Maxwell cleared

[Hondo]

Interesting to see as many ex-players say the suspension shoud have stood, as say the appeal decision was right - including Healy, Greg Williams and Russell Ebert.

For those of you that think this is some sort of win, well it is for Maxwell but all it will mean is the AFL will re-write the rules. They have intimated that already. They are determined to protect the head and neck from risk of injury from avoidable incidents.

In fact, the appeals tribunal decision will only make the AFL more determined so short term win, long term loss (depending on your POV). Despite what some people think, the days of running through blokes with no duty of care are over, like it or not. If the rules aren't clear now about it, they will be. That doesn't mean hard football clashes will disappear BTW.

If that means some of you will stop watching AFL well go for it (bet you don't follow through your bluff tho! )

[Adelaide Hawk]

For a start, who cares what Greg Williams thinks, he was a filthy little sniper. As for Russell Ebert, I wonder if he would have the same attitude if it were Brett Ebert being scrubbed out for 4 matches for playing within the rules. I am guessing not.

You said it yourself Hondo, the AFL will need to re-write the rules. In other words, by the letter of the laws of the game, Maxwell did nothing wrong and should not have to pay the price for some interpretation that's in the minds of the administrators.

If they want to take what Maxwell did out of the game, then write a rule that covers it. In the meantime, don't go around suspending players for doing nothing illegal under the current laws.

THAT is why a lot of people wanted Maxwell cleared, and THAT is why he was eventually cleared.

[Hondo]

AH, even Collingwood's QC recommends the rule be re-written and he has a history of getting guys off based on what he thinks is a poorly written rough conduct rule.

From the AFL's POV, Anderson quotes the current rule as "the onus is placed on a player who elects to bump to do so legitimately. He has a duty to avoid significant contact to an opponent's head or neck where reasonably possible." I can see on that wording how Maxwell got off, in fairness. Seems like too many vague terms. I agree with you, they need to be more specific about what's allowed and what's not. Otherwise the QC's will keep getting these guys off.

It's interesting that the appeals Board includes 3 QC's only one of whom has ever played the game (I think?) v the tribunal which I think is mostly made up of ex-players. What does that tell you about the 2 decisions.

I don't think this is VOTE 1: THE BUMP, instead it's VOTE 0: CURRENT WORDING OF RC RULE

[Jimmy_041]

For a start, who cares what Greg Williams thinks, he was a filthy little sniper. As for Russell Ebert, I wonder if he would have the same attitude if it were Brett Ebert being scrubbed out for 4 matches for playing within the rules. I am guessing not.

You said it yourself Hondo, the AFL will need to re-write the rules. In other words, by the letter of the laws of the game, Maxwell did nothing wrong and should not have to pay the price for some interpretation that's in the minds of the administrators.

If they want to take what Maxwell did out of the game, then write a rule that covers it. In the meantime, don't go around suspending players for doing nothing illegal under the current laws.

THAT is why a lot of people wanted Maxwell cleared, and THAT is why he was eventually cleared.

Hope the fu*%er got a good dose of septicemia from Macca. Didn't know what hit him when he got one straight back

[JK]

For a start, who cares what Greg Williams thinks, he was a filthy little sniper. As for Russell Ebert, I wonder if he would have the same attitude if it were Brett Ebert being scrubbed out for 4 matches for playing within the rules. I am guessing not.

You said it yourself Hondo, the AFL will need to re-write the rules. In other words, by the letter of the laws of the game, Maxwell did nothing wrong and should not have to pay the price for some interpretation that's in the minds of the administrators.

If they want to take what Maxwell did out of the game, then write a rule that covers it. In the meantime, don't go around suspending players for doing nothing illegal under the current laws.

THAT is why a lot of people wanted Maxwell cleared, and THAT is why he was eventually cleared.

Hope the fu*%er got a good dose of septicemia from Macca. Didn't know what hit him when he got one straight back

Not to mention spending the rest of the night looking over his shoulder

[westozfalcon]

I thought the AFL came out about 2 years ago and declared that any contact to the head was an automatic suspension - no exceptions. To illustrate their point they made an example of Michael Johnson of Fremantle giving him 4 weeks for a bump on an opponent nowhere near as bad as the one Maxwell dished out and with no serious injury to the opponent.

It beggars belief. I mean Maxwell actually ran past the ball to collect McGinnity. Why couldn't Maxwell have gone for the ball and left his team mate Corrie to shepherd?

