New Collingwood Captain

[Q.]

Maxwell gets a four-match ban.

Apparently, while the bump was technically correct, he had a realistic alternative to bumping the other lad. The tribunal didn't actually specify what the other alternative was, but surely they can't be suggesting he squib out of a contest?!

[Psyber]

Maxwell gets a four-match ban.

Apparently, while the bump was technically correct, he had a realistic alternative to bumping the other lad. The tribunal didn't actually specify what the other alternative was, but surely they can't be suggesting he squib out of a contest?!

I suspect they may have thought he could have tried to win the ball in preference to taking out a player not yet in possession, and squibbed out on that...

[Q.]

Maxwell gets a four-match ban.

Apparently, while the bump was technically correct, he had a realistic alternative to bumping the other lad. The tribunal didn't actually specify what the other alternative was, but surely they can't be suggesting he squib out of a contest?!

I suspect they may have thought he could have tried to win the ball in preference to taking out a player not yet in possession, and squibbed out on that...

It was a 2-1 contest, if he takes that ball not only is he going in the wrong direction, but he'll probably be tackled by McGinnity and it's a ball up or throw in. He does what any of us who play or have played football would do and that is throw in a shepherd so his teammate can run onto the ball unopposed. It's elementary football.

[Psyber]

Maxwell gets a four-match ban.

Apparently, while the bump was technically correct, he had a realistic alternative to bumping the other lad. The tribunal didn't actually specify what the other alternative was, but surely they can't be suggesting he squib out of a contest?!

I suspect they may have thought he could have tried to win the ball in preference to taking out a player not yet in possession, and squibbed out on that...

It was a 2-1 contest, if he takes that ball not only is he going in the wrong direction, but he'll probably be tackled by McGinnity and it's a ball up or throw in. He does what any of us who play or have played football would do and that is throw in a shepherd so his teammate can run onto the ball unopposed. It's elementary football.

That wasn't the way it was described in the press, online, or on TV. They seemed to think he could have taken the ball and hand-balled, or just deflected it, to the team mate. I haven't seen it myself.
I get the impression taking out players in preference to winning the ball is "elementary football". I noticed that at 13 and decided to play Hockey, where the ball is the primary object and injuries that may cripple you are genuinely accidents. ["Chicken" Hayes was the school footy coach.]

[Adelaide Hawk]

This "making the ball the object" caper is a load of bunkum. Sometimes in footy, you bump or tackle an opponent in order to push the ball clear for a team mate. You don't always bump to win the footy yourself. Rules of the game says you CAN do it.

Let's face it. This is a new interpretation from the AFL. Every time they introduce something new, the first player reported for it gets a massive penalty in order to set the example. Wait for July to come along, the same incident won't get anywhere near the same penalty.

Bad luck the West Coast kid got injured, but when the day comes a player is not allowed to do what Maxwell did, the game is not worth watching.

[Q.]

I suspect they may have thought he could have tried to win the ball in preference to taking out a player not yet in possession, and squibbed out on that...

It was a 2-1 contest, if he takes that ball not only is he going in the wrong direction, but he'll probably be tackled by McGinnity and it's a ball up or throw in. He does what any of us who play or have played football would do and that is throw in a shepherd so his teammate can run onto the ball unopposed. It's elementary football.

That wasn't the way it was described in the press, online, or on TV. They seemed to think he could have taken the ball and hand-balled, or just deflected it, to the team mate. I haven't seen it myself.
I get the impression taking out players in preference to winning the ball is "elementary football". I noticed that at 13 and decided to play Hockey, where the ball is the primary object and injuries that may cripple you are genuinely accidents. ["Chicken" Hayes was the school footy coach.]

It was a split second decision and it's very instinctive to shepherd your teammate - suggesting that he deliberately tried to 'take out' McGinnity is bollocks. The tribunal even said the bump was technically correct and there was even evidence suggesting that the clash of heads is what broke the kid's jaw.

The bottom line is that the AFL don't want players to bump anymore. Maxwell is being made an example of so that it's firmly in every player's mind right from the start of the season.

[Jimmy_041]

Maxwell gets a four-match ban.

Apparently, while the bump was technically correct, he had a realistic alternative to bumping the other lad. The tribunal didn't actually specify what the other alternative was, but surely they can't be suggesting he squib out of a contest?!

I suspect they may have thought he could have tried to win the ball in preference to taking out a player not yet in possession, and squibbed out on that...

