Merged: Maxwell and that bump

[Pie eyed]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

I don't think people genuinely understand the rule.

It is all about Maxwell's (or any player's) CHOICE. If you have a choice between going for the ball and going for the man, and you CHOOSE to go for the man, then you elect to face the consequences if your 'duty of care' is not upheld.

In the examples of player's kneeing someone in the head in a pack mark situation or something similar, if the player has chosen to go for the ball and has eyes only for the ball, then the rule protects them.

You're ****ing kidding me aren't you.
You could not have picked a worse example, or are you trying to be sarcastic?

When has anyone ever been charged with kneeing someone in the back during a marking contest?
What about the gratuitous "punch in the back of the head"?
I don't recall anyone ever getting more than a 50 meter penalty for one of those if even a free against them.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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 have obviously never seen or watched a game called Australian Rules Football. Accidents happen and that is why it is a great game because of the unknown factor of contact coming from anywhere.

The intent in my view was for Maxwell to shepherd/ shirt front. He did that, the kid got a broken Jaw by accidental contact. Bad luck.
No one wanted to see him break his jaw or any other player get seriously injured but it comes with the territory.

FRor all you softies out there go and take your kids to the other side of the sporting ground, Netball, softball and other non contact sports are available to play.

Aussie rules is a vicous contact sport, thats the way it was anyway. You softies of society which the AFL pander too are winning the battle and soon the game will be a non contact game.
The sooner that happens the better as far as I am concerned, then we can have a break away league and start a game called Australian Football up again. You softies can follow and play AFL and the real footballers and supporters who actually love and know what the game is really about will follow AUSTRALIAN RULES FOOTBALL.

I know which one will get the most supporters. It won't be the AFL

 

[Bosun]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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.

I just cant agree with that. The players need to be 100% hard, you cant go to bump someone and ease up, you will get players second guessing themselves and hesitating and that would be atrocious and frustrating for both the players and coach. The only exception I can see is if the player is on his knees or on the ground and it is blatant head high contact.

This seriously will change the game, it will become much less physical and in Maxwell's case I thought the bump was executed legally and legit. Not good that the young bloke broke had his jaw broken but this is footy.

 

[Paddywhackers]

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.

Exactly! You are in the minority. And not just that lets put it into context. You are on bigfooty, a Collingwood player has been rubbed out and you are in the minority. That suggests that it really is a horrendous decision by the AFL tribunual.

But whats your point? Are you trying to explain the AFL's interpretation? Do you think its fair that someone can get rubbed out for accidental contact? Because most people are 'rightfully' pointing out how stupid the decision is. And that's why most people hope Collingwood override this injustice and win this appeal.

 

[RWnBluey]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Can't believe im saying this but... Go pies!
Couldnt care less about maxwell, its the bigger picture that is of most importance here

 

[krisholio14]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Let's hope sanity prevails and the appeals board throws this stupid suspension where it belongs....

out the window!!!

 

[greennick]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Exactly, therefore it was an accident

So? It was still negligent. If something was negligent or reckless, it implies it is accidental. There is basically accidental or intentional contact. Accidental is split into what you did to avoid it. You were either careful (or whatever the AFL call it, which will get you off), negligent or reckless. The AFL assumes you were negligent at least as there is only one player who can reasonably stop the head high contact and that is the one initiating the contact.

So accidental head clashes are illegal also?

No. Accidental head clashes by players initiating contact are deemed to be negligent actions. Why should he get off because it was an accidental head clash? What other distinctions do you want? Oh, I didn't mean to hit him in the head, it was an accident. I didn't mean to kick him in the nuts, it was an accident. Or do you think just head clashes should get off? If you got off for anything that was an accident, what is the point of having the negligent and reckless charges?? Isn't anything that is negligent or reckless an accident??

 

[bourbons]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

I don't think people genuinely understand the rule.

It is all about Maxwell's (or any player's) CHOICE. If you have a choice between going for the ball and going for the man, and you CHOOSE to go for the man, then you elect to face the consequences if your 'duty of care' is not upheld.

In the examples of player's kneeing someone in the head in a pack mark situation or something similar, if the player has chosen to go for the ball and has eyes only for the ball, then the rule protects them.

OK, if thats the case, why would a player choose to bump?

If its so hard or you have to be 'lucky' to legally lay a bump, eventually coaches will just tell their players not to do it.

Won't happen overnight, but there's no ndoubt in my mind that the bump is on the way out

 

[smiddaz123]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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.

So when someone is under the speed limit, no alcohol in their system, but an accident occurs, should they be punished?

Maxwell's hip and shoulder didn't connect with McGinnity's face, this is backed up by medical evidence. It was an accidental head clash.

