Merged: Maxwell and that bump

[Tay29]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

That is false, a tackle has every bit as being as dangerous as a bump, just look at the amount of knee injuries that result of tackles.

The MRP said that Maxwell's shepard was legal. The only thing that made it not legal was the high contact, a tackle with high contact should be answerable to suspension if the MRP is consistent.

How can you possibly say it is false when it's written down in black and white? What a ridiculous thing to say. Mollyfud is only repeating what the actual laws are.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

Of course there is but you implied Lloyd was not gulity owing to him tackling Lloyd, not bumping him.

They are both skills that can be used to dispose the ball from your opponent.

No, I imply Lloyd is not guilt because he broke no reportable laws!

That is false, a tackle has every bit as being as dangerous as a bump, just look at the amount of knee injuries that result of tackles.

The MRP said that Maxwell's shepard was legal. The only thing that made it not legal was the high contact, a tackle with high contact should be answerable to suspension if the MRP is consistent.

Are you sure they said it was legel? Sure they didn't say it was a well executed sheppard?

UPDATED: I think your legal line is refering to this:

"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique," Gleeson said before adding the damning consequences that Maxwell was still guilty of negligent conduct for making contact with McGinnity's head.

To say he should be let off because he used "good technique" to do something would suggest if I shoot someone but produce a gun expert to say the way I shot the gun was with "good technique", I should get off.

Whether a tackle with high contact "SHOULD BE" answerable is a different issue. The fact is it isn't currently.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

Ok.
I have watched it a dozen times. Even in hires in frame by frame the image is not exactly clear.

McGinnity's head does appear to move back but it is slightly before the initial impact.
This could be a reflex trying to get out of the way or it could be from an impact.

There is a hint of contact between Maxwell's head and the side of McGinnity's face, his right, just after the initial impact.
This could be from a head clash or simply from the inertia of the initial impact. I doubt there was a head clash looking objectively at the video.
I have two angles but it is hard to get away from the initial backward motion of McGinnity' head in the original camera angle and maintain that Maxwell somehow followed through with a hit to the jaw while he is in fact turning his body to the right and away from McGinnity who is falling backwards at that stage.

When he hits the ground there is no evidence of any impact with either side of his jaw. In fact he does hit the back of his head clearly and not overly hard. At no point between the initial impact, including the microsecond it takes for his head to go back, and the time he hits the ground, is there a likely opportunity to injure his jaw

Even frame by frame the only indication of impact to the head from a shoulder is by judging the height of the various body parts.

It could be from his shoulder which, if it is the case, would be impact high up on McGinnity's cheek almost on to the temple. This from the initial angle in live action.

The second angle, shown in the replay which is more from the front, would have the impact just under McGinnity's chin if it took place. which is not clear. His head does appear to go forward toward Maxwell at initial impact and then his head appears to begin to go back a little later from this angle.

The fact is that McGinnity did receive an injury in the clash.
The bump is for all intents and purposes appears legitimate, which is borne out by the lack of a free kick or a report on the day, and within the rules, not only at first glance but after many viewings not simply by me but obviously hundreds of others. I assume, without being a doctor, that it is not possible to break a jaw without a point of impact at the site of the break.


I can see two possibilities.

Either Maxwell's shoulder hits McGinnity'jaw at the same time as the initial impact.
Or McGinnity's jaw comes down onto Maxwell's shoulder after but caused by the initial impact.

The trouble is there is no way of knowing which was the case as the video is inconclusive and is slightly contradictory from different angles.

I don't think anyone is denying the injury.
Most are happy with the bump in isolation of the injury.
The video is inconclusive in determining when and how the broken jaw occurred, not that I can see any other opportunity other than at or around the initial contact.

Definitely worth an appeal and definitely not worth 4 matches.
It is simply the AFL's refusal to accept that accidents will and do happen and it's inability to deliver fair and consistent outcomes at the MRP and the Tribunal which is driving this issue.

I still fully support the appeal and if that fails would be happy to see it go to a court of law where proof of intent and culpability would be required.

 

[Obeanie1]

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

Still babbling ?
What spelling mistake..wtf are u on about now ?
Lost the debate ?..what debate ?...i'm not here to debate anything. I;m hear to simply express an opinion and what u say just isnt important to me.
Try saying something informed that is relevant for a change.

Babbling is what your last two posts have been Bollox.