It was a 2-1 contest, if he takes that ball not only is he going in the wrong direction, but he'll probably be tackled by McGinnity and it's a ball up or throw in. He does what any of us who play or have played football would do and that is throw in a shepherd so his teammate can run onto the ball unopposed. It's elementary football.

It a difficult one. He could have gone for the ball but, because of the direction he was running, would have run out of bounds. Bang - free kick for deliberate out of bounds

He chose to take the player out which would have been OK in the 80's but these AFL people dont want to see that.

Interesting point - Did he get caught unawares because of inexperience or was he watching the ball so intensely that he didn't see Maxwell coming - a good question in the "hardness" argument. Would he have been soft if he looked for Maxwell coming?

[Hondo]

I don't think he's being made an example of. As Pup said, for several years now the AFL have been tough on players running past the ball to hit an opponent. Nothing new here. Maxwell saw all the previous suspensions just like the rest of us so he can't see he's being unfairly treated.

As someone said earlier, the issue is that he didn't have to give a blind-sided hip & shoulder in the circumstances. He could have just stood his ground, done a basic shepherd or done nothing because the WC player had lost possession of the ball. The hit achieved nothing of benefit to his team, Maxwell simply took him out. That's why it's 4 weeks.

The game can still be played tough as long as the ball is the sole object.

[JK]

I don't think he's being made an example of. As Pup said, for several years now the AFL have been tough on players running past the ball to hit an opponent. Nothing new here. Maxwell saw all the previous suspensions just like the rest of us so he can't see he's being unfairly treated.

As someone said earlier, the issue is that he didn't have to give a blind-sided hip & shoulder in the circumstances. He could have just stood his ground, done a basic shepherd or done nothing because the WC player had lost possession of the ball. The hit achieved nothing of benefit to his team, Maxwell simply took him out. That's why it's 4 weeks.

The game can still be played tough as long as the ball is the sole object.

Let's say Maxwell had run in and given a gentle shephard, or just blocked McGinnity's path for example ... Will the AFL then create a rule to prevent McGinnity from seeing the obstacle (Maxwell) in front of him and meeting him with force (which would be a natural contact sport instinct), which could see Maxwell injured?

It's been their habit in the past to create yet another rule, when a previous rule creation hasn't provided the outcome they'd hoped for.

Had Maxwell applied the same bump, and McGinnity got up and dusted himself off and re-joined play no worries, would Maxwell still have received a suspension, or the same suspension?

I still don't think the suspension is right, but accept that may well be not "changing with the times".

If accidental high contact still results in suspension, how long until the high mark is taken out of the game? How many players are at risk of copping a knee to the head or face in those situations (as we saw in a Carlton v Essendon game last year) - Yet, somehow, as it's a sacred part of the game, we're prepared to accept accidental head blows in that situation, seem's a bit hypocritical/inconsistent to me.

[HH3]

The hit achieved nothing of benefit to his team, Maxwell simply took him out. That's why it's 4 weeks.

The hit took the opposition player out of the contest, leaving two collingwood players to carry the ball into the 50m to potentially kick a goal. That was a textbook hip and shoulder and it really worries me where the AFL are heading because soon we will have 21 Wanganeens on each team diving when their hair gets messed up. Im not trying to say the game should be all shirtfronts and punch ons but the physical aspect of the game is very important.

I always thought the rule for a shephard was if a player is within 5m of the ball he is fair game. As long as you dont jump and you keep your arm tucked in its fine.

Last season i was running alongside a contest as an option to my team mate who had possession, was running with my head turned sideways toward the contest. An opposition player lined me up from 20m back (or so im told my the players on the bench) and laid one of the best shirtfronts ive ever experienced. I didnt have the ball, and in all honesty was never really a chance of getting the ball, but that hit was entirely within the rules and i was fine with copping it.

No wonder the A-League won the right to play at the Telstra Dome next weekend over the AFL...the soccer will probably be a more physical game...who woulda thunk it!!

[Hondo]

But was it "accidental" high contact CP?

Players get let off when it's clear that their sole object is the footy, and the colateral damage is completely accidental. A good example is the Porplyzia hit last year. Porps was knocked out but the hit was accidental.

I don't think Maxwell could argue his sole object was the footy and the hit on McGinnity was accidental, like the Porps one was.

HH - the hit you took isn't within the rules. At AFL level at least. Don't be an apologist for players that line you up from 20m

[HH3]

But why should a hit be accidental...i had never "accidently" hip and shouldered anyone...

