Nick Maxwell

[george_on_the_outer 7,590]

Sorry folks, most of you have got it wrong....the rules were changed in 2007 and I quote from the AFL Tribunal reporting process, available on the AFLPA site:

Without limiting the ordinary meaning of the above

words, a player shall engage in rough conduct, which in the

circumstances is unreasonable, where in bumping an opponent

he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head

or neck. Unless intentional or reckless, such conduct shall be

deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic

alternative to:

(a) contest the ball;

(B) tackle; or

© shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the

circumstances.

In other words everything else ( distance from ball, accidental or not, forceful or not...) means nothing if contact is made with the head.

As per the above statement and as per the Tribunal finding, because Maxwell had the opportunity to do something else, and because he made contact to the head (regardless of how ) then he is guilty.

If he had not broken his opponents jaw, it is unlikely he would have been charged ( no evidence of contact )

These are the AFL rules and they are a crock.......especially when O'Hailpin can lay 2 haymakers followed by a kick to the goolies and gets a couple of weeks.

Whelans bump happened before this rule change, I think.

[Swampfox 190]

Maxwell made a reckless tackle and got what he deserved although i would have given him 6 weeks

Tackling is a skill just like any other part of our game

We must protect the head

[mo64 5,874]

Maxwell made a reckless tackle and got what he deserved although i would have given him 6 weeks

Tackling is a skill just like any other part of our game

We must protect the head

Maxwell was not trying to lay a tackle, because McGinnity didn't have possession of the ball. Maxwell was simply trying to bump McGinnity out of the contest to clear a path for his teammate.

So you clearly haven't seen the incident.

[Swampfox 190]

Maxwell was not trying to lay a tackle, because McGinnity didn't have possession of the ball. Maxwell was simply trying to bump McGinnity out of the contest to clear a path for his teammate.

So you clearly haven't seen the incident.

tackle bump shepherd is a moot point

i know exactly what Maxwell was trying to do and i agree on his strategy to create an oppurtunity for his team mate

the only problem is how he executed it

if your think it was a perfect bump please explain to me how Mcginnity has a broken jaw

Even if he didnt break his jaw i still would have given hm 6 weeks for making contact with his opponents head

[45HG 1,539]

A tackle is different to a shepherd, it is hardly a moot point

[montasaurus 0]

Maxwell made a reckless tackle and got what he deserved although i would have given him 6 weeks

Tackling is a skill just like any other part of our game

We must protect the head

So what your suggesting what maxwell did was in the same bracket as what barry hall did? Surely the punishment must fit the crime. The head high contact was accidental in that only a shoulder was used and he did not jump into his opponent.

BH hit was as intentional as you will ever see so which is worse? By 6 weeks your suggesting their the same bracket. I think maxwell will finish up with 1-2 weeks, probably the right outcome the way the rules now are.

[The Emblem 1]

Maxwell was not trying to lay a tackle, because McGinnity didn't have possession of the ball. Maxwell was simply trying to bump McGinnity out of the contest to clear a path for his teammate.

So you clearly haven't seen the incident.

As much as its entertaining to have a go at the Pies, I tend to agree with mo64 on this one. Whilst I'm all for protecting the heads of AFL players, I didn't think Maxwell did anything particularly reckless and that it was just an unfortunate outcome.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Ho hum. Another round of 'Its going to change the game forever'.

Nick Maxwell ignored a loose ball in order to remove an opponent from play.

He chose to hit rather than contest. If someone gets hurt when that happens, take your penalty (cop it on the chin, even) and move on.

Probably not four weeks and I have no problem with an appeal, but I'd be about as annoyed with it being zero as with four.

Clear succinct summation of the events DD. Well done. This has become a blown up media storm in a teacup in a quiet pre season.

In other words everything else ( distance from ball, accidental or not, forceful or not...) means nothing if contact is made with the head.

As per the above statement and as per the Tribunal finding, because Maxwell had the opportunity to do something else, and because he made contact to the head (regardless of how ) then he is guilty.

If he had not broken his opponents jaw, it is unlikely he would have been charged ( no evidence of contact )

Whelans bump happened before this rule change, I think.

Good assessment GOTO. Setanta's one week does look silly and underdone as a consequence. I think Whelan's bump was pre 2007.

tackle bump shepherd is a moot point

Correct. It is

The head high contact was accidental in that only a shoulder was used and he did not jump into his opponent.

Irrelevant. Contact to the head was made. End of story.

[george_on_the_outer 7,590]

Further on this....there was discussion on this yesterday on SEN with KB. Despite his claims to the contrary it was obvious that for one who is on the Rules of the game committee, that he didn't know about this rule. He was clearly horrified that it was interpreted this way despite it being written in black and white...

I would just emphasise the legal point again. Maxwell has not been charged with bumping tackling or whatever, but rough play. And under that clause if contact is made to the head, then the contact is deemed negligent regardless.

The only out is if the player had no other option, and he clearly didn't . The tribunal was right. The correct application of the rules as written was applied.

This is a case of the law being an ass.

