Maxwell's bump

[BenDoolan]

The appeal was heard tonight and three weeks has become four...time to pass out the netball skirts

WHAT!!!!?????

The game has turned to shit. The longer Bartlett has a say on the game, the worse it will get and FAST.

[paddyl90]

Joke. Enough said.

[Doctor Fish]

I can't believe it...

[ealesy]

The appeal was heard tonight and three weeks has become four...time to pass out the netball skirts

WHAT!!!!?????

It was always going to increase to a 4 game ban if they were unsuccessful at the tribunal because he did not get the reduction for the early guilty plea.

[BenDoolan]

The appeal was heard tonight and three weeks has become four...time to pass out the netball skirts

WHAT!!!!?????

It was always going to increase to a 4 game ban if they were unsuccessful at the tribunal because he did not get the reduction for the early guilty plea.

I just can't believe they were unsuccessful.

[gringo]

Calm down underlings...your spiritual leader Gringo has returned to provide some guidance and clarity on this issue. Filthy, fetch me a whiksy whilst I elaborate...

For years players who have made high contact in a hip and shoulder situation have been suspended. It's simple - make contact with the head and you are going to pay. If you don't have the skill or guile to execute the bump in such a way that ensures you don't make high contact, you'll be suspended. I just watched the Maxwell hit on Youtube - in my view it was fair in all regards other than the high contact. Had Maxwell bent down to make the hit such that his shoulder went into the bloke's sternum rather than his head, he would have been fine. The umpire would have thrown his arms in the air like a dugong attempting to fly and called play on. To be honest, I don't think that's too much to ask. Lloyd has unleashed some bone-crunching bumps in recent seasons that don't include high contact. The hit on Chad Cornes immediately comes to mind.

It's highly simplistic and unsophisticated to say that because of the Maxwell decision the bump has effectively been outlawed. What has been outlawed, and has been for considerable time, is high contact. Players need to adapt.

[andrewb]

Had Maxwell bent down to make the hit such that his shoulder went into the bloke's sternum rather than his head, he would have been fine.

Accidental head clash - no contact between the body and the head. Maxwell has the bruising on his scone to prove it. Therein lies the issue... the way the rule has been written the tribunal had no option but to suspend even though they accepted that he performed the bump with perfect technique (feet on the ground, elbow in) and that the high contact was accidental.

The umpire would have thrown his arms in the air like a dugong attempting to fly and called play on.

The umpire did call play on, which was the correct decision. The bump was fine, the rule is not.

[saladin]

my opinion (as posted on BB)

The AFL world changed last night. And not just in remote and distant corners of it's sphere of operations, but rather right in the very middle of it's heartland - the playing field.

All sorts of opinions and emotions have erupted in the wake of the Nick Maxwell suspension, often playing out on club or suddenly-discovered moralistic lines. But getting lost in a lot of the venting is the actual, cold, hard effect on the sport we have grown up with. The devil is in the detail, and what can be extrapolated from last nights interpretation. And i use the term deliberately. If you think that what we knew as AFL is sporting heaven, then the Devil is now running amok.

"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique" AFL legal Counsel Jeff Gleeson.

This statement is the crux of the entire matter, and reveals that the game is no longer the same. People are bemoaning that the head has always been protected, and that this is nothing new, but they ignore what the logical extension is.

A player can no longer go into a physical clash and know that, even if he does everything absolutely perfectly and within the written rules of the game, he is safe from the side effects. Just consider that for a moment. Not only is he now liable for his own actions, and expected to adhere to a strict code of behaviour, but he is also expected to somehow divine the future and allow for unforseen eventualities. In essence, we now demand that he predict the manifestly unpredictable. In a game that is literally BUILT on it's unpredictableness!

We use a non-predictable ball. Deliberately. We delight in seeing our greatest players track a ball that may bounce to the right one second, then shift back to the left. They prop, they shift their weight, they are in constant and random motion. It is the key to the game. And yet last night we introduced a new factor - you must be held accountable for not predicting what we really don't want you to predict anyway. Supporters of last nights events claim that the bump is not dead, it just has to be delivered correctly. Thing is, even the AFL admit that it was delivered correctly. The only thing Maxwell could have done differently was ......drumroll........ not to bump at all! Yep, Bingo! You've just killed it, in one swoop, without even having to declare it. It's simple: Players cannot now go into a contest, manage their actions perfectly, and be safe from retribution. So they won't. How can they?

