Initially last night i thought its about time, the filth finally cop one.

But this concerned me thinking a bit more this morning. The way I saw the incident was the young WCE player was within a couple of meters of the ball, maxwell was initally running in the same direction and as his team mate approached the ball he simply changed direction and put on an excellent shepard. IMHO the result (Broken Jaw) dictated the tribunal process rather then the action. I hope this is not going to become the norm as 4 weeks (even if they are junk weeks at this stage) is still 4 weeks.

Firstly I would hate to see a great 1%'er like this removed from the game.

Secondly if the result of an action likely to put you into the tribunal will tackles like wheelan put on N.Brown suddenly be cited for rough conduct due to the outcome, or the tackle on bruce in 06 that fixed up his shoulder? Lets just hope this one is a flash in the pan and like I initially put down the filth finally coped a bad one (Is Eddy Mc-Bribe on holidays or something?)!

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/maxw...4632812113.html

in this article maxwell claims that it was his head that made contact which is consistant with my memory of the incident, i.e., he did not make intentional high contact.

Initially last night i thought its about time, the filth finally cop one.

But this concerned me thinking a bit more this morning. The way I saw the incident was the young WCE player was within a couple of meters of the ball, maxwell was initally running in the same direction and as his team mate approached the ball he simply changed direction and put on an excellent shepard. IMHO the result (Broken Jaw) dictated the tribunal process rather then the action. I hope this is not going to become the norm as 4 weeks (even if they are junk weeks at this stage) is still 4 weeks.

Firstly I would hate to see a great 1%'er like this removed from the game.

Secondly if the result of an action likely to put you into the tribunal will tackles like wheelan put on N.Brown suddenly be cited for rough conduct due to the outcome, or the tackle on bruce in 06 that fixed up his shoulder? Lets just hope this one is a flash in the pan and like I initially put down the filth finally coped a bad one (Is Eddy Mc-Bribe on holidays or something?)!

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/maxw...4632812113.html

in this article maxwell claims that it was his head that made contact which is consistant with my memory of the incident, i.e., he did not make intentional high contact.

I don't necessarily agree with the law, but it's black and white, and Maxwell had to go.

If a player has the opportunity to go for the ball or lay a tackle, but chooses to bump the player instead, he is culpable for the consequences. In Maxwell's case, the injury may well have been caused by an accidental head clash, but under the law, that's irrelevant.

In short, you lay a bump at your own peril.

Whelan put a smother on Brown, not a tackle.

But yes i do agree, if it's an accidental clash of heads, i can't really imagine there being another type aside from headbutting, then he should in no way receive such a harsh penalty.

Mo, it is an interesting point you raise and i'm sure that's how the AFL justify it also

Raises the question of how long it will be before the "hip and shoulder" bump is completely outlawed? I understand at this point that the head must be protected, but it's amazing to look at how much the game has changed since i started watching it, and i'm only 21! 2-3 years ago people would've been marveling at what a great bump it was!

Remember Matty Whelan's bump of Hird in the final of 2005? He's probably get 4 weeks for that now!

I don't necessarily agree with the law, but it's black and white, and Maxwell had to go.

Let's hope whenever its 'black and white' at the tribunal.......they have to go..!

Remember Matty Whelan's bump of Hird in the final of 2005? He's probably get 4 weeks for that now!

Or the bump he he put on Luke Ball at the start of the 07 (or 08 season, I can't remember). He would have got 6 weeks for that!

The AFL have said they would crack down on hits on players off the ball. This was consistent and strong interpretation on it. I thought one of the issues that damned Maxwell was he did not look at any time like he was playing the loose ball. His eyes were on the player and not the ball and his contact was high. That is not a bump!

Heres the incident.

His eyes are on the man, not on the ball. And makes contact to the jaw/neck/head area with the full force of his shoulder.

If he had hit him a bit lower it would have been a perfect bump.

Has anyone seen the wikipedia file on matty whelan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Whelan

Did anyone on here do this?

Heres the incident.

His eyes are on the man, not on the ball. And makes contact to the jaw/neck/head area with the full force of his shoulder.

Just looked at it again, PLAY ON! and its not even a filth player lying on the ground (But then again I'm a bit old fashioned!)

HT - your so right about tribunal things like this should be black and white for the rest of the year black and white!

The AFL have said they would crack down on hits on players off the ball. This was consistent and strong interpretation on it. I thought one of the issues that damned Maxwell was he did not look at any time like he was playing the loose ball. His eyes were on the player and not the ball and his contact was high. That is not a bump!

How can you say that it was an "off the ball" incident?

I dont totally agree with the law, but the AFL has stated that if you are going to lay a bump, it is up to you not to make contact with the oppositions players head. Maxwell's shoulder collected fair on the jaw so there can hardly be any complaints. It seems reasonably clear to me.

Also, with an early plea and a better record it would of only been a 2 week suspension.

