2 weeks reduced to 1 with an early plea and Collingwood wouldn't have bothered to appeal it. His growing bad record is just causing even minor offenses to blow out.

Collingwood should just give it up. Even if you win this case, Maxwell is a lost cause. He is a dinosaur of our game in an era when players use to play to be thugs and cause harm to other players.

He should go back to Perth and visit the kid, see him sucking his meals through a straw and him being out of football for three months. This is the consequent of his actions and it is what he is going to do other players if he continues to play like he does. Is this the person he wants to be remembered for?

You are obviously anti-Maxwell, Collingwood or both.
Have you ever played the game at a level higher than under 10's?

I hope you get a Tess like Red-Card...LOL

 

[Primetime Pricey]

Re: We still won't know what Nick Maxwell did wrong.

COLLINGWOOD have confirmed they will appeal captain Nick Maxwell's four-match suspension for rough conduct.

The hearing with AFL could be as early as Thursday night.

Maxwell was found guilty by the AFL tribunal on Tuesday night after a two-hour case.

The club is appealing the decision on the basis that “the decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could’ve come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.”

The match review panel had reported Maxwell earlier this month after the round-one pre-season game against West Coast at Subiaco.

Maxwell's heavy shepherd left first-game Eagle Patrick McGinnity with a fractured jaw, which needed a plate inserted, putting him out of action for eight to 12 weeks.

 

[snapperbowler]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

For the good of the game Collingwood has to win this appeal.

The decision to suspend him is so wrong.

 

[Obeanie1]

Re: We still won't know what Nick Maxwell did wrong.

Yepp

I see...so ANY high contact when shepparding off the ball means a holiday does it ?

How about if my arms are out and your nose gets broken ..pretty common...i decided to make forceful contact to stop u getting to it..its an accident tho...its high contact..i get a month off do i ?

You want to protect the ball carrier by knocking the bloke out of the action then u CAN and according to most coaches u SHOULD in our game.

Injuries have always reasulted as a byproduct of forceful contact off the ball. The guy was IN PLAY and FAIR GAME for that bump.

No wonder its becoming a game of keepings off...soccer mums like you like to make decisons based on the extent rather than the intent.

So according to you its fine to shepard someone with your "arms out" and break someones nose.....even though it was an accident?

So in your oppinion players have no duty of care to play within the rules and avoid head high contact whilst sheparding, deliberately or by accident?

Your statement highlighted has just gutted all (if any) credibility you had Bollox.

You tell me, what team ball sport allows you to legally break opponents noses with your arms "by accident"?

You are either very simple minded or a thug or both.

 

[footyfreak]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

He ran past the ball, shirtfronted an 18-year old kid in his first game and broke his jaw. It was a deliberate bump, he clearly got him high (hence the broken jaw) ... what are the grounds for the appeal exactly?

what has this got to do with it?

this is a mans game and sometimes jaws get broken, accidents happen. FFS, we must ensure OUR game remains.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

And what about accidental head clashes? Are they being banned?

Exactly, therefore it was an accident

So accidental head clashes are illegal also?

But initial contact was shoulder-to-shoulder, then a head clash occured, which is where the 'head-high contact' and damage was done.

FFS, the AFL advocate even said it was a perfectly executed bump during the hearing last night! How can someone be rubbed out for a perfectly executed bump?? Pies are right, its intrinsically wrong

Geez I'm popular all of a sudden!

Accidental head clashes are not being outlawed. Properly executed hip and shoulders are not being outlawed. At most, the tribunal is saying that if you hip and shoulder someone and your head clashes with theirs, then you've been negligent in allowing that to happen.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

But initial contact was shoulder-to-shoulder, then a head clash occured, which is where the 'head-high contact' and damage was done.

FFS, the AFL advocate even said it was a perfectly executed bump during the hearing last night! How can someone be rubbed out for a perfectly executed bump?? Pies are right, its intrinsically wrong

Really?

Is that in an article online? If so can you provide a link?

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Go Pies......

Make these hypocrites eat it.....

No whistle, not report.

MRP are incompetent.
Tribunal are powerless to bring some sanity to the case, obviously and the AFL are pushing our game over the edge into the territory of the PC zealots.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

what has this got to do with it?

this is a mans game and sometimes jaws get broken, accidents happen. FFS, we must ensure OUR game remains.

I've said earlier that it has nothing to do with it and I shouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[GordonBlue]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Injuries happen even if the rules are followed. It's a ****ing contact sport!

If every single driver follows the road rules perfectly, there will STILL be accidents here and there sadly. It's the nature of the road, and it's the same on the football field.

Injuries happen unfortunately, and the AFL has to steer clear of punishing people just because someone gets injured.

Collingwood presented actual medical evidence to show that the broken jaw was caused by a clash of heads as well.

4 weeks for something such as this is a blatant over reaction.

and the aim of introducing suspending people that achieve high contact when only going for the ball is to minimise the chance of this happening... thats the aim of putting speed laws... it is to minimise the chance of an accident.... you could never eliminate subsequential things from taking place.

Why is the high tackles outlawed??? it's a contact sport for **** sakes... tackles are still in our game, but high tackles are outlawed for safety measures... same goes with the bump. You can bump someone without getting in contact with the head, and nothing will be done to you. I know that the high contact in the bump was accidental... but please tell me which player intends of giving away a free kick with a high tackle? no one... it is accidental, but your still gonna get punished.

This is a contact sport and will always be as long as a fair bump is applied same as a fair tackle... but once you take the gamble and go for the bump, and contact with the head is made... well thats the gamble and you have to pay if you lose.

 

[Paddywhackers]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

People in such a position of authority need to be both intelligent and wise. But this decision is so stupid that it leads me to believe that the tribunual is run by morons. How could this be so?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

The club is appealing the decision on the basis “that the decision was so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could’ve come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it”.

Reversing the decision or even reducing the penalty is tantamount to the AFL saying "our tribunal is comprised of imbeciles" (or that it is corrupt). Reckon there is almost zero chance of the appeal succeeding.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I think it is the gist of the MRP's summary but have not seen the MRP report.
I don't know if it is up anywhere yet.

The MRP's report on afl.com.au just says it was assessed as negligent, high impact and high contact, and goes into the points. Doesn't say why it was assessed as negligent.

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Geez I'm popular all of a sudden!

Accidental head clashes are not being outlawed. Properly executed hip and shoulders are not being outlawed. At most, the tribunal is saying that if you hip and shoulder someone and your head clashes with theirs, then you've been negligent in allowing that to happen.

And you agree with this?

Do you honestly think that all head clashes are a result of negligence from someone?

You think that if a player hip and shoulders someone, both feet grounded, shoulder tucked in, and the shoulder is kept below the opposing player's shoulder, but their head clash by sheer luck, then the player laying the hip and shoulder should be suspended?