Will Maxwell be suspended?

[beez]

We all saw Maxwell's bump on Patrick McGinnity last night. Do you think it was fair? Do you think he should/will be suspended?

Imo, he shouldn't be, it seemed to be a fair hip and shoulder, but knowing the match review panel and their dislike towards any head high contact, I fear he may cop a week or two.

 

[FIGJAM]

It was perfectly legal.

I don't understand how end damage impacts on the player's intent. If McGinty had have just got up, noone would complain that it wasn't a free kick (which it wasn't). But now he's hurt, it's a weeks long suspension. Doesn't add up to me.

If Max gets suspended, then I think Leigh Brown should be suspended for roughing up Ben Reid in a marking contest.

 

[SteeleBeams]

He might cop a week.

 

[Paddywhackers]

no he won't be.

 

[OniAu]

ive seen harder hits in netball aus vs nz

 

[Masten_Magic]

he wont be just unlucky for mcginnity that he hurt his cheek

 

[Jabso]

It was perfectly legal.

I don't understand how end damage impacts on the player's intent. If McGinty had have just got up, noone would complain that it wasn't a free kick (which it wasn't). But now he's hurt, it's a weeks long suspension. Doesn't add up to me.

If Max gets suspended, then I think Leigh Brown should be suspended for roughing up Ben Reid in a marking contest.

Yeah, according to that logic Fred Quimby would have been found guilty for the assault of the Cloueser-esque waiter. "It's CHOWDA"

 

[Pies_10]

What a ****ing joke if he get any suspension.

 

[DrTomSwift]

I think it could go either way, on TV it looks just safe. But the result would suggest otherwise. We all know how consistent the tribunal is

 

[didaka]

No way. Great hit.

 

[smiddaz123]

Rofl. Not a chance.

 

[Willow_2000]

Nar he should be fine. You will find even most WC supporters have said the hit was fair. Just unfortunate that McGinnity suffered a broken jaw

 

[wixism]

[YOUTUBE]hsf-qADsO3E[/YOUTUBE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf-qADsO3E&feature=channel_page
High Quality
my words
[YOUTUBE]UzfY-aXGcBY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[goreds]

I think it could go either way, on TV it looks just safe. But the result would suggest otherwise. We all know how consistent the tribunal is

I think he may be in a spot of bother.

This article mentions the term 'duty of care' which is what the match reviewers use as their guide line.

He took his eyes off the ball and the ball was infront of him.

http://sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/maxwell-in-hot-water-64557

High impact, in play, high force.

Remember the Murphy hit last year?

Not good and he has carry over points.

The incident, which occurred during the first quarter of last Sunday’s round four match at the MCG, was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a level four offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction.

http://collingwoodfc.com.au/NewsFeatures/News/NewsArticle/tabid/5586/Default.aspx?newsId=57895

 

[Dave The Man]

[youtube]hsf-qADsO3E[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf-qADsO3E&feature=channel_page
High Quality
my words
[youtube]UzfY-aXGcBY[/youtube]

Good One

 

[Optimax]

It was a perfect hit, if he gets suspended they may as well outlaw the hip and shoulder completely

 

[The Royal Sampler]

No case to answer, IMHO. Good hit.

 

[ChipDouglas]

I think he may be in a spot of bother.

This article mentions the term 'duty of care' which is what the match reviewers use as their guide line.

He took his eyes off the ball and the ball was infront of him.

http://sportal.com.au/afl-news-display/maxwell-in-hot-water-64557

High impact, in play, high force.

Remember the Murphy hit last year?

Not good and he has carry over points.

The incident, which occurred during the first quarter of last Sunday’s round four match at the MCG, was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a level four offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction.

http://collingwoodfc.com.au/NewsFeatures/News/NewsArticle/tabid/5586/Default.aspx?newsId=57895

I'll make a deal with you, if Maxwell gets suspended I know nothing about football.

If he doesn't then you know nothing about football.

If you think for even a nano second that Maxwell could be in trouble for that bump then you have NFI. Try at least to be objective when commenting on nothing incidents.

 

[Pie eyed]

If Maxwell is even reported let alone suspended the Match Review Committee will have a case to answer.

It was a legitimate bump. Hard? Yes. Fair? Yes. Legal? Yes.

The only reason this would result in Maxwell fronting the tribunal is if they target him on a personal basis, in which case Maxwell should front up and call them a "mob of soft *****" and take the 6 match ban just to make a point.

 

[mdc]

Yet another case of end result dictating the way people see an incident. Whether or not a player was injured as a result of a hit should be inadmissible at the tribunal - look at intent, look at execution and then make a determination.

 

[goreds]

Good One

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASSI6EVZSJY

Got 3 weeks for this one!

 

[Jabso]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASSI6EVZSJY

Got 3 weeks for this one!

1. He shouldn't have got that much (I don't know if it was 3 weeks with carry over or not). That was a poorly timed bump as he went in flying from quite a far way away, went off the ground meaning he couldn't stop himself, and Murphy was sidestepping a different Collingwood opponent and even lowered his head to try and baulk him.

2. He did leave the ground during that one and raise his elbow a bit, he did not do that against WCE.

3. AFL are protecting players with their head over the ball, any contact above the shoulders is a no go zone there. They are trying to protect players from having their neck/spine damaged or the top/back of their head being hit and given a concussion, they are not so concerned about cosmetic injuries to the face.

4. Incidents must be looked at without taking into account the aftermath of the incident (i.e. how badly was the player injured). They should replay the actual incident and see if impact was severe and contact was high, not just go off reports of injuries. They should (yes I know they don't) treat it as if the player walked away from the bump.

 

[goreds]

1. He shouldn't have got that much (I don't know if it was 3 weeks with carry over or not). That was a poorly timed bump as he went in flying from quite a far way away, went off the ground meaning he couldn't stop himself, and Murphy was sidestepping a different Collingwood opponent and even lowered his head to try and baulk him.

2. He did leave the ground during that one and raise his elbow a bit, he did not do that against WCE.

3. AFL are protecting players with their head over the ball, any contact above the shoulders is a no go zone there. They are trying to protect players from having their neck/spine damaged or the top/back of their head being hit and given a concussion, they are not so concerned about cosmetic injuries to the face.

4. Incidents must be looked at without taking into account the aftermath of the incident (i.e. how badly was the player injured). They should replay the actual incident and see if impact was severe and contact was high, not just go off reports of injuries. They should (yes I know they don't) treat it as if the player walked away from the bump.

Well said.

The other worrying thing is that he ran straight past the ball to hit the W.Coke player.

 

[Optimax]

Well said.

The other worrying thing is that he ran straight past the ball to hit the W.Coke player.

Dead set if he gets rubbed out for that i will personally pay for netball style skirts and bibs for every AFL club, it was a fair and fine bump

 

[Jabso]

Well said.

The other worrying thing is that he ran straight past the ball to hit the W.Coke player.

So does that make shepherding illegal?