One of the reasonings behind the change is if the option to tackle is there you have to take that option (which is a good thing), however, he never had the ball, so would have given a free kick away.

As much as I dislike Collingwood and Maxwell, he shouldn't be rubbed out, he didn't leave the ground, so his only real offence was being taller than his opponent (which is why his shoulder hit his head)

Stated on SEN that they are going to appeal the decision.

Stated on SEN that they are going to appeal the decision.

And so they should.

Absolutely disgusting ruling that will hurt football and change it beyond recognition.

How can you say that it was an "off the ball" incident?

Meaning the player hit did not have possession or control of the ball at the time of collision. The ball was 2 metres from the player at the time of collision.

Its the bleeding obvious.

And so they should.

Absolutely disgusting ruling that will hurt football and change it beyond recognition.

I hope he get an extra two weeks for wasting people's time.

It was an high attack on the player and not the ball and should be penalised accordingly

Meaning the player hit did not have possession or control of the ball at the time of collision. The ball was 2 metres from the player at the time of collision.

Its the bleeding obvious.

/quote]

Your lack of football knowledge is once again showing. Just for your reference "off the ball" means that neither player was in the act of play. You don't have to have possession of the ball to be in the act of play.

Meaning the player hit did not have possession or control of the ball at the time of collision. The ball was 2 metres from the player at the time of collision.

Its the bleeding obvious.

/quote]

Your lack of football knowledge is once again showing. Just for your reference "off the ball" means that neither player was in the act of play. You don't have to have possession of the ball to be in the act of play.

Nice bit of nitpicking. You are a source arent you. I note you have not addressed the focus of Maxwell's attack being the player and not the ball, and the distance of the collision from the ball. Keep swinging Mo.

Too busy working on that alternative game plan champ? I trust it will be good.

Nice bit of nitpicking. You are a source arent you. I note you have not addressed the focus of Maxwell's attack being the player and not the ball, and the distance of the collision from the ball. Keep swinging Mo.

Too busy working on that alternative game plan champ? I trust it will be good.

your in fine form today rhino.

Nice bit of nitpicking.

Your stock standard response when you're wrong.

Your stock standard response when you're wrong.

So are you going to address the real issues or are you quite satisfied with your pretence of knowledge?

Meaning the player hit did not have possession or control of the ball at the time of collision. The ball was 2 metres from the player at the time of collision.

Its the bleeding obvious.

I hope he get an extra two weeks for wasting people's time.

It was an high attack on the player and not the ball and should be penalised accordingly

eerrgghh..you know nothing.

It was high because he was taller than him, if Maxwell was 3 inches shorter there would be no issue, he didn't jump into the bump, he ran straight at him, which last year was well within the rules - and this year should be considering there has been no update from the league

eerrgghh..you know nothing.

It was high because he was taller than him, if Maxwell was 3 inches shorter there would be no issue, he didn't jump into the bump, he ran straight at him, which last year was well within the rules - and this year should be considering there has been no update from the league

And you Russian???

Brilliant. So if Dean Cox swings and arm and connects with Aaron Davey's head then its OK because Cox is taller than him. Thanks for clarifying that.

The height of the accused has bugger all to do with it. Its the point (s) of contact with the hit player that is relevant.

The AFL have flagged a number of times that hits against players around the ball were going to be scrutinised. I am not sure what official communication has gone to the Clubs on this. By any stretch the attack was crude and would have been penalised. However last year it would have got 1 or 2 weeks not 4 weeks

And you Russian???

Brilliant. So if Dean Cox swings and arm and connects with Aaron Davey's head then its OK because Cox is taller than him. Thanks for clarifying that.

Thats a pointless argument, this has video footage showing that Maxwell was well within his right to put a bump on.

This type of suspension will ruin the game, it is taking out the physical contest in the game, a player can't touch another in the back, whether it's incidental or not, and now a player can't put a bump on which is well within the current rules.

This bodes poorly for th erest of the seaon proper if they cant even get incidents like this in correct context. It was a perfectly good hip and shoulder in the spirit of this game....all the nancy boys can go play croquest or such.

from media >>>>""Even the AFL's own legal counsel Jeff Gleeson, SC, praised Maxwell's shirtfront in the first quarter at Subiaco.

"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique," ...""

quite frankly if you dont undestand the nature of this tactic.. then find another game to play

Thats a pointless argument, this has video footage showing that Maxwell was well within his right to put a bump on.

This type of suspension will ruin the game, it is taking out the physical contest in the game, a player can't touch another in the back, whether it's incidental or not, and now a player can't put a bump on which is well within the current rules.

No thats your argument about height and it is pointless and I only established the absurdity of it.

When its contact to the head or upper part of the body where the attacking player clearly does not have his focus on the football then its in trouble.

Feel to bathe in the hyperbole of it destroying the game. Another pointless gesture.

And Bub it has nothing to do with technique and its an interesting "shepherd" when the player leading in the race for the ball was taken out by an opposition player who made no attack on the ball.