Merged: Maxwell and that bump

[Pie eyed]

Re: Bump is Offically Gone

Pull the other one! Maxwell lined him up from a mile away. There was nothing 'split second' about it. Split second is when the player maybe crouches at the last second and you are forced to re-evaluate your actions. Maxwell had his eyes on him the whole time and lined him up - pure and simple. Thats fine, the ball was within 5 metres, but he also had plenty of time to ensure he didnt hit him in the face. If he had his time over he would probably have roughed him up once he were on the floor for no apparent reason.

Is this a homo-erotic fixation of yours or is just you a have a limited stable of cliches to add to you posts?
Maybe there is an explanation for the popping eyes in your avatar?
Netball courts have "floors". Footy has "the ground".
So in your fantasy Maxwell should be "roughing you up on the ground", not the floor.

You are still as dim as the last post I read of yours.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Pressure mounts on the innept tribunual; Free Maxwell say AFL legends.

I am a scathing critic of Bartlett and the rules committee constantly changing and amending the rules of the game.

But, that said, if anyone has a complete understanding of what the rules are, what is within the rules and what the actions rules are intended to penalize then it would be Bartlett.
Do you agree?

No, I don't think he has much clues on the rules actually and most of his arguments on this one are somewhere between wrong and showing a total lack of understanding of what the laws are. He may have a good understanding of what he wants the laws to be but his understanding of them is laughable!

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Pressure mounts on the innept tribunual; Free Maxwell say AFL legends.

No, I don't think he has much clues on the rules actually and most of his arguments on this one are somewhere between wrong and showing a total lack of understanding of what the laws are. He may have a good understanding of what he wants the laws to be but his understanding of them is laughable!

Obviously you do have a full understanding then.
Should we phone the Tribunal together, to let them know one of their experts is missing?


77% - 23% for Maxwell at the moment.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Pressure mounts on the innept tribunual; Free Maxwell say AFL legends.

Obviously you do have a full understanding then.
Should we phone the Tribunal together, to let them know one of their experts is missing?


77% - 23% for Maxwell at the moment.

Well I have read and know the rule, that means that I am batting about 1000 better then KB that didn't even think there was a law about it!

I also understand that in the bump situation, the AFL has taken the accidential defense out and the others that he keeps bringing up they haven't.

I also understand that the reason King would be reported now in the King/White incident from around 2005 is just that he kicked him, but that he kicked him in a ruck dual and that he reached his leg about shoulder high (from memory) to do so. I also understand that if king had just kicked him when King was kicking the ball from his own disposal, this is totally different. I don't believe (from KB rants) that he understands the difference!

So am I an expert, no, I am flog like everyone else. But I have read the rules many times and look at each incident in context, something KB doesn't!

 

[Tay29]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

These are the most confusing aspects of this entire issue. Its a complete circus!

Also, some are saying that the bump has not been outlawed. I believe that at this stage it has been outlawed by stealth and we are one step closer to the Australian Gaelic Football League!

Kevin Bartlett said on SEN this morning that the accidental head and neck contact never went before the rules committee. The AFL bypassed it and added it themselves.

 

[Tay29]

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

Firstly I am not admitting anything. I said if he only got one week most people would have just thought, big deal a week out of NAB Cup.
But they gave him 3 weeks, technically 4 but with a week off for not questioning them.
I see that as a purposeful attempt to antagonize a Club into an Appeal and to bring this issue to the fore early in the season.

I don't see how the penalty was an attempt to antagonise the club. The MRP and Tribunal have their hands tied to the kind of penalty they can impose because there are set guidelines they have to follow. The incident was assessed as negligent conduct, high impact and high contact which is a level 3 offence and equates to 3 week suspension. His bad record and carry over points pushed it up to 4 weeks. An early guilty plea would have reduced that back to 3 weeks. Do you disagree with any part of the assessment? Some commentators have said that Maxwell was lucky that he got high impact and not severe(which would have put the incident at level 4) mainly because the impact must have been great if McGinnity misses 10 weeks.

 

[lethalselbow]

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

Firstly I am not admitting anything. I said if he only got one week most people would have just thought, big deal a week out of NAB Cup.
But they gave him 3 weeks, technically 4 but with a week off for not questioning them.
I see that as a purposeful attempt to antagonize a Club into an Appeal and to bring this issue to the fore early in the season.

