Bone crunching tackles!

[Gershwin]

That’s what I want to see this year from our players - BONE CRUNCHING TACKLES.

None of these half-hearted attempts to stop someone. Stop him in his tracks and bring him to the ground! Then they will think twice about “running the linesâ€

[S.A Saint]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

[Mr Magic]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

You don't think a broken jaw is 'taking it over board'?

It will be very interesting to see what the MRP/Tribunal do with this incident given taht they warned players before last season about teh tackler/shepherder/bumper's 'duty of care' to teh 'victim'?

[yipper]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

You don't think a broken jaw is 'taking it over board'?

It will be very interesting to see what the MRP/Tribunal do with this incident given taht they warned players before last season about teh tackler/shepherder/bumper's 'duty of care' to teh 'victim'?

Looked ok to me. Hip and shoulder bump. Hit him hard no doubt - but absolutely no different to Archer's "welcome to the AFL" that he delivered to Lenny Hayes in his debut game!!!

[chook23]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

You don't think a broken jaw is 'taking it over board'?

It will be very interesting to see what the MRP/Tribunal do with this incident given taht they warned players before last season about teh tackler/shepherder/bumper's 'duty of care' to teh 'victim'?

Looked ok to me. Hip and shoulder bump. Hit him hard no doubt - but absolutely no different to Archer's "welcome to the AFL" that he delivered to Lenny Hayes in his debut game!!!

Maxwell appeared to do everything right to execute a "fair" hip and shoulder........

BUT even if everything tucked in and executed well...........

IF contact is made to the head...........he is gone.

no longer a fair hip and shoulder.

If the player broke his jaw when his head hit the ground......different.

but would be very unusual.

[yipper]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

You don't think a broken jaw is 'taking it over board'?

It will be very interesting to see what the MRP/Tribunal do with this incident given taht they warned players before last season about teh tackler/shepherder/bumper's 'duty of care' to teh 'victim'?

Looked ok to me. Hip and shoulder bump. Hit him hard no doubt - but absolutely no different to Archer's "welcome to the AFL" that he delivered to Lenny Hayes in his debut game!!!

Maxwell appeared to do everything right to execute a "fair" hip and shoulder........

BUT even if everything tucked in and executed well...........

IF contact is made to the head...........he is gone.

no longer a fair hip and shoulder.

If the player broke his jaw when his head hit the ground......different.

but would be very unusual.

May depend on whether or not Maxwell jumped at point of impact. If feet on the ground and everything tucked in - then contact to head incidental in my opinion. May have connected with top of shoulder. Kid left himself wide open in my view - lack of awareness.

[HarveysDeciple]

thought it was a perfect bump from Maxwell.

Should see more of it

[chook23]

thought it was a perfect bump from Maxwell.

Should see more of it

but not if contact is made to the head under the current rules....

may go for negligent

below rule adjusted 2007

1. Protecting the head, neck and groin.
2. Simplifications.
3. Other.
1. Protecting the head, neck and groin
1.1 Specific offence of bumping a player front-on with his head
down over the ball.
The AFL Commission, in November 2006, approved a new reportable offence in the Laws of the Game, as follows:
19.2 Reportable Offences
19.2.2 Specific Offences
(g) Intentionally, recklessly or negligently…
(xi) Bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from
front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
• A player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any
contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on.• A player with his head down in anticipation of winning possession
of the ball or after contesting the ball will be deemed to have his
head down over the ball for the purposes of this law.
Strict sanctions will apply for this offence, as follows:
Level 1 125 points
Level 2 250 points
Level 3 400 points
Level 4 550 points
Level 5 750 points
Negligent has been amended to provide that bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from front-on when that player has his head down over the ball, unless intentional or reckless, will be deemed to be negligent unless:
a. The player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
b. The bump or forceful contact was caused by circumstances outside
the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen.
1.2 Other bumps to the head or neck
A number of submissions on this subject supported a stronger stance against head-high bumps and clarification of what constitutes a reportable bump. In 2007, any bump causing forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck will be reportable for rough conduct, unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.
A definition has been added as follows:
“A player shall engage in rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable where in bumping an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to an opponent’s head or neck. Unless intentional or reckless such conduct shall be deemed to be negligent unless the player did not have a realistic alternative to:
a. Contest the ball;
b. Tackle; or
c. Shepherd in a manner which was reasonable in the circumstances.â€

[Life Long Saint]

May depend on whether or not Maxwell jumped at point of impact. If feet on the ground and everything tucked in - then contact to head incidental in my opinion. May have connected with top of shoulder. Kid left himself wide open in my view - lack of awareness.

There is nothing in the rules that refers to feet on the ground or off the ground.

If you initiate the contact and it is head high then you are in trouble...Unless you are Matthew Whelan and you bump Luke Ball.