Are we suspending players because they accidently bang heads now?

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.

A high tackle results in a free kick, but an accidental clash of heads results in suspension. Big difference, and it shouldn't be like that.

A suspension would be appropriate if Maxwell's shoulder made the high contact, but his bump was executed properly with an accidental head clash.

I know you've played sport, as have I. And we both know that accidents like this can happen and are apart of our game.

Outlaw malicious tackles and bumps that are head high, not proper bumps that accidently result in a head clash ffs.

 

[Tay29]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

1. Would Maxwell still have been reported if there was no significant injury at all to McGinnity?

2. Assuming there would be at least some injury given the contact, at what point is the injury significant enough to warrant a report? (i.e is bruising enough or would it have to result in McGinnity leaving the field of play, or maybe a concussion, or maybe a break?)

3. Would Maxwell still have been reported if the injury was caused by McGinnity being knocked over by the force of the contact and hitting his head on the ground (i.e the Kosi situation)?

1. Technically he could still have been reported if there was no injury to McGinnity. I suspect what has happened was that the MRP panel investigated how McGinnity got injured and lead to Maxwell bumping him. They go over every game so it would largely depend on how much scrutiny they would have given the incident.
2. The rules state nothing about injury, just contact to the head (including accidental) so any accidental contact is reportable as negligent contact.
3. I think that is large unknown and will be interesting to see how the MRP adjucates the incident.. I know they closed the loophole Geelong used to get Milburn's sentence reduced when he tackled Shane Edwards last year. Geelong argued successfully that contact was to the body(the tackle) and not the head(which hit the ground). The following is from the Tribunal Booklet 2009;

http://www.afl.com.au/Portals/0/afl_docs/afl_hq/Policies/Tribunal_Booklet_2009.pdf
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. By way of example, should a player
tackle another player around the waist and as a result of the
tackle, the tackled player's head made forceful contact with the
fence or the ground the contact in these circumstances would
be classified as high, even though the tackle was to the body.

Basically it's saying that if the head or groin hits the ground or the fence(or another object like the goal posts) even though the offending player only made contact to the body, then the contact can be classified as high or groin.

Going on that I suspect that if a bump;
- which does not make contact to the neck or head.
- where the bumping player keeps his feet grounded (i.e. does not jump)
- where the bumping player does not raise his arm.

causes a player to hit his head on the ground then the bump is infact illegal. I think that there would have to be some sort of injury in this case to justify it like a player having to be carried from the ground due to the head hitting the turf. If the player was winded or hurt in the torso region then that should be ok.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

"Accidental head clashes are not being outlawed."
Can you give me a link which has a statement to this effect from the AFL, Tribunal or the MRP?

Or is this you opinion?

"Properly executed hip and shoulders are not being outlawed."
Then why is Maxwell being suspended?


"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."

I don't understand how this can be in a paragraph with the above.
Is this your interpretation of what the tribunal is saying or is it what the tribunal said?


McGinnity's head collided with Maxwell's head. Given that McGinnity was not doing anything which could be deemed outside of the rules, his contact with Maxwell's head was accidental, however it was high. As a player in a competetition for the ball he has a "duty of care" to all the players around him.
Maxwell. luckily escaped serious injury, but as we know suspension does not take into account whether injury occurred.
At the very least McGinnity is negligent in hitting Maxwell in the head, negligent high contact, whether accidental or not.
He chose to bounce the ball and try to retrieve it and therefore made the choice to be in a contest for the ball. He should have been aware of the danger of hitting another player if he remained committed to the contest.

See how ridiculous the ruling sounds on the other foot.
It is ruling and is an indictment of how our society can no longer accept that accidents happen and have to have some one to blame no matter what.

 

[StringyDog]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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?

God Collingwood people simply don't get it;

It is not illegal to bump a player and if two players contesting the ball happen to accidently clash heads nothing would happen as they are both contesting the ball, however if a player chooses to bump/take out an opposition player instead of contesting the ball they take responsability for that action if any head high contact is made. It is really not that hard to understand.

By the way under the current system I don't believe any appeals have been successful as you either need new evidence or prove the penalty was excessive so this will be thrown out in a flash so Collingwood fans don't get excited, they are just wasting time.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Exactly! You are in the minority. And not just that lets put it into context. You are on bigfooty, a Collingwood player has been rubbed out and you are in the minority. That suggests that it really is a horrendous decision by the AFL tribunual.

But whats your point? Are you trying to explain the AFL's interpretation? Do you think its fair that someone can get rubbed out for accidental contact? Because most people are 'rightfully' pointing out how stupid the decision is. And that's why most people hope Collingwood override this injustice and win this appeal.

