Maxwell's bump

[andrewb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsf-qADsO3E

[paddyl90]

I don't like defending a filth player but I was going to make a thread about this because I think that was nothing more than a fair bump. Yes he took his eyes off the ball and went directly at him, but he had a team mate supporting him when he bumped him so I believe it was just a shephard. So i vote for nothing. Still hate him and Collingwood of course

[BenDoolan]

Yeah, rubbish decision.

We won't be able to recognise the game by the end of the decade.

[ealesy]

Nothing. The only reason he was even cited was because the West Coast player was injured.

It is absloutely rubbish that he got 3 weeks for that, yet that doggish Scum Irish git only get 4 weeks for smashing his teammate in the face and then kicking him when he was down. f****** Hall got 8 weeks for a hit very similar on Staker, yet he did not kick him when he was down.

If the Blues had any sort of decent club culture they would have sacked the git on the spot, the fact the guy is complete and utter hack should have made the decision bloody easy and yet they still could not do that.

[dom_105]

Elbow tucked in, came in at 90 degrees, both players standing upright, both players after the ball and hit him right down the front.

Play on, FFS.

[rockhole]

Total crap decision. if the morons running the game want to take the bump out of the equation, we may as well revert to a non contact sport. How the hell are the players expected to know what passes muster and what is illegal. From what I saw, Maxwell did everything possible within the rules and still cops 3 weeks.

I am sure they make stuff up on the run and this is the calssic knee jerk reaction.

[BenDoolan]

Total crap decision. if the morons running the game want to take the bump out of the equation, we may as well revert to a non contact sport. How the hell are the players expected to know what passes muster and what is illegal. From what I saw, Maxwell did everything possible within the rules and still cops 3 weeks.

I am sure they make stuff up on the run and this is the calssic knee jerk reaction.

Spot on Rocky.

Surely as an AFL footballer you would be expected to receive such a bump during the course of battle. What are they trying to F****** turn this game into?

[azza78]

Rubbish decision. If you can't bump a bloke like that might as well give em bibs and make it netball.

It's a contact sport (for the time being at least ) and unfortunately blokes are going to get hurt. McGinnity (or whatever his name is) was just unlucky.

[robrulz5]

Nothing in it. Just bad luck for the guy who was hurt as it was a fair bump.

[j-mac31]

Absolute crap decision. And on SEN they keep coming back to the "duty of care" crap. I can't think what it is, but there is also some latin legal phrase that essentially means you can't be awarded damages for foreseeable injury. The example used back in yr12 was a boxer "signs up" to be hit in the head, so can't claim for brain damage.
Surely this short of stuff should be the same?

that doggish Scum Irish git only get 4 weeks for smashing his teammate in the face and then kicking him when he was down. f****** Hall got 8 weeks for a hit very similar on Staker, yet he did not kick him when he was down.

=D> I agree.

[BenDoolan]

Absolute crap decision. And on SEN they keep coming back to the "duty of care" crap. I can't think what it is, but there is also some latin legal phrase that essentially means you can't be awarded damages for foreseeable injury. The example used back in yr12 was a boxer "signs up" to be hit in the head, so can't claim for brain damage.
Surely this short of stuff should be the same?

that doggish Scum Irish git only get 4 weeks for smashing his teammate in the face and then kicking him when he was down. f****** Hall got 8 weeks for a hit very similar on Staker, yet he did not kick him when he was down.

=D> I agree.

Duty of care? May as well pull the game apart and just play marbles. It appears the administrators have lost theirs...

[Madden]

Bumping will be banned altogether in the next few years. You watch.

[jimmyc1985]

Bumping will be banned altogether in the next few years. You watch.

The shirtfront is, to all intents and purposes, effectively banned already as far as i can deduce. The AFL haven't expressly banned the shirtfront, but any contact made to an opponent's head resulting from a front-on bump is basically bound to be reported, and i can't see how it's possible to give out a shirtfront without making some contact with the other guy's head - the very nature of the forces involved will see to it that the head of the guy who's on the receiving end of a shirtfront will jolt forward and thus make contact with the shoulder/upper arm of the player giving out the bump. So yeah, everyone knows 100% that going a guy's head with your hip when his head is over the ball is reportable (i.e. Ben Johnson/Daniel Bell incident), but i think it's at least implied that even if a player is standing upright, you still can't bump him front on and expect to escape report. I reckon a bump like Jason Johnson's against John Blakey in the 2000 pre-season (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p76ad8wukI) would get plenty of weeks now, whereas then, it was just a great, fair hit.