The contact Maxwell made to McGinnity, although without any malice, was unneccesary. He deserved a suspension if for no other reason than to show that when the AFL say that contact to the head is a no-no, they mean it!

The 'ole tribunal inconsistencies are alive and well.

[HH3]

I thought the AFL came out about 2 years ago and declared that any contact to the head was an automatic suspension - no exceptions. To illustrate their point they made an example of Michael Johnson of Fremantle giving him 4 weeks for a bump on an opponent nowhere near as bad as the one Maxwell dished out and with no serious injury to the opponent.

It beggars belief. I mean Maxwell actually ran past the ball to collect McGinnity. Why couldn't Maxwell have gone for the ball and left his team mate Corrie to shepherd?

The contact Maxwell made to McGinnity, although without any malice, was unneccesary. He deserved a suspension if for no other reason than to show that when the AFL say that contact to the head is a no-no, they mean it!

The 'ole tribunal inconsistencies are alive and well.

Corrie was behind McGinnity so theres no way he could have shepharded. If Maxwell took possession of the ball it has been proven in the appeal that all 3 players would most probably have been involved in a big clash...potentially injuring all 3.

[JK]

I thought the AFL came out about 2 years ago and declared that any contact to the head was an automatic suspension - no exceptions.

Do you remember the Fevola mark last year where the brave young Essendon lad backed backward and copped a knee to the head and ended up in la-la land? All good football on both players front (and nothing illegal) as we know it, but it seems exception is made for high marking ... Where's the no-exception part in that?

[Dogwatcher]

I thought the AFL came out about 2 years ago and declared that any contact to the head was an automatic suspension - no exceptions.

It was accidental head contact.
How can a player prevent his head from hitting another when they collide????
The bump was below the shoulders and legal.

I know this is harsh given the kid's injury but would Maxwell have been reported if he'd been knocked out in the collision?
Where is the duty of care for the young Eagles bloke to be aware of bodies around him so as to prevent such clashes - awareness could have seen him step back and avoid the collision knowing he could at least have chased his opponent or been involved in the next contest.

[jointman]

I thought the AFL came out about 2 years ago and declared that any contact to the head was an automatic suspension - no exceptions.

It was accidental head contact.
How can a player prevent his head from hitting another when they collide????
The bump was below the shoulders and legal.

I know this is harsh given the kid's injury but would Maxwell have been reported if he'd been knocked out in the collision?
Where is the duty of care for the young Eagles bloke to be aware of bodies around him so as to prevent such clashes - awareness could have seen him step back and avoid the collision knowing he could at least have chased his opponent or been involved in the next contest.

the afl is soft as now...all worried about getting families to the footy...trying to stop the contact sport...its all about money not about the game anymore...rather go to a local game and watch that rubbish....

[Jimmy_041]

I am true Black and White Four and Twenty Pie Man and I will say:

If they werre consistent, he should have got 3-4.

His sole intention was the man and they have been trying to stamp that out.

They are full of $hit - he probably went to a college............

[jointman]

I am true Black and White Four and Twenty Pie Man and I will say:

If they werre consistent, he should have got 3-4.

His sole intention was the man and they have been trying to stamp that out.

They are full of $hit - he probably went to a college............

if you think he should of got games for that you must be soft aswell...part of the game...cant handle bit of contact dont play the game

[Jimmy_041]

I am true Black and White Four and Twenty Pie Man and I will say:

If they were consistent, he should have got 3-4.

His sole intention was the man and they have been trying to stamp that out.

They are full of $hit - he probably went to a college............

if you think he should of got games for that you must be soft aswell...part of the game...cant handle bit of contact dont play the game

You probably misread my comment

[jointman]

I am true Black and White Four and Twenty Pie Man and I will say:

If they were consistent, he should have got 3-4.

His sole intention was the man and they have been trying to stamp that out.

They are full of $hit - he probably went to a college............

if you think he should of got games for that you must be soft aswell...part of the game...cant handle bit of contact dont play the game

You probably misread my comment

sorry dude i did

[Punk Rooster]

Maxwell is still a massive honmo

?

[Jimmy_041]

Shrek hates honmos

[Pag]

I thought the AFL came out about 2 years ago and declared that any contact to the head was an automatic suspension - no exceptions. To illustrate their point they made an example of Michael Johnson of Fremantle giving him 4 weeks for a bump on an opponent nowhere near as bad as the one Maxwell dished out and with no serious injury to the opponent.

