Nick Maxwell

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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?

Bully for you Mo. My you're a self proclaimed wiz. I said if the contact was between shoulder and jaw. By the same reference how do you know it was a clash of heads???

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 )"

Its great that GOTO can accurately state the law without big noting himself. You fail on both counts.

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

Then you would be the expert there Mo. No argument from me on that .

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?

Yes that and other similar incidents.

[Redleg 41,797]

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?

WJ I still think this is the worst decision ever made by the tribunal and am still [censored] off we didn't fight it.

For those that don't remember WJ is correct, Moloney was suspended for negligent play, in that while failing to make contact with Bartel's head or any other part of his body, he was still guilty of an offence as Bartel in avoiding him hurt himself while falling over.

If I could relay a worse decision of the tribunal I would but this pathetic ruling was nothing short of a disgrace.

How does the eagles broken jaw fit in with that scenario in the Maxwell acquittal?

[e25 5]

WJ I still think this is the worst decision ever made by the tribunal and am still [censored] off we didn't fight it.

For those that don't remember WJ is correct, Moloney was suspended for negligent play, in that while failing to make contact with Bartel's head or any other part of his body, he was still guilty of an offence as Bartel in avoiding him hurt himself while falling over.

If I could relay a worse decision of the tribunal I would but this pathetic ruling was nothing short of a disgrace.

How does the eagles broken jaw fit in with that scenario in the Maxwell acquittal?

You don't know what else was going on behind the scenes. Beama could've had a niggle, making the suspension welcome so he could get to 100%.

But I agree, it seemed a very strange decision by the club to not appeal

[Swampfox 190]

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.

Sorry i didnt mean to confuse but Tackle was the wrong word to use for maxwells actions

At the end of the day Maxwell got off

IMO the AFL has NOW got a problem with this rule

Do you at least acknowledge that ?

[Sir Why You Little 37,251]

The Bottom Line in all this Fiasco is that Right Now Adrian Anderson looks like a complete Idiot. This will be fascinating to see what happens next week.

Stay Tunes.