The even more farcical side of things lies in the statement that he had other options, and therefore had to face the music. This is blatant stupidity. The rules don't state that you can only go for the ball. A hip-and-shoulder IS (or WAS!) acceptable and perfectly legal if carried out inside the guidelines. But incidental contact is now viewed as deliberately negligent, even with all the variables involved. In addition, can we then deduce from this that if there was a circumstance where he had no other option, the bump would have been ok? You can accidentally break a guys jaw if that's your only option? Under what circumstances would it be determined that that WAS the only option? It is absurd, it has no logical core, and it makes the game unworkable.

If players are to be rubbed out for damage caused by incidental contact - even if everything other than the damage is legal -then we can no longer afford contact. We are also punishing players based on damage done, rather than actions carried out. Had Mcginnity not cracked a jaw, this would not even have been a trial. There cannot, then, have been anything intrinsically wrong with the bump. Would Mathew Lloyds bump on Chad Cornes three years ago now be deemed illegal? Lloyd could have tackled, he had other options. Cornes was concussed, he was hurt, his game was ruined. It would not have been had lloyd not run through him, therefore lloyd caused it and should face the music? Would they now have said that Lloyd had a duty of care not to hurt poor chaddy? Would we, as essendon supporters, have stormed AFL house?

Whether you agree with last nights decision or not, please don't try to tell us that the game has not changed overnight. Tell us that you accept where it has led us if you like, but don't pretend that we are still standing where we were yesterday. The new landscape is not familiar. And i don't like the view..

[gringo]

Andrewb from what I saw it was his shoulder that went into his head - square on the jaw. There may well have been head to head contact as well, but from what I saw it was the shoulder that did the damage. Other than that, the bump was fine, as I said. If it was purely an accidental head clash that caused the injuries, then 4 weeks is ridiculous. I don't believe this was the case however.

[gringo]

my opinion (as posted on BB)

The AFL world changed last night. And not just in remote and distant corners of it's sphere of operations, but rather right in the very middle of it's heartland - the playing field.

All sorts of opinions and emotions have erupted in the wake of the Nick Maxwell suspension, often playing out on club or suddenly-discovered moralistic lines. But getting lost in a lot of the venting is the actual, cold, hard effect on the sport we have grown up with. The devil is in the detail, and what can be extrapolated from last nights interpretation. And i use the term deliberately. If you think that what we knew as AFL is sporting heaven, then the Devil is now running amok.

"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique" AFL legal Counsel Jeff Gleeson.

This statement is the crux of the entire matter, and reveals that the game is no longer the same. People are bemoaning that the head has always been protected, and that this is nothing new, but they ignore what the logical extension is.

A player can no longer go into a physical clash and know that, even if he does everything absolutely perfectly and within the written rules of the game, he is safe from the side effects. Just consider that for a moment. Not only is he now liable for his own actions, and expected to adhere to a strict code of behaviour, but he is also expected to somehow divine the future and allow for unforseen eventualities. In essence, we now demand that he predict the manifestly unpredictable. In a game that is literally BUILT on it's unpredictableness!

We use a non-predictable ball. Deliberately. We delight in seeing our greatest players track a ball that may bounce to the right one second, then shift back to the left. They prop, they shift their weight, they are in constant and random motion. It is the key to the game. And yet last night we introduced a new factor - you must be held accountable for not predicting what we really don't want you to predict anyway. Supporters of last nights events claim that the bump is not dead, it just has to be delivered correctly. Thing is, even the AFL admit that it was delivered correctly. The only thing Maxwell could have done differently was ......drumroll........ not to bump at all! Yep, Bingo! You've just killed it, in one swoop, without even having to declare it. It's simple: Players cannot now go into a contest, manage their actions perfectly, and be safe from retribution. So they won't. How can they?

The even more farcical side of things lies in the statement that he had other options, and therefore had to face the music. This is blatant stupidity. The rules don't state that you can only go for the ball. A hip-and-shoulder IS (or WAS!) acceptable and perfectly legal if carried out inside the guidelines. But incidental contact is now viewed as deliberately negligent, even with all the variables involved. In addition, can we then deduce from this that if there was a circumstance where he had no other option, the bump would have been ok? You can accidentally break a guys jaw if that's your only option? Under what circumstances would it be determined that that WAS the only option? It is absurd, it has no logical core, and it makes the game unworkable.

If players are to be rubbed out for damage caused by incidental contact - even if everything other than the damage is legal -then we can no longer afford contact. We are also punishing players based on damage done, rather than actions carried out. Had Mcginnity not cracked a jaw, this would not even have been a trial. There cannot, then, have been anything intrinsically wrong with the bump. Would Mathew Lloyds bump on Chad Cornes three years ago now be deemed illegal? Lloyd could have tackled, he had other options. Cornes was concussed, he was hurt, his game was ruined. It would not have been had lloyd not run through him, therefore lloyd caused it and should face the music? Would they now have said that Lloyd had a duty of care not to hurt poor chaddy? Would we, as essendon supporters, have stormed AFL house?