To be fair, the majority of posters that were responding to me are Collingwood fans. To their credit, they're arguing the rules as opposed to you throwing around emotive 'fluff' like 'injustice', 'the tribunal is run by morons' etc.

I think I've made my position pretty clear in other posts.

 

[Sloth]

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?

Maxwell got the same penalty for a legal bump that Setanta got for punching a guy in the head & kicking him in the nuts. Outrageous.

 

[spursmania]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I'm far from a Maxwell fan but I reckon he's a bit stiff here. The administrators are turning our game into netball.
Bring back the 70's/80's style of footy

 

[Paddywhackers]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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..

I really hate it when unintelligent people use bad hypotheticals. Maxwell's bump was perfect. If he got him high than the high tackle would be a good parralel. What about Maxwell tackles a player as he is pushed into him unfotunately during his perfect tackle players clash heads... resulting in a broken jaw from the guy that is being tackled. Yep, how ludicrous would it be to rub Maxwell out for that!

 

[bourbons]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Really?

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

Nope, reported by whoever was at the hearing for SEN, about 6.15 last night

 

[Hollow Knight]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

So if they lose does the suspension increase again?

 

[greennick]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

I suggest that all Collingwood fans read and understand the rules. The rules have been in place since the Gia/Kosi incident. That was accidental head high contact. The rules were designed to make that a reportable offence.

This falls exactly in line with that. Yes, it is illegal under the rules. Yes, it has been for 2 years. Yes, it was accidental contact. However, unfortunately not meaning to do it is not a valid excuse. No, Collingwood will not be successful as this is exactly what the rules are designed to punish you for doing.

 

[telsor]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Much as I hate supporting Collingwood in anything, I hope they win this one.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

"Accidental head clashes are not being outlawed."
Can you give me a link which has a statement to this effect from the AFL, Tribunal or the MRP?

Or is this you opinion?

It's my opinion, based on my interpretation of the tribunal and MRP's rulings. I deal with this sort of thing in my job, for what that's worth.

"Properly executed hip and shoulders are not being outlawed."
Then why is Maxwell being suspended?

Because he didn't properly execute a hip and shoulder. If he had then his head wouldn't have hit his opponent's.

"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."[/B]

I don't understand how this can be in a paragraph with the above.
Is this your interpretation of what the tribunal is saying or is it what the tribunal said?

Again, my interpretation.

 

[greennick]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

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.

Well said. Somehow, I don't think the Pies fans in here will get it though.

 

[Bollox]

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

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.

YOU said it...ANY CONTACT ..thats what u said isnt it ?

Whether by accident or not isnt relevant u said.

U must have copped the odd arm, hand or elbow in the face from a sheppard. yeah ? no ? Hell half of them are deliberate anyway. Its head high contact off the ball...done with force. Half the damn blood rules come from them...the odd broken nose, loose tooth. even detached retina's from fingers...shit happens... but the point is that its head high contact done with deliberate force. you say thats irrelevant and if u hit the guy high off the ball whether its deliberate or accidental then its a holiday.

You gonna give them a month off if he swings his arm back trying to sheppard a bloke off a teammate and it "accidentally" knocks a guys's front tooth out ?

Merely pointing out the shortcomings in your silly generalisation that doesnt relate to an actual game when you're in it....you know..the generalisation you hoped would make u look all high and mighty.

No point making sweeping generalisations unless they relate to the real world.

 

[bourbons]

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.

It is not illegal to bump a player and if two players contesting the ball happen to accidently clash heads nothing would happen as they are both contesting the ball, however if a player chooses to bump/take out an opposition player instead of contesting the ball they take responsability for that action if any head high contact is made. It is really not that hard to understand.

OK, so to extend that a bit, under these rules tell me why would a player choose to bump?

If its so hard to do properly (obviously it is if a 'perfectly executed bump' can get your rubbed out) or you have to be 'lucky' to legally lay a bump, eventually coaches will just tell their players not to do it.

Won't happen overnight, but there's no ndoubt in my mind that the bump is on the way out

 

[Paddywhackers]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

To be fair, the majority of posters that were responding to me are Collingwood fans. To their credit, they're arguing the rules as opposed to you throwing around emotive 'fluff' like 'injustice', 'the tribunal is run by morons' etc.

I think I've made my position pretty clear in other posts.

Not just Collingwood by lots other opposition fans have expressed their disgust.

You used emotive criterior claiming that an 18yo kid broke his jaw.

I use phrases like injustice because that's just what it is. An injustice. Yes this is a moronic decision. That's just what it is. How a player can get rubbed out for an accidental clash of heads is beyond me.