This is a shit state of affairs - i thought Maxwell's bump was great, and i think Maxwell is a massive flog.

[Crazyman]

Bumping will be banned altogether in the next few years. You watch.

The shirtfront is, to all intents and purposes, effectively banned already as far as i can deduce. The AFL haven't expressly banned the shirtfront, but any contact made to an opponent's head resulting from a front-on bump is basically bound to be reported, and i can't see how it's possible to give out a shirtfront without making some contact with the other guy's head - the very nature of the forces involved will see to it that the head of the guy who's on the receiving end of a shirtfront will jolt forward and thus make contact with the shoulder/upper arm of the player giving out the bump. So yeah, everyone knows 100% that going a guy's head with your hip when his head is over the ball is reportable (i.e. Ben Johnson/Daniel Bell incident), but i think it's at least implied that even if a player is standing upright, you still can't bump him front on and expect to escape report. I reckon a bump like Jason Johnson's against John Blakey in the 2000 pre-season (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p76ad8wukI) would get plenty of weeks now, whereas then, it was just a great, fair hit.

This is a shit state of affairs - i thought Maxwell's bump was great, and i think Maxwell is a massive flog.

For a good shirtfront, just refer back to the 2000 preseason Final where JJ smashed one of the Norf players...best shirtfront I had seen in many a year. Was off the ball and would probably get 2 to 4 weeks in the soft day and age of non-contact football...

Also, if they scrap bumps in Aussie Rules, how will the little kiddies play??? or have they changed the rules for under 13's or there abouts now???

[jimmyc1985]

Bumping will be banned altogether in the next few years. You watch.

The shirtfront is, to all intents and purposes, effectively banned already as far as i can deduce. The AFL haven't expressly banned the shirtfront, but any contact made to an opponent's head resulting from a front-on bump is basically bound to be reported, and i can't see how it's possible to give out a shirtfront without making some contact with the other guy's head - the very nature of the forces involved will see to it that the head of the guy who's on the receiving end of a shirtfront will jolt forward and thus make contact with the shoulder/upper arm of the player giving out the bump. So yeah, everyone knows 100% that going a guy's head with your hip when his head is over the ball is reportable (i.e. Ben Johnson/Daniel Bell incident), but i think it's at least implied that even if a player is standing upright, you still can't bump him front on and expect to escape report. I reckon a bump like Jason Johnson's against John Blakey in the 2000 pre-season (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p76ad8wukI) would get plenty of weeks now, whereas then, it was just a great, fair hit.

This is a shit state of affairs - i thought Maxwell's bump was great, and i think Maxwell is a massive flog.

For a good shirtfront, just refer back to the 2000 preseason Final where JJ smashed one of the Norf players...best shirtfront I had seen in many a year. Was off the ball and would probably get 2 to 4 weeks in the soft day and age of non-contact football...

Ummmm...i specifically mentioned the JJ hit on John Blakey in the 2000 pre-season match in the post of mine that you quoted, and even provided the youtube link to the incident .

[Madden]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5p76ad8wukI&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5p76ad8wukI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I remember this vividly. Was awesome.

And Jim I agree with your comments about bumping effectively being banned already. And its shit.

[Crazyman]

Ummmm...i specifically mentioned the JJ hit on John Blakey in the 2000 pre-season match in the post of mine that you quoted, and even provided the youtube link to the incident .

oops...didn't read the whole thread...saw the youtube link but can't access at work...I have been trying to find that for ages...

Anyway, now I know the link, I will go home and watch it with glee

[Western Red]

Great bump!
Crap decision!

The issue has come up as it was on a kid and in the first game of the season. Doubt it would get the same coverage or decision after say round 10.

[rockhole]

When is the appeal being heard???

Maybe they could use Didak as a character witness!!

[swoodley]

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