So now if someone gets hip and shouldered by a player with their arm tucked in, feet flat on the ground and knees bent to keep the hit in the legal area, but the player gets broken ribs or a punctured lung, the aggressor will go for games...even tho injuring the player was an accident...

Thats what its coming to...and the game will not be worth watching in 10 years, and then it will go down into amateur footy and it wont be worth playing either...

[Hondo]

So now if someone gets hip and shouldered by a player with their arm tucked in, feet flat on the ground and knees bent to keep the hit in the legal area, but the player gets broken ribs or a punctured lung, the aggressor will go for games...even tho injuring the player was an accident...

No. It's not about the technicalities of a "perfect" hip & shoulder. It's about what the players intention is and where the footy is.

He won't go for games if his sole objective is the footy (ie, the footy is very close to the hit) or if the hit is accidental - ie, Porps incident. If the injury suffered by the other player dictated how many games suspension the Carlton lad would have got 4 weeks too.

Maxwell's problem was that the ball was 2m away when he hit McGinity. It's as simple as that.

[Dirko]

If the injury suffered by the other player dictated how many games suspension the Carlton lad would have got 4 weeks too.

What Carlton lad Hondo ?

[JK]

But was it "accidental" high contact CP?

Fair call ... Certainly didn't look deliberate to me, but I guess only Maxwell will know the intent.

Generally in footy though, unless you've "tagged" someone earlier in the game for a hit, you're not thinking of the impact on on a player in a split second situation like that.

The AFL hierachy have done a good job of cleaning the game up, let's face it there's nothing untoward today that went on years ago, and whilst I know they have to stay on top of that they need to ensure it doesn't change the fabric of the game.

Sadly IMHO, that's not happening.

[Adelaide Hawk]

Maxwell's problem was that the ball was 2m away when he hit McGinity. It's as simple as that.

Which rule says he isn't allowed to do that?

[Q.]

Let's say Maxwell had run in and given a gentle shephard, or just blocked McGinnity's path for example ... Will the AFL then create a rule to prevent McGinnity from seeing the obstacle (Maxwell) in front of him and meeting him with force (which would be a natural contact sport instinct), which could see Maxwell injured?

You make a great point CP. Going half-heartedly at a contest is a great way to get yourself cleaned up.

[MatteeG]

[quote="Constance_Perm] Had Maxwell applied the same bump, and McGinnity got up and dusted himself off and re-joined play no worries, would Maxwell still have received a suspension, or the same suspension?
[/quote]

Of course not CP- If Koschitske had gotten up from Giansiracusa's bump nothing would have been made of it either. Basically you can bump someone, but dont injure them.

I still stand by my original comment that the suspension is wrong and not within the traditional spirit of the game.

Maybe myself, like others, just arent moving with the times. If thats the case in a few years time I could be looking for a new sport to follow. Thank god for SANFL, where hits are still hits (for the time being).

[HH3]

Maxwell's problem was that the ball was 2m away when he hit McGinity. It's as simple as that.

Which rule says he isn't allowed to do that?

The rule as i understand it and have alluded to about 2 posts ago was that if any player is within 5m of the ball you can shephard him off it...you can overrun the ball and hit him, you can throw your arms out and block his path etc...

If you look at the hit maxwell laid he got as low as he could. The only reason the kids jaw got broken was because he is shorter than maxwell...and if you watch the replay a couple of times it does look like it was a clash of heads.

The AFL think that because an injury accorded Maxwell "wanted" to do it, even planned to injure the kid...i know ive never wanted to injure anyone intentionally, and i go at the player if its a 2 on 1 situation to free up my team mate to get the ball under no pressure...and i rarely give away free kicks...ive never been reported in my life...

[Q.]

Maxwell's problem was that the ball was 2m away when he hit McGinity. It's as simple as that.

Which rule says he isn't allowed to do that?

The rule as i understand it and have alluded to about 2 posts ago was that if any player is within 5m of the ball you can shephard him off it...you can overrun the ball and hit him, you can throw your arms out and block his path etc...

If you look at the hit maxwell laid he got as low as he could. The only reason the kids jaw got broken was because he is shorter than maxwell...and if you watch the replay a couple of times it does look like it was a clash of heads.

The AFL think that because an injury accorded Maxwell "wanted" to do it, even planned to injure the kid...i know ive never wanted to injure anyone intentionally, and i go at the player if its a 2 on 1 situation to free up my team mate to get the ball under no pressure...and i rarely give away free kicks...ive never been reported in my life...

And the kid had no awareness at all.