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.

I was pointing out this would be a non issue if Maxwell was shorter as the jaw would still be in place, a swiging arm from Cox would be a completely different matter as its not a bump.

IMO it was a good shepered he didnt target the head and he took out the westcoast player wich left his team mate for a clear run.

But since he did break hes jaw meaning he made severe contact with the ghead indicates it was a bit wreckless.

But personaly as a player i love theese things and i think its what makes aussie rulse so good and that s the physicality.

at least now the Pies will not have the issue of having to select Maxwell because he is captain - they may be able to play at full strength!!

double the penalty upon appeal....

never get reported when you actually play the footy - what he did was go past the ball again to inflict damage on a rookie...

no guts in that!!

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.

You clearly have no appreciation of how and why a Hip and Shoulder is exectued. You do NOT need your eyes on the ball in order to commit to this stype of shepherd. In fact only an idiot would do so without looking as to how he is going. If you are within the play of the ball then you are at liberty to take out your opponent with a legal shepherd. The proper method woldl be to look at what your doing..and keep a peripheral view of where the ball is in order to get it after successfully upending your oponent.

I was pointing out this would be a non issue if Maxwell was shorter as the jaw would still be in place, a swiging arm from Cox would be a completely different matter as its not a bump.

If Cox had been Davey's height the arm would have got him around the waist. <_< . Maxwell hit him partially front on and high.....that's danger.

You clearly have no appreciation of how and why a Hip and Shoulder is exectued. You do NOT need your eyes on the ball in order to commit to this stype of shepherd. In fact only an idiot would do so without looking as to how he is going. If you are within the play of the ball then you are at liberty to take out your opponent with a legal shepherd. The proper method woldl be to look at what your doing..and keep a peripheral view of where the ball is in order to get it after successfully upending your oponent.

Sorry, when the attacking player runs in from an angle of greater than 90% from the direction the target is running and strikes the target front on and high then its trouble.....its not a hip and shoulder.

And you may want to join the Pies at the AFL appeal to learn what a legal shepherd is. And then pray tell us all Bub. B)

IMO, Maxwell was guilty of being reckless, as his first priority was the man, not the ball and his aim was to take him out of play for the ball. Head contact is a no, no. Its stipulated in the rules. They got it right. The bump is still legal. But it has to be implemented correctly.

If it was a "perfectly good hip & shoulder", Maxwell would not have made head contact.

IMO, Maxwell was guilty of being reckless, as his first priority was the man, not the ball and his aim was to take him out of play for the ball. Head contact is a no, no. Its stipulated in the rules. They got it right. The bump is still legal. But it has to be implemented correctly.

If it was a "perfectly good hip & shoulder", Maxwell would not have made head contact.

Shame on you HT for such good reason. Shame.

Sorry, when the attacking player runs in from an angle of greater than 90% from the direction the target is running and strikes the target front on and high then its trouble.....its not a hip and shoulder.

you obviously werent watching the same moment we all were !!

he wasnt coming front on ... not much else to say is there

Shame on you HT for such good reason. Shame.

Well, I don't hear Eddie complaining, do you?

The head is sacrosanct.

Mick the serial whinger Malthouse was banging on about the head being sacrosanct last year. Now his captain is rubbed out for 4 weeks for breaking a rookies jaw and the filthy hypocrite has the gall to appeal. Made your bed Malthouse, now lie in it.

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 have to agree even though it is Colling@###! This was a perfectly fair shepherd with absolutely no intent of causing injury. Gee, the great Noel McMahen would have been lucky to have played half a dozen games if this NETBALL rule of today had been in vogue.

I have to agree even though it is Colling@###! This was a perfectly fair shepherd with absolutely no intent of causing injury. Gee, the great Noel McMahen would have been lucky to have played half a dozen games if this NETBALL rule of today had been in vogue.

What ever happened to within 5m of the ball? as a player you used to have a duty of care to yourself to know what was coming from the side and directly towards you prior to commiting to the contest. Maybe the netball association aka AFL rules have taken this away? Don't get me wrong I'm all for players who jump into others heads, or take the head of a player bent over the ball, but for mine the WCE player was fair game! its not U16's

I Have to say I didn't see the game & have only seen stills in the paper of the incident so i am not making a judgement either way. BUT...I just love the fact that the Brand new Collingwood Captain, His First game in that position is Reported for breaking an opposition players Jaw. Its Just so....collingwood!! And its why we Hate Them. And yes i do remember Malthouse making strong remarks about looking after the head region last year.

