Bombertalk

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!

The hysteria regarding this decision is ridiculous.

1. It's open to debate whether it was Maxwell's head or shoulder that smashed old mate's jaw.

2. If Maxwell had lowered his point of impact, this issue would not have arisen and he'd be free to play next week.

3. The interpretation of the rule hasn't changed - it's been that way for years.

4. If a player doesn't have the required skill to deliver a bump without splitting a jaw open, don't do it.

5. The head is a very small part of a body. A powerful bump can still be executed that doesn't hit the head.

6. The style of football has changed significantly such that it is now played by leaner, faster more athletic players which means that there are less collisions/bumps, regardless of whether they are head high or not. Accordingly, the interpretation of the Maxwell bump isn't going to have a material impact on the way the game is played.

It's a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Nice, well thought out and put together post there Gringo...what's happened to you

The game is in dreadful shape if Maxwell goes for that. The high contact wasn't negligent ... it was incidental. Maxwell made initial contact to the chest and a 'whiplash' effect resulted in the West Coast player's head making contact with Maxwell's head/shoulder.

bomberdonnie wrote:http://www.fuckthefilthwhocares.com

I think this is the problem. How would the reaction be if it were one of our guys rubbed out for 4 weeks for THAT. I know I'd want to tear down AFL House brick by brick.

The issue is whether it was Maxwell's shoulder or head that did the damage. For this process to ignore Maxwell's defence entirely (medical evidence to suggest head contact was made, and supporting video evidence to suggest their may have been a head clash) is unbelievable. To suggest that Maxwell had a "realistic alternative" to the shepherd is just poppycock. He may have had alternatives to;

a) stand still and let the opponent run unimpeded
b) go for the ball and get tackled
c) bump the opponent off to allow a team mate to gather the ball
d) run over the boundary line and into the changerooms to collect his bag and go home

but he chose to bump, which is a legitimate part of the game. That this action "possibly" (for those who still doubt) caused a head clash resulting in injury is just an unfortunate factor of a contact sport.

Medical evidence supporting a head clash + video footage that shows a possible head clash + umpire allowing play to continue = absolutely bullshit decision by the tribunal processes.

He won his appeal this morning. First time it has ever happened under the new system.

Right decision.

What a complete disgrace. This will create more problems/issues than it solves.

It appears that without his "priors" he would have only copped a week and therefore no drama.

gringo wrote:What a complete disgrace. This will create more problems/issues than it solves.

Will it? I thought the Des Headland case where he was exonerated for belting the bejeezus out of Adam Selwood because he made unproven comments about his daughter is far worse. But anyway.....

BenDoolan wrote:

gringo wrote:What a complete disgrace. This will create more problems/issues than it solves.

Will it? I thought the Des Headland case where he was exonerated for belting the bejeezus out of Adam Selwood because he made unproven comments about his daughter is far worse. But anyway.....

Agree BD.

I feel that they need to re-address the MRP criteria and introduce "incidental contact" or something similar to deal with situations like this. I don't think there would have been anywhere near the uproar if this was a one week suspension - 4 weeks for executing a textbook bump is ridiculous when you're giving the same penalty for Setanta's brain fade.

The just decision was made and I don't think McGinnity would have any problems with him getting off.

Good to hear he got off...

=D>

Appeal result - cleared!
http://afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabi ... fault.aspx
=D>

Bump away!

Great decision. Probably the only time i will ever defend a filth.

Finally a bit of common sense coming from the AFL.

Suddenly it got very chilly down in hell...

azza78 wrote:Finally a bit of common sense coming from the AFL. ...

and all it needed was a bit of bad publicity...

BenDoolan wrote:

bomberdonnie wrote:http://www.fuckthefilthwhocares.com

I think this is the problem. How would the reaction be if it were one of our guys rubbed out for 4 weeks for THAT. I know I'd want to tear down AFL House brick by brick.

The issue is whether it was Maxwell's shoulder or head that did the damage. For this process to ignore Maxwell's defence entirely (medical evidence to suggest head contact was made, and supporting video evidence to suggest their may have been a head clash) is unbelievable. To suggest that Maxwell had a "realistic alternative" to the shepherd is just poppycock. He may have had alternatives to;

a) stand still and let the opponent run unimpeded
b) go for the ball and get tackled
c) bump the opponent off to allow a team mate to gather the ball
d) run over the boundary line and into the changerooms to collect his bag and go home

but he chose to bump, which is a legitimate part of the game. That this action "possibly" (for those who still doubt) caused a head clash resulting in injury is just an unfortunate factor of a contact sport.

Medical evidence supporting a head clash + video footage that shows a possible head clash + umpire allowing play to continue = absolutely bullshit decision by the tribunal processes.

I would have been outraged BD no doubt... In saying that I bet that if this was one of our boys there is no way known the appeal would have been upheld!

bomberdonnie wrote: I would have been outraged BD no doubt... In saying that I bet that if this was one of our boys there is no way known the appeal would have been upheld!

I think you're right there Donnie. In fact, I doubt we would have pushed it as far as the Appeals Board....

He's alive and well!

However, I fear a knee jerk reaction by the administrators and the game's law makers following the decision by the Appeals Board. You can almost see them gathering like seagulls on a discarded chip and how they can close a loophole or change the law in some way as to eliminate ANY contact with the head whether intentional or accidental.

Watch this space....

Everytime I see a replay of this incident I am more convinced he should have gone. The contact was made to the bloke's head pure and simple. As far as I am concerned it was ;

) Pre meditated
2) High
3) Heavy contact
4) He was a filth player

You lot who were pleading his case - please - he is Collingwood after all.