You asked me to be specific, I was specific and clearly defined my point of view. Since my post clarifying my point of veiw you've babbled on about nothing and added absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Your acting like a 'frog in a blender' all arms and legs flying in different dirrections.

I've put up a concise opinion which opposes yours, on BF that's what people do.

And your last two resposes have been perfect examples of babbling on;

1. 'you had to edit your post' (I edited a spelling error, somebody call the spelling police) and
2. 'I don't agree' and
3. now your latest which is just hilarious 'and what u say just isnt important to me.'

WOW Bollox that's really adding to the debate. Thats really driving home your point of view based on concise facts

Keep up the bad work, I look forward to our next debate

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

Juidd and Lloyd was a good clash, Maxwell stepped over the ball, collected the player, and then extended the arm (watch as he extends the arm, it is clearly connected with the other player's head). Had he not extended the arm there would be no problem.

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

Are you sure they said it was legel? Sure they didn't say it was a well executed sheppard?

The MRP said the bump/shepard that Maxwell executed was perfectly legal. They said Maxwell was gulity of head high contact (it was proved by a doctor that their heads accidently hit).

The basis for the suspension wasn't based on (in your words) what was reportable (that is the force/nature of the bump has an associated offence by the MRP) but the accidental high contact (in their words).

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

Ok.
I have watched it a dozen times. Even in hires in frame by frame the image is not exactly clear.

McGinnity's head does appear to move back but it is slightly before the initial impact.
This could be a reflex trying to get out of the way or it could be from an impact.

There is a hint of contact between Maxwell's head and the side of McGinnity's face, his right, just after the initial impact.
This could be from a head clash or simply from the inertia of the initial impact. I doubt there was a head clash looking objectively at the video.
I have two angles but it is hard to get away from the initial backward motion of McGinnity' head in the original camera angle and maintain that Maxwell somehow followed through with a hit to the jaw while he is in fact turning his body to the right and away from McGinnity who is falling backwards at that stage.

When he hits the ground there is no evidence of any impact with either side of his jaw. In fact he does hit the back of his head clearly and not overly hard. At no point between the initial impact, including the microsecond it takes for his head to go back, and the time he hits the ground, is there a likely opportunity to injure his jaw

Even frame by frame the only indication of impact to the head from a shoulder is by judging the height of the various body parts.

It could be from his shoulder which, if it is the case, would be impact high up on McGinnity's cheek almost on to the temple. This from the initial angle in live action.

The second angle, shown in the replay which is more from the front, would have the impact just under McGinnity's chin if it took place. which is not clear. His head does appear to go forward toward Maxwell at initial impact and then his head appears to begin to go back a little later from this angle.

The fact is that McGinnity did receive an injury in the clash.
The bump is for all intents and purposes appears legitimate, which is borne out by the lack of a free kick or a report on the day, and within the rules, not only at first glance but after many viewings not simply by me but obviously hundreds of others. I assume, without being a doctor, that it is not possible to break a jaw without a point of impact at the site of the break.


I can see two possibilities.

Either Maxwell's shoulder hits McGinnity'jaw at the same time as the initial impact.
Or McGinnity's jaw comes down onto Maxwell's shoulder after but caused by the initial impact.

The trouble is there is no way of knowing which was the case as the video is inconclusive and is slightly contradictory from different angles.

I don't think anyone is denying the injury.
Most are happy with the bump in isolation of the injury.
The video is inconclusive in determining when and how the broken jaw occurred, not that I can see any other opportunity other than at or around the initial contact.

Definitely worth an appeal and definitely not worth 4 matches.
It is simply the AFL's refusal to accept that accidents will and do happen and it's inability to deliver fair and consistent outcomes at the MRP and the Tribunal which is driving this issue.

I still fully support the appeal and if that fails would be happy to see it go to a court of law where proof of intent and culpability would be required.

Okay, with the threads being merged I don't know what exactly you were answering too, if anything.

It is beyond argument that some part of Maxwell hit McGinnity in the head as at very least Maxwell's defense was that it was a head clash. If there is any head contact in this situation, he is guilty. So, Maxwell (or his defense) basically said he was guilty!

As to if the impact should have been high or not, your arguements above may go to proving that the Pies should have argued for a lower impact level (which if proved, they would still have got the 25% for an early plea).
JMTC

 

[mollyfud]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

The MRP said the bump/shepard that Maxwell executed was perfectly legal. They said Maxwell was gulity of head high contact (it was proved by a doctor that their heads accidently hit).