Whether you agree with last nights decision or not, please don't try to tell us that the game has not changed overnight. Tell us that you accept where it has led us if you like, but don't pretend that we are still standing where we were yesterday. The new landscape is not familiar. And i don't like the view..

By and large an overly dramatic load of sh!t. If you can't administer a hip and shoulder without busting a bloke's jaw, don't do it. It's as simple as that and has been interpreted as such for years. All Maxwell had to do was lower his point of impact and it would have been fine. He didn't, so he pays the price.

[saladin]

my opinion (as posted on BB)

The AFL world changed last night. And not just in remote and distant corners of it's sphere of operations, but rather right in the very middle of it's heartland - the playing field.

All sorts of opinions and emotions have erupted in the wake of the Nick Maxwell suspension, often playing out on club or suddenly-discovered moralistic lines. But getting lost in a lot of the venting is the actual, cold, hard effect on the sport we have grown up with. The devil is in the detail, and what can be extrapolated from last nights interpretation. And i use the term deliberately. If you think that what we knew as AFL is sporting heaven, then the Devil is now running amok.

"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique" AFL legal Counsel Jeff Gleeson.

This statement is the crux of the entire matter, and reveals that the game is no longer the same. People are bemoaning that the head has always been protected, and that this is nothing new, but they ignore what the logical extension is.

A player can no longer go into a physical clash and know that, even if he does everything absolutely perfectly and within the written rules of the game, he is safe from the side effects. Just consider that for a moment. Not only is he now liable for his own actions, and expected to adhere to a strict code of behaviour, but he is also expected to somehow divine the future and allow for unforseen eventualities. In essence, we now demand that he predict the manifestly unpredictable. In a game that is literally BUILT on it's unpredictableness!

We use a non-predictable ball. Deliberately. We delight in seeing our greatest players track a ball that may bounce to the right one second, then shift back to the left. They prop, they shift their weight, they are in constant and random motion. It is the key to the game. And yet last night we introduced a new factor - you must be held accountable for not predicting what we really don't want you to predict anyway. Supporters of last nights events claim that the bump is not dead, it just has to be delivered correctly. Thing is, even the AFL admit that it was delivered correctly. The only thing Maxwell could have done differently was ......drumroll........ not to bump at all! Yep, Bingo! You've just killed it, in one swoop, without even having to declare it. It's simple: Players cannot now go into a contest, manage their actions perfectly, and be safe from retribution. So they won't. How can they?

The even more farcical side of things lies in the statement that he had other options, and therefore had to face the music. This is blatant stupidity. The rules don't state that you can only go for the ball. A hip-and-shoulder IS (or WAS!) acceptable and perfectly legal if carried out inside the guidelines. But incidental contact is now viewed as deliberately negligent, even with all the variables involved. In addition, can we then deduce from this that if there was a circumstance where he had no other option, the bump would have been ok? You can accidentally break a guys jaw if that's your only option? Under what circumstances would it be determined that that WAS the only option? It is absurd, it has no logical core, and it makes the game unworkable.

If players are to be rubbed out for damage caused by incidental contact - even if everything other than the damage is legal -then we can no longer afford contact. We are also punishing players based on damage done, rather than actions carried out. Had Mcginnity not cracked a jaw, this would not even have been a trial. There cannot, then, have been anything intrinsically wrong with the bump. Would Mathew Lloyds bump on Chad Cornes three years ago now be deemed illegal? Lloyd could have tackled, he had other options. Cornes was concussed, he was hurt, his game was ruined. It would not have been had lloyd not run through him, therefore lloyd caused it and should face the music? Would they now have said that Lloyd had a duty of care not to hurt poor chaddy? Would we, as essendon supporters, have stormed AFL house?

Whether you agree with last nights decision or not, please don't try to tell us that the game has not changed overnight. Tell us that you accept where it has led us if you like, but don't pretend that we are still standing where we were yesterday. The new landscape is not familiar. And i don't like the view..

