Author Topic: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games  (Read 10087 times)

Online WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40310
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2009, 07:27:25 AM »

I wonder if the kid DIDN'T suffer a broken jaw if the result would have been the same...


'If'? but he did.

I doubt this will change much at all.

Players have been hit with bumps like that Magic not sustained any injury and there has been no report...

As I said it's terrible the kids copped a broken jaw but that should not determine the penalty opr if there is a penalty/report (which in this case appears to be what has happened).

The contact should determine the penalty and I thought contact was reasonable in the circumstances...

Thank goodness they didn't have this ruling in 1995 or Scotty Turner would have been rubbed out for half a season
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2009, 11:44:22 AM »
The tribunal contradicted themselves on the same day. If Maxwell should have shown a "duty of care" by not bumping McGinnity (even though the rules allow bumping within 5m of the ball and all players should be expecting contact around the ball ::) ) then how did Grover get off with his clenched fist to Polo's head  ???. Just more Anderson logic  :banghead.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 98234
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2009, 12:06:54 PM »
Just announced on SEN that Maxwell and Collingwood are appealing against the decision.

They are saying the suspension will give the Pies extra motivation to stay in the NAB Cup as each week longer they last the fewer games Maxwell has to miss during the H/A season.

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13304
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2009, 03:28:55 PM »
I was reading a post on BB about this which impressed me with its argument.  However I was more impressed by a bomber fan on that forum that can articulate in a coherent way without resorting to abuse.

PS I can't guarentee he didn't lift this from somewhere

http://www.bomberblitz.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47090
"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique" AFL legal Counsel Jeff Gleeson.

This statement is the crux of the entire matter, and reveals that the game is no longer the same. People are bemoaning that the head has always been protected, and that this is nothing new, but they ignore what the logical extension is.

A player can no longer go into a physical clash and know that, even if he does everything absolutely perfectly and within the written rules of the game, he is safe from the side effects. Just consider that for a moment. Not only is he now liable for his own actions, and expected to adhere to a strict code of behaviour, but he is also expected to somehow divine the future and allow for unforseen eventualities. In essence, we now demand that he predict the manifestly unpredictable. In a game that is literally BUILT on it's unpredictableness!

We use a non-predictable ball. Deliberately. We delight in seeing our greatest players track a ball that may bounce to the right one second, then shift back to the left. They prop, they shift their weight, they are in constant and random motion. It is the key to the game. And yet last night we introduced a new factor - you must be held accountable for not predicting what we really don't want you to predict anyway. Supporters of last nights events claim that the bump is not dead, it just has to be delivered correctly. Thing is, even the AFL admit that it was delivered correctly. The only thing Maxwell could have done differently was ......drumroll........ not to bump at all! Yep, Bingo! You've just killed it, in one swoop, without even having to declare it. It's simple: Players cannot now go into a contest, manage their actions perfectly, and be safe from retribution. So they won't. How can they?



Online WilliamPowell

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 40310
  • Better to ignore a fool than encourage one
    • One Eyed Richmond
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2009, 09:26:23 PM »
Very well said from whoever it was ... covers my view on it perfectly

Good find Chuck  :thumbsup
"Oh yes I am a dreamer, I still see us flying high!"

from the song "Don't Walk Away" by Pat Benatar 1988 (Wide Awake In Dreamland)

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2009, 04:36:19 PM »
I was reading a post on BB about this which impressed me with its argument.  However I was more impressed by a bomber fan on that forum that can articulate in a coherent way without resorting to abuse.

PS I can't guarentee he didn't lift this from somewhere

http://www.bomberblitz.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=47090
"We acknowledge the shepherd was executed with a good technique" AFL legal Counsel Jeff Gleeson.

This statement is the crux of the entire matter, and reveals that the game is no longer the same. People are bemoaning that the head has always been protected, and that this is nothing new, but they ignore what the logical extension is.

A player can no longer go into a physical clash and know that, even if he does everything absolutely perfectly and within the written rules of the game, he is safe from the side effects. Just consider that for a moment. Not only is he now liable for his own actions, and expected to adhere to a strict code of behaviour, but he is also expected to somehow divine the future and allow for unforseen eventualities. In essence, we now demand that he predict the manifestly unpredictable. In a game that is literally BUILT on it's unpredictableness!