The basis for the suspension wasn't based on (in your words) what was reportable (that is the force/nature of the bump has an associated offence by the MRP) but the accidental high contact (in their words).

Nick Maxwell, Collingwood, has been charged with a Level Three engaging in rough conduct offence against Patrick McGinnity, West Coast, during the third quarter of the round one NAB Cup match between Collingwood and West Coast, played at Subiaco on Saturday February 7, 2009.
In summary, his existing poor record means he can accept a three-match sanction with an early plea.
The incident was assessed as negligent conduct (one point), high impact (three points) and high contact (two points). This is a total of six activation points, resuling in a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction. He has an existing bad record of one match suspended within the last three years, increasing the penalty by 10 per cent to 357.50 points. He also has 82.81 points carried over from within the last 12 months, increasing the penalty to 440.31 points and a four-match sanction. An early plea reduces the penalty by 10 per cent to 330.23 points and a three-match sanction. Please note that under the rules of the Match Review system, as the offence occurred in the NAB Cup, any penalty may be served in part or in full while Collingwood remains in competition for the NAB Cup.

The above is what the MRP had to say. Are you sure you don't mean the AFL prosecutor (for want of a better term) at the tribunal? Because if you are, he is reported as saying:

"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique," Gleeson said before adding the damning consequences that Maxwell was still guilty of negligent conduct for making contact with McGinnity's head.

If this is what you mean, its totally different then saying it was legal!

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

This should be a stupid question, but the Maxwell case makes it a serious question.

This clash between Judd and Lloyd was the most awesome thing I saw on the park last season. Happened right in front of me. Both players showed supreme guts and selfless determination.

[youtube]fIgw1hKhtL0[/youtube]


The only difference in that clash was that Judd did not break his jaw.

 

[Lupton Warchild Pittman]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

Whether a tackle with high contact "SHOULD BE" answerable is a different issue. The fact is it isn't currently.

Actually, it is already answerable to being reported. If it wasn't, Milburn would have never been reported.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

Actually, it is already answerable to being reported. If it wasn't, Milburn would have never been reported.

That was a dangerous tackle, not a high tackle!

 

[mollyfud]

Re: If Maxwell goes, do we suspend Lloyd too?

[youtube]fIgw1hKhtL0[/youtube]


The only difference in that clash was that Judd did not break his jaw.

And didn't bump. More here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=13715095&postcount=760

 

[RustyHawk]

Re: Merged: Nick Maxwell and that bump

Main Board thread moved to Umpires Board..

 

[Beckers]

Re: Merged: Nick Maxwell and that bump

Main Board thread moved to Umpires Board..

But this has nothing to do with the umpires They actually got it right for once!

 

[footyfreak]

Re: Merged: Nick Maxwell and that bump

Main Board thread moved to Umpires Board..

WTF????

this has nothing to do with umpires. They didn't even give a free kick?

if this isn't a main board issue (the potential down fall of our game) then i'm buggered if i know what is

 

[OniAu]

Re: Bump is Offically Gone

The bump is 'officially' gone at least three times a year. It totally sucks when it's a player from your team but let's face it, under the current rules he deserved weeks. He had eyes for the man, not the ball, so it's hardly incidental / accidental contact. He's taller than the WC player, but it's no excuse. Im 6'3 and - shock horror - my knees bend just like everyone elses. If he's got enough time to line him up, he's got enough time to bend his knees and make sure he doesn't hit him in the face.

Aside from the high contact - it was a textbook bump. But there was high contact. What's the argument?? In the future he should bend about 5cm more and hit him square in the chest, not the face, and he will have no case to answer

what if he hits him in the chest as you said and he breaks their rib , is that reportable?

they are suspending him over the injury , not because of accidental contact to the head , he did everything in his control pretty much right. Maybe its magginitys fault for assuming he wouldnt be hit or have contact made to himself. He himself had time to see maxwell coming unless he has tunnel vision.

for anyone calling maxwell a sniper , get a clue. Barry halls incident is that of a sniper, the player was unaware of it and was not even near the play. where as maxwelll was right near the balll and within the rules to do what he did.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

I was at the game and in a better position than the umpire, the crappy tv angles. Essentially i was 15m up the boundry, what i saw was that it was a damn solid bump, a touch high but the issue is folks is that his first his jaw.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Re: Merged: Nick Maxwell and that bump

I hate Lloyd as much as the next bloke but the clash with Judd was an accident. Its nothing like the Maxwell incident.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

Okay, with the threads being merged I don't know what exactly you were answering too, if anything.