By and large an overly dramatic load of sh!t. If you can't administer a hip and shoulder without busting a bloke's jaw, don't do it. It's as simple as that and has been interpreted as such for years. All Maxwell had to do was lower his point of impact and it would have been fine. He didn't, so he pays the price.

no mate. the interpretation that if you have multiple choices and opt for the bump then incidental or accidental contact is assumed non-existent is a very recent thing. not so long ago as long as you kept your feet on the ground, didn't raise the elbow and the main contact occured body to body, you were fine. but now, you can do all of those things and still get weeks. we will see less and less of it imo, because it simply cannot be guaranteed that the receiver won't get hurt even if you do everything right.

[gringo]

How recent are we talking? I remember Byron Pickett getting rubbed out for what could have been deemed as accidental high contact and he retired a good three or four years ago from memory.

I agree with you in that players will be more hesitant now to administer a bump, which is a shame as it's an element of the game that the players enjoy and the crowd likes to see. However, we can't have people missing three months of football because they were hit in the head by a hip and shoulder. I maintain that a legitimate and powerful hip and shoulder can still be delivered that doesn't involve high contact. The Lloyd hit on Cornes is a perfect example.

I think we will see plenty of hits this year still. Minus the head, there is still A LOT of the body to hit. Time will tell I guess.

[saladin]

i think part of the problem with this one lies in the fact that it's not conclusive whether it was a head clash, or shoulder, that broke the jaw.

in any event, the afl have now made clear that full responsibility dwells with the bumper. two years ago, didak got off a charge against heath scotland (i think) when it was found that scotland had stumbled and turned into the impact. if that happened now, didak would be told that he should have predicted scotlands movements and would carry the responsibility even though scotland's stagger clearly contributed. they have definitely changed the focus - and players will hesitate.

i have no issue with the picket ones where a player is head down and the main contact is to the head. but imo there is still room for plain unlucky injuries.

[swoodley]

Collingwood are now appealing against the appeal outcome

[MH_Bomber]

I agree with Gringo, its a matter of what part of the player being bumped is contacted. In the case of the JJ bump in 2000 pre-season, JJ did NOT hit the Blakey head with the impact of the bump. Blakey went down in heap because 1) the speed of JJ coming at him 2) the impact could well have totally winded him and 3) when he hit the deck he bumped his own head. I clearly remember that bump as probably one of the most perfectly executed hip and shoulders ever.

To me that bump was totally legal and would still be legal today. There is major difference between hit and shouldering someone's torso and doing the same to their head.

[BenDoolan]

I think some of you need glasses. Maxwell's hip and shoulder never made contact with his jaw at all. It was a head clash that did the damage. If you have footage, keep your eye on where the shoulder makes impact - to the right upper shoulder area of McGinnity. This was an utterly disgraceful suspension. All logic and commonsense has been replaced by sheer madness in AFL administration.

IF he hip and shouldered his head - then fair enough. But he didn't.

Next we'll have players called up and suspended for crunching tackles that cause knee reconstructions or injuries similar to Andrew Welsh.

[swoodley]

The appeal was heard tonight and three weeks has become four...time to pass out the netball skirts

WHAT!!!!?????

The game has turned to shit. The longer Bartlett has a say on the game, the worse it will get and FAST.

Just to bugger up your theory BD....Bartlett was on the news last night saying what a terrible decision the tribunal had made in this case

[BenDoolan]

The appeal was heard tonight and three weeks has become four...time to pass out the netball skirts

WHAT!!!!?????

The game has turned to shit. The longer Bartlett has a say on the game, the worse it will get and FAST.

Just to bugger up your theory BD....Bartlett was on the news last night saying what a terrible decision the tribunal had made in this case

That probably shows further signs that the cheese has definitely slid off his cracker. Being part of a group that changes rules, changes interpretations and inserts variations, and then complains when ridiculous outcomes such as this occurs

[Jazz_84]

how on earth did they lose their appeal??? how many cases could they find to at least prove it's not worth 3 weeks??

Im beginning to hate this game..... what a farce and the season hasn't even started....... does Adolf realise what he is doing??? i hoestly dont think he does

[grassy1]

Actually Jazz,he thinks he does,short of giving him any credit,which of course I WON'T.

I've often said the RULES COMMITTEE is OUT OF CONTROL.After reading Patrick Smith's article Today,I now know why.ADOLPH will support the RULES COMMITTEE when they do his Bidding.When they Contradict AWFULL'S Philosophies,they are SIDELINED.

If only the 16 Clubs REALISE how much DEMETRIOU and ANDERSON are UTTERLY DESPISED by the ACTUAL STAKEHOLDERS of the GAME being US(asopposed to the COUCH POTATOES and International Twits who treat OUR Game as a Novelty),they'd GROW SOME BALLS and FORCE THEIR RESIGNATION.

RESIGN NOW YOU BLOODY CLOWNS!