We use a non-predictable ball. Deliberately. We delight in seeing our greatest players track a ball that may bounce to the right one second, then shift back to the left. They prop, they shift their weight, they are in constant and random motion. It is the key to the game. And yet last night we introduced a new factor - you must be held accountable for not predicting what we really don't want you to predict anyway. Supporters of last nights events claim that the bump is not dead, it just has to be delivered correctly. Thing is, even the AFL admit that it was delivered correctly. The only thing Maxwell could have done differently was ......drumroll........ not to bump at all! Yep, Bingo! You've just killed it, in one swoop, without even having to declare it. It's simple: Players cannot now go into a contest, manage their actions perfectly, and be safe from retribution. So they won't. How can they?



Awesome post. Totally agree :clapping


ps. the late great man did say Essendon supporters are Collingwood supporters who could read and write  ;D
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline Mr Magic

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6887
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2009, 04:51:41 PM »
The only issue I have in this incident is whether Maxwell's head catapulted into McGinty's jaw accidentally or whether it was his shoulder.
If it's Maxwell's head, he gets off as with accidental contact.
If it's his shoulder then the contact is too high and and no accident at all.
The AFL obviously think it's the later, lest I hope that they do. :-\

Still reckon all of this is a storm in a teacup regardless.
To suggest this will be the end of legal bumps is laughable.
Might iron out the odd illegal one though.

I also think people are confused about why 4 weeks.
The suspension isn't 4 weeks for a bump, it's 4 weeks because of Maxwell's carry over history and the appeal.
Most likely it was a 1/2 week suspension.

Storm in a tea cup.





Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2009, 08:06:24 PM »
Pretty sure from the slow motion replay it was a head clash that resulted in McGinnity having his jaw broken. You're right Magic that Maxwell's priors bumped (excuse the pun) the penalty up to 4 weeks. If he had had a cleansheet and taken the early plea he would've got only 1 week.

The AFL consider Maxwell had a 'duty of care' and if he had gone directly for the ball instead of the bump (ie. he had another option) then no head clash would've have resulted and no injury. What I would argue is bumping is large part of our game tactically and Maxwell did the team thing bumping McGinnity 'fairly' out of the contest which allowed his teammate to freely run onto the loose ball. If he had gone for the ball it then becomes a 50/50 contest. It's unfortunate the kid ended up with a broken jaw but it was an incidental/accidental headclash and footy is a collision/contact sport. You're never going to remove collision injuries sadly. Just ask Browny  :(.

All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13304
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2009, 11:10:05 AM »
Over on NBB they reckon Maxwell has been cleared.

Cant find confirmation on net though yet

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13304
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2009, 11:12:15 AM »
Here we go, the bump is back

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25081613-19742,00.html
COLLINGWOOD has created history with captain Nick Maxwell becoming the first player to win an appeal under the new tribunal system. Maxwell overturned a charge of rough conduct and a four-match ban in front of the AFL Appeals Board at league headquarters at Telstra Dome.


Offline F0551L

  • One Eyed Richmond Gold member "eat em alive" Marching on to Victory in the
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Strong and Bold
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #25 on: February 20, 2009, 12:13:39 PM »
 phew  common sense ( not as common as it ued to be thanks to all the bloody law and rules we NEED to have  :banghead :banghead) has finally prevailed  cant wait to hear all the bigs girls blouse supporters whinging on talkback radio tonight  :chuck :chuck :chuck  gimme a break
EAT EM ALIVE 2016 TIGERS


Retired to the Bench

Offline Chuck17

  • The Shaun Grugg of OER
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13304
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2009, 10:14:40 PM »
LOL at the umpire in the last qtr in the Blues vs Norths match letting out a big "oh poo" on a shocker of a bounce.

Also at Garland (sp?), if I heard right Buddy's cousin who weighs about 50kgs, couldn't look less like Buddy in build

Offline DallasCrane

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 932
  • roll on 2011
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2009, 10:47:58 PM »
I think Carlton are looking good this year, hate to say that, bodes well for a great game rnd 1 though
Experience is a good school. But the fees are high.
Heinrich Heine

Offline mightytiges

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 58597
  • Eat 'Em Alive!
    • oneeyed-richmond.com
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #28 on: February 21, 2009, 12:00:12 AM »
I think Carlton are looking good this year, hate to say that, bodes well for a great game rnd 1 though
Agree DC. 80-90k crowd minimum. Both sides coming into round 1 on the back of massive hype.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be - Pink Floyd

Offline Mr Magic

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 6887
Re: NAB Cup: non-Richmond games
« Reply #29 on: February 21, 2009, 12:04:19 PM »
Agree DC. 80-90k crowd minimum. Both sides coming into round 1 on the back of massive hype.

Can both teams make the NAB final?