So despite the fact that this is "the big issue" in Football, this and last week, that it has generated 7-8 threads,3 on the main board, all of which are still running, that really no-one is taking any notice because he is a West Coast player?
You are delusional and a fool all in one. What a twit.
You are a participant in the very discussion you claim no interest in....
I really can't think of any word which fully sums up your stupidity.

As for short steps from Maxwell.

You show me one single frame of video from any game which shows him taking a "short step".

You don't even know in which context the term "taking a short step" should be used you fool.

Player who back out of physical contests take short steps.

Another friggin armchair footy expert. Who did you play for, when and for how long?

I think the whole thing stems from the fact that Collingwood chose a fringe player for a captain and he is trying to prove himself. He didn't have the guts to go for the ball and took the easy options.

It's good to see you're only questioning the size of the penalty, not the incident itself.

 

[mjonc]

Re: Pressure mounts on the innept tribunual; Free Maxwell say AFL legends.

Obviously you do have a full understanding then.
Should we phone the Tribunal together, to let them know one of their experts is missing?


77% - 23% for Maxwell at the moment.

77% who don't understand the rules or the basic difference between cases KB has raised in his opinions.

 

[yeahmate]

Re: Rules question following Maxwell decision?

Ok, thanks for the answers so far, on the basis of whats been posted and the rules that seem to exist around this, I think the answers as they stand are (subject to whatever happens on appeal):

Q1. Would Maxwell still have been reported if there was no significant injury at all to McGinnity?

A2. Technically yes, as there was still incidental high contact following the impact (the head clash). As Maxwell chose to bump rather than take possession, he is responsible for all incidental high contact even if it was accidental. However in practice if McGinnity was not injured then the MRP would be unlikely to look at the incident so Maxwell would most likely not have been cited. Even if he was cited, the fact that no injury occurred would be taken into account in grading the impact.

Q2. 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?)

A2. As above, injury is not technically relevant however the severity of the impact will be taken into account in grading for the purpose of determining a sentence. If there is a severe injury such as a break then impact will probably also be classed as severe.

Q3. 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)?

A3. Although there does not appear to be any precedent, on a literal reading of the rules it would appear that yes this would also be reportable. Likewise the situation where the player being bumped hits his head or groin on the fence or on another player. The bottom line appears to be if you choose to bump someone in a situation where you have a choice then even if the bump is legal you bear full responsibility for any resultant contact to the head or groin of the player you bump and are subject to report.

I have also added a question some others have asked and attempted to answer that one:

Q4. Would Maxwell have been reported if the bump resulted in broken ribs (whether in the bump of after falling over)?

A4. No, assuming a legal bump and not a charge, it is only secondary contact to the head or groin that will get you in trouble on the current interpretation of the rules.

Will be interesting to see what happens on appeal. Although I strongly disagree with these rules the more I think about it in light of the above the less likely I think it is that Maxwell will get off. RIP the bump indeed.

 

[Jimmy C]

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

I think the whole thing stems from the fact that Collingwood chose a fringe player for a captain and he is trying to prove himself. He didn't have the guts to go for the ball and took the easy options.

It's good to see you're only questioning the size of the penalty, not the incident itself.

wow you really are a battler arent you

You talk about Maxwell not having the guts to go for the ball while you name yourself 'lethalselbow' - knock knock anyone home?

Mathews on Bruns - arguable the lowest act in the history of Australian Rules and you name yourself after it (gutsy stuff by Mathews)

I suspect you havent played the game , cant play the game and are just basically a simpleton with an internet connection

Go on tell us your history with australian rules aristotle

 

[lethalselbow]

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

wow you really are a battler arent you

You talk about Maxwell not having the guts to go for the ball while you name yourself 'lethalselbow' - knock knock anyone home?

Mathews on Bruns - arguable the lowest act in the history of Australian Rules and you name yourself after it (gutsy stuff by Mathews)

I suspect you havent played the game , cant play the game and are just basically a simpleton with an internet connection

Go on tell us your history with australian rules aristotle

That was a good hit on Bruns, wasn't it?

 

[Bollox]

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

I edit a spelling error and thats the basis for your come back?

Thankyou for confirming that my post isn't babble or a backflip

Then you round off your impressive counter arguement with "You spoke rubbish" so there!!!!

Now that mature stuff mate.

All your post proves is you've lost the debate Bollox, badly lost!

