New Collingwood Captain

[Interceptor]

League guilty of injuring tradition

Michael Gleeson | February 18, 2009

ADRIAN Anderson (AFL) has been charged by the match review panel with a level-four offence for making forceful front-on contact with the tradition of the game.

Anderson is charged with rough contact in so much as his officers have sought to eliminate an accepted method of play, namely bumping an opponent.

The incident was assessed as intentional conduct (three points), high impact (three points) and body contact (one point). This is a total of seven activation points, resulting in a classification of a level-four offence, drawing 425 demerit points and a four-match ban. An early guilty plea reduces the penalty by 25 per cent and a three-match ban.

The summary of the offence is as follows: regardless of the AFL Tribunal's decision last night, the AFL's match review panel ruled that in its view it was negligent to bump, no matter how legally executed, if contact results in injury.

Anderson, as official custodian of the game, has instructed an interpretation of the rules such that a legal act can simultaneously be deemed an illegal act.

The circumstances of the breach were exposed in the Nick Maxwell case last night. Maxwell challenged player Patrick McGinnity of West Coast, who was parrying the ball near the boundary line.

Crucially, Maxwell opted against tackling McGinnity and chose to execute a bump, a choice hitherto available to the player, and given McGinnity was not in possession of the ball a tackle was not available to Maxwell. McGinnity was knocked over the boundary line and unfortunately will remain there for 10 weeks as his jaw was displaced in the clash.

The action, observed by the umpire, was considered undeserving of a free kick as Maxwell's elbow was down and his feet on the ground, and the West Coast player was in close proximity to the football and thus could have expected the contact.

It was, remember, an action that has been considered not only legal but a worthy part of the game until now. Thus the offence was to have injured.

Anderson's department has decreed that where the player has chosen to bump instead of tackle, he must wear the consequences if a player is injured. It is presumed that a player bumping, not tackling, is invariably seeking to maliciously injure.

Players, we are reminded, must observe a duty of care not to injure another. On that basis it would seem negligence extends to entering any contest during a football game lest an opponent — or teammate — is injured. Even accidentally.

St Kilda player Robert Eddy was also injured last weekend and will now miss a month because an umpire collided with him. The umpire's action was not negligence. It was an accident.


http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/league-injures-tradition/2009/02/17/1234632812116.html

[smithy]

Comment Wally May ?

[JK]

Great article

[HH3]

Exactly my point...

everything maxwell did was LEGAL...but because someone got hurt hes suspended...

so if you lay a good tackle and someone gets hurt...your gone for games...

soon theres gonna be no contests...itll be like basketball where the opposition just stands in front of you waving their arms waiting to try and intercept a handpass...WEAK

[Adelaide Hawk]

Exactly my point...

everything maxwell did was LEGAL...but because someone got hurt hes suspended...

so if you lay a good tackle and someone gets hurt...your gone for games...

soon theres gonna be no contests...itll be like basketball where the opposition just stands in front of you waving their arms waiting to try and intercept a handpass...WEAK

Yes, and that's how most most thinking football supporters view it.

I was listening to Grant Thomas on SEN yesterday and he said Maxwell's act was something from 20 years ago and had no place in today's football. Then, he goes on to say there is too much uncontested play and they have to find ways for more physical contests.

Unbelievable. If you take what Maxwell did out of the game, players will be careful not to engage in any form of contact for fear of an accident being interpreted as a deliberate act.

When people say the game is soft, they're not talking about the players. They are as hard as ever. However, the game itself is becoming soft, and far less enjoyable to watch.

It's time the AFL accept the fact that they are responsible for a physical game, with rules that allow for physical contact. Nowhere in those RULES do they differentiate between an incident where a player has or has not been injured as a result of that contact.

Maxwell did everything right in accordance with the rules of the game, and yet he has received a 4 match suspension for doing so. That, I will never understand.

[Psyber]

..... Maxwell did everything right in accordance with the rules of the game, and yet he has received a 4 match suspension for doing so. That, I will never understand.

If what he did was "in accordance with the rules of the game", suspending him doesn't make sense.
I haven't seen the incident on TV, and, as I didn't play football, and haven't been to matches in the last 10 years my knowledge of the rules is a bit hazy.
The issue then is whether this type of play should be part of the game.
I would expect most of those who played it would say, "Yes", since those of us who thought otherwise played some other sport.
[I come from a long lived family, and, even in my early teens, didn't want to be permanently injured very early in my life - and it worked. ]

[HH3]

Campbell Brown did the exact same thing in the International Rules. He got suspended ONLY because the rules for International Rules are different to AFL...

He got a standing ovation from the crowd...im pretty sure even the AFL defended him saying "that is instinct in AFL football, its hard for someone whos done that his whole life to change how he goes about playing football".

Its just vey confusing to me...there was nothing wrong with AFL in the past...

If the AFL think making our game more like Gaelic is a good thing they are dead wrong...most people watched the IR series because they enjoy the physicality Australia shows...now that they cant do that it was the most boring IR series ive ever seen...

[Adelaide Hawk]

Maxwell did everything right in accordance with the rules of the game, and yet he has received a 4 match suspension for doing so. That, I will never understand.

I rest my case

Justice has been served.

[Dogwatcher]

Exactly my point...

everything maxwell did was LEGAL...but because someone got hurt hes suspended...

so if you lay a good tackle and someone gets hurt...your gone for games...

soon theres gonna be no contests...itll be like basketball where the opposition just stands in front of you waving their arms waiting to try and intercept a handpass...WEAK

Yes, and that's how most most thinking football supporters view it.

I was listening to Grant Thomas on SEN yesterday and he said Maxwell's act was something from 20 years ago and had no place in today's football. Then, he goes on to say there is too much uncontested play and they have to find ways for more physical contests.

Unbelievable. If you take what Maxwell did out of the game, players will be careful not to engage in any form of contact for fear of an accident being interpreted as a deliberate act.

When people say the game is soft, they're not talking about the players. They are as hard as ever. However, the game itself is becoming soft, and far less enjoyable to watch.

It's time the AFL accept the fact that they are responsible for a physical game, with rules that allow for physical contact. Nowhere in those RULES do they differentiate between an incident where a player has or has not been injured as a result of that contact.

Maxwell did everything right in accordance with the rules of the game, and yet he has received a 4 match suspension for doing so. That, I will never understand.

Great post AH.