[mo64 5,874]

tackle bump shepherd is a moot point

i know exactly what Maxwell was trying to do and i agree on his strategy to create an oppurtunity for his team mate

the only problem is how he executed it

if your think it was a perfect bump please explain to me how Mcginnity has a broken jaw

Even if he didnt break his jaw i still would have given hm 6 weeks for making contact with his opponents head

Like your friend Rhino, you don't understand the game.

If Maxwell had laid a TACKLE and there was an accidental head clash, it is not a reportable offence. But because he laid a shepherd/bump, regardless of whether the contact to the head was accidental or not, it is deemed reckless.

So in the eyes of the law, there is a huge difference between a tackle and a shepherd/bump.

[Stigga 25]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...43/default.aspx

Maxwell Cleared.

[mo64 5,874]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...43/default.aspx

Maxwell Cleared.

Not surprised.

By the letter of the law, he had 2 other options, laying a tackle or picking up the ball. The appeals tribunal obviously felt that neither of these options were reasonable.

If he tackled McGinnity, it would have been holding the man, and if he picked up the ball, he would have either ran out of bounds or got tackled by McGinnity.

In the spirit of the game, his option to clear a path for his teammate by laying a bump, was the correct one.

So Rhino, appealing the verdict was a waste of time, was it?

[gOLLy 401]

They have done the correct thing and thrown it out. The game has already been thrown out with the bath water.

It was a perfect hip and shoulder.

I was ready to give the game away (like so many of the older generation) after they gave him 4 weeks.

If the decision had stood we might aswell do what they do in Ireland and try and paddle the ball out of the oppositions hands rather than tackle.

The game is too soft as it is.

What does this say about the point system??

AFL is a joke.

In the back anyone? (has to be the worst rule ever)

[ucanchoose 1,816]

Finally for the AFL after what seems like years of blunders, common sense has finally prevailed.

[gOLLy 401]

To those who think the 4 weeks was the correct decision how about we just ban the hip and shoulder eh?? Go follow the &^%$ing netball.

[gOLLy 401]

Better still go put on some leotards and a helmet.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Like your friend Rhino, you don't understand the game.

If Maxwell had laid a TACKLE and there was an accidental head clash, it is not a reportable offence. But because he laid a shepherd/bump, regardless of whether the contact to the head was accidental or not, it is deemed reckless.

So in the eyes of the law, there is a huge difference between a tackle and a shepherd/bump.

You are a pretence in dire need of substance.

The contact with McGinnity was shoulder on jaw not an accidental head clash. If the contact involves shoulder on jaw there is risk that it could be deemed "rough conduct" and citable to the tribunal under the AFL laws. Refer GOTO's post.

But thanks for your expertise Mo. I am sure you can channel it into that game plan we should have playing.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Didn't Maxwell shirtfront the West Coast player?

If so, wasn't the shirtfront deemed illegal a few years ago (possibly because of Pickett)?

[beelzebub 23,348]

Good to see sanity prevail.. No charged ought to have been laid inthefirst place.. after al no whistle was even given in play so the ump didnt think too much of it either. Only thing annoying is it was a Collingwood player otherwise all is right again ..lol

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Didn't Maxwell shirtfront the West Coast player?

If so, wasn't the shirtfront deemed illegal a few years ago (possibly because of Pickett)?

I think shirtfronts come under the rough conduct charge.

[titan_uranus 25,000]

Gee, I'm surprised at the amount of people who are on Maxwell's side on this one. Whilst I thought 4 weeks was probably more than necessary, I can't believe the appeals board let him off. As has been iterated and re-iterated, Maxwell had the choice between contesting the ball or laying a bump to allow his team mate to take clear possession. Choosing to bump isn't illegal, but you have an onus to avoid head contact. He failed to do that, and in the process, gave the opponent a serious injury. For mine, there was a suspension there, following the rules, because of the head contact.

Having said all that, in a way I'm glad that he got off in that hopefully we won't see the bump phase out of football. If giving Maxwell a 4 week ban means less hip and shouldering in AFL, then I'm happy for him to get off. But what he did was worthy of a suspension.

[mo64 5,874]

You are a pretence in dire need of substance.

The contact with McGinnity was shoulder on jaw not an accidental head clash. If the contact involves shoulder on jaw there is risk that it could be deemed "rough conduct" and citable to the tribunal under the AFL laws. Refer GOTO's post.

But thanks for your expertise Mo. I am sure you can channel it into that game plan we should have playing.

This is coming from the bloke who doesn't know the difference between a tackle and a shepherd/bump, or what "off the ball" means. And Teflon, from the footage, how could you determine that it was shoulder on jaw?

GOTO correctly states what the law is, and also makes the following observations:

"If he had not broken his opponents jaw, it is unlikely he would have been charged ( no evidence of contact )"

"This is a case of the law being an ass. "

Nice try Teflon, but wrong again.

[Whispering_Jack 30,019]

Is it possible now for Brent Moloney to lodge an appeal against his suspension in 2005 for not making contact with Jimmy Bartel's head?

[gOLLy 401]

Is it possible now for Brent Moloney to lodge an appeal against his suspension in 2005 for not making contact with Jimmy Bartel's head?

That was the day the AFL lost any sort of respect it had

[montasaurus 0]

Good to see sanity prevail. Now lets let the wrecking ball loose in 09!