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.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Pressure mounts on the innept tribunual; Free Maxwell say AFL legends.

Well I have read and know the rule, that means that I am batting about 1000 better then KB that didn't even think there was a law about it!

I also understand that in the bump situation, the AFL has taken the accidential defense out and the others that he keeps bringing up they haven't.

I also understand that the reason King would be reported now in the King/White incident from around 2005 is just that he kicked him, but that he kicked him in a ruck dual and that he reached his leg about shoulder high (from memory) to do so. I also understand that if king had just kicked him when King was kicking the ball from his own disposal, this is totally different. I don't believe (from KB rants) that he understands the difference!

So am I an expert, no, I am flog like everyone else. But I have read the rules many times and look at each incident in context, something KB doesn't!

As I have said I do not agree with Bartletts tinkering with the rules but I do think having had a big part in considering, formulating and writing the rule he would have a better than avergae grasp of what they were put in place to stop, what is and what is not acceptable under them and how they should be applied.

I don't read the rules regularly as you say you do as I find them quite tedious repetitive and dull.
All praise to you for taking such an interest.

The fact that you have read the rules does not mean that you either understand them or the spirit in which they were written.
Even if you don't have an expert grasp of the rules the fact remains that rules are simply guidelines concocted by fallible humans and cannot possibly cover every foreseeable action or outcome.
That is why they are open to interpretation and have an exceptional circumstances clause.

Rules are not laws set out in legislation and even if they were even in Law when an event which is deemed to outside the law can be shown to to be at odds with that law the law is changed.

So thanks for you appraisal of you knowledge of the rule book but it does not change the basis of mine and many others argument and it does nothing to bolster your opinion.

In the case this "Rules are an Ass"

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Pressure mounts on the innept tribunual; Free Maxwell say AFL legends.

77% who don't understand the rules or the basic difference between cases KB has raised in his opinions.

Carlton...lol
Not good evidence of having any judgment.

You know what the percentages are about.

 

[Phil_Maylins_Wing]

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

The filths captain has copped what he deserved, should have got 12 weeks, just because he is a collingwood captain, loosers

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Whether the report was held up has nothing to do with the injury. It does to the penalty but not the report being up held. The law says you can't hit them in the head. He did. That is why the report was laid. For example, if he didn't hit him in the head and he got a broken rib/punctioned lung, no report!

A report was never made. In fact not so much as a mention was made even by the media.
A suspension was handed down by the MRP.

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

No, it will just confirm that you can get done for perfectly legal actions

Hip and shouldering someone in the head is not a perfectly legal action. Case closed.

 

[Pie eyed]

Re: Why is the maxwell decision so hard to understand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf-qADsO3E&feature=channel_page

About the 10 second mark. I just watched that snippet from 8 - 14 seconds about 20 times. McGinnitys head flicks back before maxwells. His jaw is shoulder height. Of course - you can't know for sure, but it's reasonably conclusive.

And no -who knows what pre existing conditions he has, how brittle his bones are etc etc. But what are they supposed to do? How can they grade it as something lower if it resulted in broken bones??

I am assuming you are watching the youtube video you linked to in full speed.
Have you watched in slow motion or frame by frame?
I have on HDD in Hires from the game broadcast.
I will try and pinch a few frames for your consideration.

 

[lethalselbow]

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

The filths captain has copped what he deserved, should have got 12 weeks, just because he is a collingwood captain, loosers

loosers? lol

That's brilliant! You complete loser!! (or looser if I'm not making sense to you)

 

[Ant85]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Hip and shouldering someone in the head is not a perfectly legal action. Case closed.

Have you even seen the footage? Obviously not!

He had his elbow tucked in, and executed a perfectly legal bump!

It's unfortunate that a young, inexperienced kid had his jaw broken in the process, but that's what you get when you're inexperienced. It's an unfortunate incident.

You should be grateful that we're actually flying the banner for the rest of you and trying to save an important aspect of our game.

In future, don't open your mouth on topics you clearly have no idea about. Case closed.

 

[Truckasaurus]

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]

But...

Does the Maxwell verdict now mean that Lloyd should have been charged?

Look at it this way.

Was the collision avoidable? Yes. It was not 'necessary' for Lloyd to take part in the contest. He didn't have to be running at Judd.

Was Lloyd going for the ball? The ball was in the vicinity, but contact was made after Judd has the ball in his hands.

