Maxwell's bump

[BenDoolan]

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.

But if it were one of ours.....

[MH_Bomber]

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.

But if it were one of ours.....

He'd be completely innocent of course !

BD I had a look at the link to the youtube clip of the JJ bump and I see a distinction between that bump and the one by Maxwell. When perusing that area of youtube there was a entry of the ilk "hard hits of the AFL". I was quite disgusted by what used to be deemed "part of the game". I am glad that they are cracking down on this side of things because when you see what used to go on then you realise its a miracle there hasnt been more serious injuries or deaths from head collisions caused by the hip and shoulder.

Surely if the bump climbs up to the head it must be punished. Letting Maxwell off has opened a bigger pandora's box than giving him 4 weeks.

[tom9779]

benny doolan/MH Bomber

If you take a good look at it, you can see that mcginnity is in the motion of putting his head over the ball.(which is why his head was almost clean taken off).

IMO that puts maxwell in the wrong. that is all that the tribunal really needs to worry about. he should have gone(but i do go to maxwell's defense below). maxwell has taken out the bloke leading for the race to the footy, who has his head over pill and that bloke has to be protected. pure and simple.

there is nothing wrong with a bump that is pre-meditated or heavy, but perhaps there should be something in it about if your the third guy into the contest, that you can only bump the bloke who is second in line.

ie if Corrie had of been first at the footy, and Maxwell had of instead been going to bump Mcginnity whilst he was in pursuit of Corrie, then Mcginnitiy's head would not have been over the footy. ie removes the dangerous situation.

noone wants to see the bump go. BUT you cannot expect a player to be able to adjust to avoid head high collision travelling at the speed AFL is played at. i reckon its prob impossible. all you can do is try and amend the law so it makes it more clear as to what is a safe and not a safe situation to instigate a bump.

I can't see it any other way. the bump must stay in footy, but not at the cost of broken jaws/potential brain damage/spinal injury.

what maxwell did needs to be avoided in the future, it needs to be agreed that he was acting within the laws of the game, but those laws need some fine tuning.(not changed, but clarified).

hmmm or maybe i am going soft. (i am nursing some fractures of my own at the moment).

[F111]

This issue will continue ad infinitum because the afl are determined to take anything that involves injury to the head out of the game.

Players will need to adapt.

1. Aim at the waist and not the shoulder. Difficult to do, as it immediately upsets the antagonists centre of gravity and they will lose their feet.
2. Tackle. Dean Rioli started doing this. He changed from the bump to the tackle. He aimed at the opponents waist and managed some great tackles.

Personally, from a footy %'s perspective, I have seen the bump not work when a tackle would've. Sometimes a player can ride the bump. The bump is also a bit more "macho" when the player gets belted, and can be an excellent display of strength, but a firm gripping tackle will always have a better outcome I think.

[swoodley]

This issue will continue ad infinitum because the afl are determined to take anything that involves injury to the head out of the game.

Players will need to adapt.

1. Aim at the waist and not the shoulder. Difficult to do, as it immediately upsets the antagonists centre of gravity and they will lose their feet.
2. Tackle. Dean Rioli started doing this. He changed from the bump to the tackle. He aimed at the opponents waist and managed some great tackles.

Personally, from a footy %'s perspective, I have seen the bump not work when a tackle would've. Sometimes a player can ride the bump. The bump is also a bit more "macho" when the player gets belted, and can be an excellent display of strength, but a firm gripping tackle will always have a better outcome I think.

Good post F111...as much as I like to see a good bump, I must admit that I get annoyed when our players bump when they could have tackled. You don't get too many free kicks for a well executed bump but a well executed tackle can be rewarded with a free.

[Gatsid]

This issue will continue ad infinitum because the afl are determined to take anything that involves injury to the head out of the game.

Players will need to adapt.

1. Aim at the waist and not the shoulder. Difficult to do, as it immediately upsets the antagonists centre of gravity and they will lose their feet.
2. Tackle. Dean Rioli started doing this. He changed from the bump to the tackle. He aimed at the opponents waist and managed some great tackles.

Personally, from a footy %'s perspective, I have seen the bump not work when a tackle would've. Sometimes a player can ride the bump. The bump is also a bit more "macho" when the player gets belted, and can be an excellent display of strength, but a firm gripping tackle will always have a better outcome I think.

I agree, in fact it's extremely frustrating to see a player run down another player and opt for the bump which spills the ball free and ends up a 50/50 ball where a tackle would have won you a free kick. Playing junior footy we were always taught to:

1. bump when neither footballer had the ball to make the 50/50 ball more easily won by knocking your opponent out of the race
2. bump when your team mate has the ball to block a would be tackler
3. when the opposition have the ball tackle tackle tackle

Seems to make sense to me. I mean I can't honestly think of any situation where a bump on an opponent player in possession results in a better outcome than a tackle, with maybe the one exception when a player is on the run about to shoot at goal but even then a good tackle can knock his shot offline.

[F111]

Yes. The key importance is possession of course. Bump when not in possession therefore protecting or creating a contest, and tackle when they are in possession to retrieve a lost contest.

[BenDoolan]

Yes. The key importance is possession of course. Bump when not in possession therefore protecting or creating a contest, and tackle when they are in possession to retrieve a lost contest.

Well yes of course. In McGinnity's case, he wasn't in possession. I still maintain that the bump was delivered technically correct. McGinnity did not brace himself for the oncoming bump (question his peripheral vision there), and the resultant force resluted in his head being catapaulted forward into (what I believe) was a head clash. Again, Maxwell was within his rights to execute the bump (within 5 metres of the footy) and used the correct technique in delivering it. Play on....