It is beyond argument that some part of Maxwell hit McGinnity in the head as at very least Maxwell's defense was that it was a head clash. If there is any head contact in this situation, he is guilty. So, Maxwell (or his defense) basically said he was guilty!

As to if the impact should have been high or not, your arguements above may go to proving that the Pies should have argued for a lower impact level (which if proved, they would still have got the 25% for an early plea).
JMTC

All I am doing here is giving an honest appraisal of what is visible in the video.
I cannot see any evidence of the head clash, nor any evidence of contact to the jaw. As there is a fracture then it goes without saying that some contact from someone or something was made.
I have not seen any other video footage or heard of any. The media reported that the only footage was that from the telecast which provides the same two angles I have looked at many times. I am not using this to prove Maxwell's innocence as if you read my post the most likely cause of the fracture based solely on looking at the video is impact with Maxwell's shoulder. The only point I am making is that this is same evidence that the Tribunal and the MRP have to go on. It is so unclear and inconclusive that they must have drawn a conclusion of their version of events from what they thought appears to happen in the video from the injuries which resulted.


There are so many posters who are pushing their version of what happened as being clearly evident in the video as to have made it worth watching it many times, in frame by frame, slow mo and reverse.
At no point in the video from either angle is there visible contact with the head.
All contact is assumed by way of the action of the head either moving back and or forward depending on the angle of view.
If you read the entire post you will understand where the two different possible versions of the impact came from.
This is only my opinion of what may have actually happened but if you have access to a recording in hires and can watch frame by frame you will be able to see for yourself how I came to the assumptions.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

All I am doing here is giving an honest appraisal of what is visible in the video.
I cannot see any evidence of the head clash, nor any evidence of contact to the jaw. As there is a fracture then it goes without saying that some contact from someone or something was made.
I have not seen any other video footage or heard of any. The media reported that the only footage was that from the telecast which provides the same two angles I have looked at many times. I am not using this to prove Maxwell's innocence as if you read my post the most likely cause of the fracture based solely on looking at the video is impact with Maxwell's shoulder. The only point I am making is that this is same evidence that the Tribunal and the MRP have to go on. It is so unclear and inconclusive that they must have drawn a conclusion of their version of events from what they thought appears to happen in the video from the injuries which resulted.


There are so many posters who are pushing their version of what happened as being clearly evident in the video as to have made it worth watching it many times, in frame by frame, slow mo and reverse.
At no point in the video from either angle is there visible contact with the head.
All contact is assumed by way of the action of the head either moving back and or forward depending on the angle of view.
If you read the entire post you will understand where the two different possible versions of the impact came from.
This is only my opinion of what may have actually happened but if you have access to a recording in hires and can watch frame by frame you will be able to see for yourself how I came to the assumptions.

Fair enough. How the jaw is broken makes no difference on the issue of guilt, only on the issue of penalty. So the question is, was there contact to McGinnity's head due to Maxwell choosing to bump. The answer is yes and Collingwood's legal team is the ones that confirmed this at the tribunal when they produced medical evidence to that fact:

Collingwood presented medical evidence at the tribunal that the injury resulted from a clash of heads with Maxwell, rather than Maxwell's bump.

(take from this article).

Now you or others might argue that the head contact was from whiplash, etc. Doesn't matter. No Bump, no whiplash.
So once established head high contact occurred, you have to say was there alternatives. And again, Collingwood prove there was:

Maxwell said he could not have gone for the ball, because he would have taken it out of play when his team had a two-on-one advantage.
He added that if had backed out of the contest, coach Mick Malthouse "would have been bitterly disappointed, to say the least".

So he says he could have taken the ball out of play (which wouldn't have been dilibrate, so can't argue that) so there was other options. No where in the rule does it mention that the other options have to be as profitable or more profitable to his team, just realistic options, and being able to take it out of bounds is realistic.

Apparently the Pies are going to argue that going to the ball would have put him in danger. This is about the best arguement they will be able to muster but I am not sure that it will help even if it was true.

I could be proven wrong, but history says he is pushing it up hill, so to speak.

 

[mdc]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

So he says he could have taken the ball out of play (which wouldn't have been dilibrate, so can't argue that) so there was other options. No where in the rule does it mention that the other options have to be as profitable or more profitable to his team, just realistic options, and being able to take it out of bounds is realistic.