Was it reckless? The Maxwell case shows that you can do everything right, you can execute your bump or tackle perfectly, but if high contact is made then yes it is reckless action.

Did Lloyd have eyes for the man. Yes, both players would have had eyes for the man as they braced for impact.

Did Lloyd make forceful head high contact? Yes.

Was it a serious head injury? Yes. Any doctor will tell you that concussion is a serious injury. Hence medical groups keep calling for boxing to be banned.

Did Lloyd mean it? Doesn't matter. After all, AFL prosecutor Jeff Gleeson congratulated Maxwell for bumping "with good technique".

But Lloyd attempted to execute a legal tackle. So what? Maxwell attempted to execute a legal bump

So... if you accept the Maxwell guilty verdict then it seems very reasonable to strike out Lloyd as well.

And this is the grey are. This notion that players going for bumps, shepherds or tackles are doing something that is unnecessary. That any injury coming from the contact was somehow avoidable.

As if players had a crystal ball that magically tells them the future consequences of their split second actions.

This clash was unnecessary. Sure it could have been avoided- if Lloyd or Judd pulled out.

Of course it's never necessary to tackle. it's not necessary to shepherd. It's not necessary to launch yourself with desperate abandon into a pack. It's not necessary to throw yourself onto an opponents outstretched leg to smother, not knowing what the consequences of this desperate, instinctive dive could be.

It's never necessary to commit your body to a contest. It's never necessary to put your body on the line.

But players do it out of instinct. They have been trained and drilled to accept risk and self sacrifice without flinching.

For 150 years, that's what the game has been about.

"DON'T THINK, DO!'

Isn't that what it's all about? Isn't there a reason why Kennedy's words will live eternal?

In 150 years, no one has come closer to summing up the spirit, the heart and soul of our great game.

In our game players are called on to do extra-ordinary acts. It requires extra-ordinary courage, as both Judd and Lloyd display in this contest.

Sometimes players also accept extra-ordinary risks. This is why our game is extraordinary.

Do you want Aussie Rules to be extraordinary? Or should it to just be ordinary and predictably bland?

Yes, of course no one wants to see a kid get his jaw broken. For that matter, good on the AFL for targeting snipers who target the defenseless head and neck of players who are bent down and exposed as they attempt to collect the ball. (But by the same token, don't reward player who duck their head into honest, harmless tackles just to pip a free. Watch Q3 of the '05 GF to see exactly how harmless, incidental head-high contact should be umpired).

But the game's Aussie Rules (no, it's not 'AFL'. Don't be lazy. Don't reinforce the perception that they own the sport by calling it 'AFL').

Aussie Rules has a strong spirit and set of values around which the game's rules are organised. Let's keep it that way.

 

[mollyfud]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

A report was never made. In fact not so much as a mention was made even by the media.
A suspension was handed down by the MRP.

hmmm.....I think you know what I mean. Report,Ruling, notice of review, call it what you will.

His guilt in the offense was because of the head high contact not the injury.

 

[Dyslexic Emo]

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

Neither were charged for it so the anwer is of course not.

Maxwell will get what he gets and that's just it. Unlucky or not. Plenty of other players have been used as a scapegoat at the start of the season and have gotten more for it.

Heck I remember Michael Johnson for freo getting 6 weeks for a bumb that wasn't a bump. The AFL does this all the time during the pre season and then later on in the year ease up.

It sucks, but you just have to be extra careful during the pre season as they are out to get you.

And for a game that supposedbly means nothing, he went in extremelly hard and is now paying the price for it

 

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Re: Collingwood to appeal Maxwell case

Have you even seen the footage?

Yep.

He had his elbow tucked in, and executed a perfectly legal bump!

You cannot hip and shoulder an opponent in the head. Try arguing against that fact, you won't get too far.

It's unfortunate that a young, inexperienced kid had his jaw broken in the process

Sure is, especially as it happened because of an illegal and unnessecary bump.

You should be grateful that we're actually flying the banner for the rest of you and trying to save an important aspect of our game.

Yeah, nah.

In future, don't open your mouth on topics you clearly have no idea about. Case closed.

Try taking your own advice.

 

[Brazen]

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

Are you deluded - both going in the direction of the ball with eyes for the ball, Judd got there first and instantly afterwards they COLLIDE... no planned bump... dear god what a ridiculous try hard OP