By now most fans would have heard about the Nick Maxwell tribunal fiasco that has been all the talk in the AFL for the last two weeks.
Putting aside the laws of the Tribunal system. The facts are:
- It was high contact.
- He broke his jaw (personally I don’t believe the injury accord should influence the decision)
- It was out of play, Pat, the ball and Maxwell was outside the boundary line.
- Maxwell had no eyes on the ball at anytime
You be the judge…
The Facts of the Tribunal Process
First Nick Maxwell got four weeks for his bump on Patrick McGinnity and three weeks with an early guilty plea.
The incident was considered as “negligent contact offence” (1 point), “high impact” (3 points) and “high contact” (2 points). This totals 6 points, which results a classification of a Level Three offence, drawing 325 demerit points and a three-match sanction.
Collingwood appealed this and they lost which meant Nick Maxwell got four weeks (due to carry over points). Now Collingwood and some AFL people were not happy with them debating if the bump is gone or not in todays game.
Collingwood again appealed this and today at 9:30 est they met and the latest news is that Nick Maxwell got off totally and his four weeks are now 0 weeks which means he can play next week against Richmond.
The Way to Successfully Argue Against A Suspension
First of all you argue through the media, talk about how this means it is the end of the bump, get parents involved (Hall started this last year) and you lie how if he went for the ball it would have caused injury to McGinnity, Maxwell and the 3rd player Corrie.
Forrest successfully argued that if Maxwell had taken the option of putting his head over the ball rather than bumping McGinnity, it could have resulted in serious injury to both players, as well as Collingwood’s Anthony Corrie, who was nearby.
“We say it is unrealistic in those circumstances, considering a player has a duty of care to the players around him, to put his head over the ball in the particular circumstances,” Forrest told the appeals board.
quoted from afl.com.au
What about the fact that him not going for the ball is what caused an injury, it did not prevent an injury but rather caused an injury?
What this Now Means for this Year & Beyond
Apparently this is the first time in 11 attempts that a club has successfully got the initial result over turned.
On Twitter today I joked that Eddie McGuire is the most important or influential man of todays AFL Football. Guess I was not wrong at all.
Back in the 70′s and 80′s a worrying trend was evident in the then VFL where if your club had money it ensured Premierships, success and the power to control the AFL (more discussed hear). While the salary cup and national draft has helped bring balance its obvious that some clubs still have power to sway decisions their way.
This decision now sets a prescendent for the up and coming bumps and for appealing decisions. If Patrick McGinnity was Chris Judd, Buddy Franklin or a Victorian, I am 200% sure that the initial suspension would stand and the response would be different.
What this now means is that Solomon last year could have appealed and based on this decision should have got off IF ONLY he played for Collingwood or another ‘powerful’ club.
Loading ...
February 20th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I agree with the fact that the afl are being played like guitars, but i also dont agree with the initial suspention, i feel it is all circumstance. Mcginnity tapped the ball back into play, the collingwood player trailing was in position to gather the ball, maxwell as a team player shoud give a shepard, and he did, mcginnity however had stepped back inside to gather the ball and a collision resulted, mcginnity was unaware, yet i feel maxwell had the intent of enforcing a legal shepard. Rule him out we soften football slightly, overturn the rule, we confuse football slightly, leave the bump as legal and it is forgoten! ( This by nomeans implies that solomon’s was legal)
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 10:50 am
I am not saying Solomon’s bump was legal, as it was not but imo as stated by the tribunal ruling, neither was Maxwell’s bump. If you look at the points calculated its obvious 2-3 weeks was fair.
I think what hurts is the fact that Maxwell broke Pat’s jaw which made it “High Impact”. My Solomon remark was a through away line in saying that if he played for Collingwood, he also could have gotten off. Which highlights how much the AFL is pulled and swayed by Collingwood.
Thanks for your comment Michael and I look forward to much more of your input on Kick2Kick.
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Sorry dude, as a passionate Collingwood supporter I think this was the right decision.
I’m not sure that Solomon is a good comparison, he only ever went after the man. Maxwell is a team player and does the team things. Sheparding with the body should always be a legitimate tool of the game. He was not aiming at McGinnity’s head.
The other thing to keep in mind is that when Mike Sheahan comes out in favour of Collingwood, you know that either hell has frozen over or even he knows what the impact of such a decision will make to the status of our game. We can’t take our game to Western Sydney with another version of basketball when they want to see some hard tackling.
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
And really, if Collingwood had any influence, we would have gotten Jason Cloke into the 2002 GF and Rocca into the 2003 GF.