So your contention is that it's "reasonable" (their word) to choose an option that would be detrimental to your team?

I suggest you reconsider.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

So your contention is that it's "reasonable" (their word) to choose an option that would be detrimental to your team?

I suggest you reconsider.

Its not detrimental to your team, it isn't optimal but it isn't detrimental! As I remember the ball went out anyway! So I have reconsidered but my point stands.

 

[yeah-nah]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

Now you or others might argue that the head contact was from whiplash, etc. Doesn't matter. No Bump, no whiplash.
.

I think most people by now know that according to the new rule on bumping (the Kosi rule) Maxwell is guilty as charged. The debate mostly is not about the application of the rule in this case, its whether the rule itself is sensible.

The fact that, before a player decides to bump or not, his duty of care now extends to having to

1) assess the likely hood of a whiplash motion occuring, not only to his opponents but also to his own head

2) then as a result of that whiplash assessment, assess whether a headclash hard enough to do damage to the opponents head will likely occur

3) assess whether the opponent might hit his head on the ground, fence or onto a hard boned surface of an adjacent player hard enough to do damage to his head

4) then assess whether he has other options other than bumping,

5) and then decide what to do,

6) then carry out the action legally

is arguement enough to say its an ass of a rule.

Here is a rule. If your elbow is tucked in, feet on the ground, your shoulder doesnt get the player above his shoulder, the player is within 5m of the ball, and the force is reasonable, bump away.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

I think most people by now know that according to the new rule on bumping (the Kosi rule) Maxwell is guilty as charged. The debate mostly is not about the application of the rule in this case, its whether the rule itself is sensible.

The fact that, before a player decides to bump or not, his duty of care now extends to having to

1) assess the likely hood of a whiplash motion occuring, not only to his opponents but also to his own head

2) then as a result of that whiplash assessment, assess whether a headclash hard enough to do damage to the opponents head will likely occur

3) assess whether the opponent might hit his head on the ground, fence or onto a hard boned surface of an adjacent player hard enough to do damage to his head

4) then assess whether he has other options other than bumping,

5) and then decide what to do,

6) then carry out the action legally

is arguement enough to say its an ass of a rule.

Here is a rule. If your elbow is tucked in, feet on the ground, your shoulder doesnt get the player above his shoulder, the player is within 5m of the ball, and the force is reasonable, bump away.

To start, personally I don't buy the whiplash argument, but I won't argue against it, because in the current rule it doesn't matter.

On your summary at the bottom, my thoughts are that the rule is fine and personally I am willing to have player unluckly suspended (as Maxwell has been) via this rule rather then have players missing weeks or the rest of there career from unsafe bumps. You might say that this bump was safe but the fact that the guy got a broken jaw proves that the bump wasn't safe.

I think the player has two considerations:
1) Can I play the ball? Either get it or tackle.
2) Can I be sure I won't hit the guy in the head and if there is any sort of risk, am I prepared to wear the fact I might miss weeks? I know AC (of the hawks) is in the camp that thinks his players will go just as hard and if they get unlucky because of a slip or late turn, etc so be it.


Molly
PS. Has anyone been reported for bumping were the bumper didn't contact the head but the player hit his head on something else (as is in you considerations).

 

[yeah-nah]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

I think the player has two considerations:

1) Can I play the ball? Either get it or tackle.
2) Can I be sure I won't hit the guy in the head and if there is any sort of risk, am I prepared to wear the fact I might miss weeks?

No its no where near that simple. As I replied to you in the other thread, the 2009 AFL tribunal booklets says

"The nature and extent of injury may be a relevant factor in determining the level of impact, point of contact and in some instances, the nature of the conduct."

So the player bumping has to be a clairvoyant now and forsee whether or not a player is going to get injured 'enough' through any innocuous or accidental means to warrant the nature of his conduct being considered negligent or reckless or whatever instead of fair, even if its a fair bump.

PS. Has anyone been reported for bumping were the bumper didn't contact the head but the player hit his head on something else (as is in you considerations).

Again from the same AFL booklet p3 under CONTACT:

Contact
Contact shall be classified as high or to the groin where a player's head or groin makes contact with another player or object such as the fence or the ground as a result of the actions of the offending player.... .

So as well as needing to forsee whether or not the other player might get seriously injured from a possible accidental contact to the noggin, a player bumping also has to forsee whether or not said player is gonna hit his head on the ground, fence, another player or a seagull. The rules are brilliant. If your agenda is to rid us of the bump.