Wasn't that bump a situation where a bloke had his head over the footy and Johnson used his hip to bump the guy front on? Those instances should be stamped out, but a fair bump where a blokes hip and shoulder only make contact with the opposition body and not the head should be legal, as they have been for 100 years. The head-to-head contact was incidental. By your logic, McGinnity should be suspended for also making contact to Maxwell's head.

[Jimmy_041]

I have only just read Cornes' article from yesterday - His usual "holier than thou" attitude might just cost him this time:

Decision an insult to the game
February 21, 2009 12:30am

SO, Nick Maxwell got off. We should not be surprised. Collingwood seems to float above the laws and mores of the game. Ho hum.......here we go again

It is utterly incomprehensible how a player can go from being suspended for four weeks, to being exonerated. No, not really. If a District, then Supreme Court decision can be ultimately overturned by a High Court, it is not incomprehensible at all. The judges on those lower Courts are much smarter men that some ex-footballers

It is equally incomprehensible an appeals board could overturn the sound decision of the AFL tribunal, which found Maxwell guilty of rough conduct. It is only sound in you opinion Cornes - despite your belief that you know everything, you are not the final arbitrator of soundness

Collingwood's advocate argued Maxwell had no reasonable alternative other than to make contact with his West Coast opponent and, amazingly, the appeals panel, consisting of two QCs and a retired judge, agreed with him. Again, just coz you dont like it doesn't mean that it is amazing

It is amazing how such intelligent, eminent men can have such little common sense or football judgment. That one is going to be interesting, but, of course, the only person with common sense or football judgement is Cornes himself

The obvious alternative Maxwell had was to take his eyes off his opponent and attack the ball. So you were sitting in the front row straight in front and saw the whole thing, or, I would suggest, you saw the snippett on TV like everyone else and just decided that you, alone, can know what happened and what he should have done

Anyone could see that. No Cornes - I know this is unbelievable, but a lot of people probably dont agree with you

Admittedly, there is much confusion about what a footballer can and cannot do in today's current climate as the AFL tries to sanitise the game. This verdict will only add to that confusion.

Maxwell is one of my favourite AFL players but there is no place in today's game for a frontal bump – particularly one that breaks an opponent's jaw. Öne of the favourite sayings to deflect criticism of one's views, however, be truthful, it is Collingwood you are attacking in this column not Maxwell - See the final sentence to show you bias

Perhaps Maxwell did not deserve a four-week suspension but he certainly appeared guilty of rough conduct.

Surely it cannot have been the Collingwood influence that got him off? You really have a little man syndrome Cornes

I would expect that the solicitors for the member of the Appeals Board will be reading this tomorrow morning and deciding on a course of action. If Cornes gets issued with a defamation writ (for the umpteenth time) he will, once again, go on a rant about solicitors

How dare they question the word of the self proclaimed Messiah of everytihng in the world today

[Psyber]

All observers see what their bias dictates whether it is live or recorded.
An old joke goes: " Your honour we interviewed the 5 witnesses and here are the 6 accounts of the events."

There are those who see the confrontation, impact, and serious injury risk, as what the game is all about.
There are those who think athletic and ball skills are what it is all about, and the bodily injury risk should be reduced.
The battle is on, and in the end what can be marketed best on TV is what football will become.

I suspect most mothers would prefer their kids played Soccer anyway...

[Adelaide Hawk]

I suspect most mothers would prefer their kids played Soccer anyway...

I often have a bit of a chuckle when I hear comments from the media about mothers not wanting their sons to play football.

I wonder to myself just how many boys have not played football because mum didn't want them to. And of the very small number who didn't, where were the fathers when this decision was being made?

I realise times have changed since I was a kid, but whatever sport I elected to play was my decision, and my parents supported that decision because they would rather see me out enjoying a healthy pastime than sitting on my arse in the mall smoking cigarettes.

I used to come home with all sorts of cuts, bruises and injuries, but never once was there a suggestion from my parents that I shouldn't play ... possibly because I accepted it as part of the game.

Footy's probably not a great environment for "mummy's boys" anyway, so it's possibly best if they not play, but these mum's really need to consider that football has never been a safer sport to play than it is right now.