We have no influence!
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Is not Sheparding going after the man? Yes its a part of the game like bumping but when you shepard, you take the risk of taking them high and suffering the circumstances (free kick, report etc) seeing you are no longer after the ball but the man.
Let me say that I did not agree with 3-4 weeks (see my comments) and that you get more “points” against depending on injury BUT the fact that he got off spits in the face (imho) of the system. It goes to show that if you cry loud enough through the media and put pressure on the AFL they will lie down and allow clubs to bully them into submission…
*** Maybe slightly exaggerated I know
I whole heartly agree that AFL has the risk of being soft and I welcome the fact that you can bump someone and not get suspended. The shirt front, bump, shepard etc is a vital part of the game that is fast becoming extinct but if you suspend someone you cannot let him off via the appeal process. To me the issue is why are not the Tribunal and Appeal board on the same page?
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I can’t understand which of these attributes Collingwood managed to argue against:
Negligent contact offense – yep. He wasn’t trying to injure him, but clearly made inappropriate contact
High impact – if you’ve broken a jaw, that’s high impact. Can’t see them arguing out of this one.
High contact – well, the jaw is certainly part of the head.
It’s an absolute crime that McGinnity will be sitting on the sidelines for the next 10 weeks, while Maxwell continues to play for collingwood. I don’t buy into it being all about Collingwood having control, I actually think it’s shown the amount of sway that the media has. They’ve been parading this as the end of the bump, and that’s been the kicker.
It’s a pretty simple proposition for my mind: you can’t break someone’s jaw in a bump. He did, and should have copped at least the 3 weeks he was originally offered.
Geoffs last blog post..After NAB Cup Round 1: What We Know Now
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Maxwell picked McGinnity off. End of story. Not a shepherd in any sense. Disgraceful decision to rescind the suspension.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Maxwell decision a shocker
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Let me pose this then, i mcginnity was to try to smother the ball yet was kicked in the face, would this be considered negligent high contact?
A smother is part of the game much the same as a shepard
Or the other way round mcginnity goes for the smother and land on maxwells knee!
My point is at what stage does an incident which occurs as part of the game become illegal?
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
@Michael – Difference between these imo is that McGinnity or Maxwell would have their eyes on the ball going for the smoother. Maxwell did NOT have his eyes on the ball but at the man when going for the shepard/ bump/ shirt front.
McGinnity’s injury was a result of Maxwell’s illegal actions (hitting him high, eyes of ball & out of play) and not a freak accident like you suggested.
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
from the vision i have seen maxwell could have collected the ball and still made an ‘impact’on young mcginnity. maxwell was too over the top in trying to show that he is the new captain of collingwood. the fact that a young kid in his first game trying to honestly go at the ball will have to sit out close to half the season is a disgrace. 2-4 weeks was fair in my book.
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
@Michael: Shepherd my fat foot. In regard to the other scenarios you pose, in the post shown below on AussieRulesBlog this evening:
If I tackle a player and my arm incidentally brushes his head, I’ll be free-kicked for high contact.
If I am standing my ground and an opponent slides toward me, resulting in his head making contact with my legs, I’m free-kicked for high contact.
If I’m a defender trying to spoil a marking attempt and my arm brushes against my opponent’s head, I’m free-kicked for high contact.
But if I run full out at a bloke and lay my hip and shoulder right down his centre line and his head is struck during the collision resulting in a broken jaw, I’m off scott free!
aussierulesblogs last blog post..How to avoid a free kick for high contact . . .
[Reply to Comment]
February 20th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@aussierulesblog, i understand the rules and i feel that yes it should have been a free kick but no report, al of those scenarios posted can cause damage and pain to the opposition, it is incidental that they dont, as Jermayne said earlier, if mcginnity got strait up it wouldnt have seen the tribunal! I am loving the points though because my mind isnt totally made up!
[Reply to Comment]
February 21st, 2009 at 10:45 am
At the end of the day, you do need to protect the person who has their head over the ball and going for it. Maxwell was not going for the ball but the man, I thought the AFL was trying to cut out this style of play? If the AFL was serious about this, they would make sure:
1) It was a free kick
2) Tribunal fairly judge (injuries should not determine penalty)
3) Appeals board backs up Tribunal.
So for me all three failed the system, fans, Maxwell and Pat McGinnity who is now lying in bed sucking food through a straw.
btw anyone think its cowardly that Maxwell has not even talked to McGinnity yet?
[Reply to Comment]