i hate collingwood as much as the next bloke don't get me wrong, but this sort of decision leads me to be increasingly disillusioned with the game. Take the teams out of it for a second. The tribunal ruled that he had a realistic alternative thatn to bump and that was to go for the ball. had he gone for the ball he would have been under extreme pressure from the opposition player. he knew he had a team mate behind him. He decided to utilise one tool players have and that was to use a shepherd to clear a path so his teamate could run onto it and have some time and space. he did what we're taught from the earliest of ages and that is to shepherd your team mates. he did the smartest thing from his position to advantage his team. it is ludicrous to suspend a player for this. its a contact sport. i feel for the young kid from WC but its just simple bad luck. accidents happen. it's apart of this vicious tough hard sport we love. Sure have a rule in place to stop clokes trying to take heads off. And protect the player with his head over the ball. this is clearly not one of the occasions where that rule is applicable. I for one am absolutely sick and tired of the AFL changing rules and interpretations every year. No other professional sport would have so many changes from year to year. it's ridiculous. Leave it alone. If it's not broke don't fix it. I'm sick of the AFL trying totake the physicality out of the sport. The bump and shirtfront is an integral part of the game. It needs to remain. It's what seperates the men from the boys. People undertake this sport knowing full well its very physical and people get hurt. It's part and parcel of the game.

Let Maxwell off, for the sake of the game.

i hate collingwood as much as the next bloke don't get me wrong, but this sort of decision leads me to be increasingly disillusioned with the game. Take the teams out of it for a second. The tribunal ruled that he had a realistic alternative thatn to bump and that was to go for the ball. had he gone for the ball he would have been under extreme pressure from the opposition player. he knew he had a team mate behind him. He decided to utilise one tool players have and that was to use a shepherd to clear a path so his teamate could run onto it and have some time and space. he did what we're taught from the earliest of ages and that is to shepherd your team mates. he did the smartest thing from his position to advantage his team. it is ludicrous to suspend a player for this. its a contact sport. i feel for the young kid from WC but its just simple bad luck. accidents happen. it's apart of this vicious tough hard sport we love. Sure have a rule in place to stop clokes trying to take heads off. And protect the player with his head over the ball. this is clearly not one of the occasions where that rule is applicable. I for one am absolutely sick and tired of the AFL changing rules and interpretations every year. No other professional sport would have so many changes from year to year. it's ridiculous. Leave it alone. If it's not broke don't fix it. I'm sick of the AFL trying totake the physicality out of the sport. The bump and shirtfront is an integral part of the game. It needs to remain. It's what seperates the men from the boys. People undertake this sport knowing full well its very physical and people get hurt. It's part and parcel of the game.

Let Maxwell off, for the sake of the game.

Agree with everything you say apart from the last. Leave him hanging from the tree, but put it in the media so that it doesn't happen again (the report I mean)!

Has anyone seen the wikipedia file on matty whelan?

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

Did anyone on here do this?

Has anyone seen the wikipedia file on matty whelan?

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

Did anyone on here do this?

Wow. Its been a while since I have seen that but FFS please dont take this out of the game. Yes Wheels would have got several weeks for that hit today but god how good and how inspiring that it lead to a goal. Sounds great with System of a Down in the background!! Oh TJ, those wore the days. Can`t wait to see Jack Grimes tear off a handball like that to Cale on the run for a goal from 50 in a final in front of 80000!! It will happen!

Ha Ha Love your Passion Mate! Drink your tea and take it easy-still about 6 weeks till Round 1.

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.

Ha Ha Love your Passion Mate! Drink your tea and take it easy-still about 6 weeks till Round 1.

Yep, I better go lie down! 5 weeks tomorrow just quietly!

Just heard KB all over the sports news talking about the Nick Maxwell case/appeal. OMG!

He's speaking out that this is a very important case and may determine that the 'fair bump' is in danger of being outlawed from the game. He thinks the tribunal got it wrong. What a load of rot.

FFS, firstly 'Hungry' should keep his mouth shut as he is on the rules committee.

Secondly, I thought no-one is allowed to speak out prior to the case is complete.

Thirdly, KB you've help implement the rules, that stipulate that contact to the head is sacrosanct. Nick Maxwell clearly did not have eyes for the ball, he's focus and intention was soley to the opposition player first and foremost. He made contact of serious impact and high. It was deemed negligent (even though I thought it bordered on reckless). It resulted in serious injury.

End of story. 4 weeks was handed out. Cop it sweet.

I believe you mean that the head is sacrosanct, not contact to it

he hit the guy high (his jaw - whcih was broken (irrelevant but proves where he hit him)) with his shoulder.

i have no problem with this being 4 weeks.

i was under the impression it was a "shirt front" which are strictly not allowed, if the bumb was side on he could have sustained the same injury yes

but if the arm was tucked it then the AFL would deem it accidental and a head clash would be the only way for such an injury to occur.

4 weeks seems harsh but i think that bumb is disallowed by the AFL

I believe you mean that the head is sacrosanct, not contact to it

You know what I mean.

Hope everythings going well with preparations mate.....the long room....good choice.

Mate, it was on Saturday night (yes, Valentine's day )

It was quite easily one of the best nights of my life, possibly the best, and felt like it went in about 12 minutes. If I get disgustingly happy enough I might even post a photo of the night!