[chook23]

May depend on whether or not Maxwell jumped at point of impact. If feet on the ground and everything tucked in - then contact to head incidental in my opinion. May have connected with top of shoulder. Kid left himself wide open in my view - lack of awareness.

There is nothing in the rules that refers to feet on the ground or off the ground.
If you initiate the contact and it is head high then you are in trouble...Unless you are Matthew Whelan and you bump Luke Ball.

There is now see above rule

[yipper]

Reckon he'll be right chook. Kid had his head up not down, ought to have expected contact - i.e. not unreasonable to be hit in that position, Maxwell's feet (I think) did not leave the ground, took all necessary precautions in the split second he had in my view - hit him front on for sure, but not an unreasonable or excessive hit. Feet on the ground is the key fior Maxwell.

[plugger66]

Reckon he'll be right chook. Kid had his head up not down, ought to have expected contact - i.e. not unreasonable to be hit in that position, Maxwell's feet (I think) did not leave the ground, took all necessary precautions in the split second he had in my view - hit him front on for sure, but not an unreasonable or excessive hit. Feet on the ground is the key fior Maxwell.

The feet on or off the ground have no bearing on the result. If he was hit in the head then he will go even if it was an accident as that is the new rule from last season.

[yipper]

Reckon he'll be right chook. Kid had his head up not down, ought to have expected contact - i.e. not unreasonable to be hit in that position, Maxwell's feet (I think) did not leave the ground, took all necessary precautions in the split second he had in my view - hit him front on for sure, but not an unreasonable or excessive hit. Feet on the ground is the key fior Maxwell.

The feet on or off the ground have no bearing on the result. If he was hit in the head then he will go even if it was an accident as that is the new rule from last season.

It just comes down to whether or not the bump was a reasonable hit and that Maxwell did all he could to avoid head high contact. It looked in the play, the kid did not have his head down, and Maxwell did not leave the ground so as to hit him high, and he had everything tucked in. Don't know what more he could do.

[chook23]

just announced Maxwell 3 weeks if pleads

does has form so indicated in above penalty.

Thought he would have to go under the exisisting rules.

[chook23]

Reckon he'll be right chook. Kid had his head up not down, ought to have expected contact - i.e. not unreasonable to be hit in that position, Maxwell's feet (I think) did not leave the ground, took all necessary precautions in the split second he had in my view - hit him front on for sure, but not an unreasonable or excessive hit. Feet on the ground is the key fior Maxwell.

The feet on or off the ground have no bearing on the result. If he was hit in the head then he will go even if it was an accident as that is the new rule from last season.

It just comes down to whether or not the bump was a reasonable hit and that Maxwell did all he could to avoid head high contact. It looked in the play, the kid did not have his head down, and Maxwell did not leave the ground so as to hit him high, and he had everything tucked in. Don't know what more he could do.

tackle

I agree the bump was executed OK but UNDER the current rules if you choose to bump rather than tackle and there is head high contact you
are likely to be in trouble.

[terry smith rules]

never cease to amaze me how many people on here live in the 70s as to what is tough play

if the wc boy was a sainter you would be calling for maxwells head.

fqf

[Mr Magic]

Reckon he'll be right chook. Kid had his head up not down, ought to have expected contact - i.e. not unreasonable to be hit in that position, Maxwell's feet (I think) did not leave the ground, took all necessary precautions in the split second he had in my view - hit him front on for sure, but not an unreasonable or excessive hit. Feet on the ground is the key fior Maxwell.

The feet on or off the ground have no bearing on the result. If he was hit in the head then he will go even if it was an accident as that is the new rule from last season.

It just comes down to whether or not the bump was a reasonable hit and that Maxwell did all he could to avoid head high contact. It looked in the play, the kid did not have his head down, and Maxwell did not leave the ground so as to hit him high, and he had everything tucked in. Don't know what more he could do.

tackle

I agree the bump was executed OK but UNDER the current rules if you choose to bump rather than tackle and there is head high contact you
are likely to be in trouble.

Correct chook23, which is why I made my original post in this thread re Maxwell's actions.

The AFL have made it perfectly clear. If you choose to lay a bump rather then tackle, then the onus is on you to 'protect' your opponents head/neck area. Any collision (other than accidental head clash) that causes your opponent's head/neck area to be struck is entirely your fault and you will pay the consequences for it.

BTW, where was the footy in this incident?
Did either player have it?
Or did Maxwell just choose to deliberately 'take out' the WCE player?

[yipper]

Reckon he'll be right chook. Kid had his head up not down, ought to have expected contact - i.e. not unreasonable to be hit in that position, Maxwell's feet (I think) did not leave the ground, took all necessary precautions in the split second he had in my view - hit him front on for sure, but not an unreasonable or excessive hit. Feet on the ground is the key fior Maxwell.

The feet on or off the ground have no bearing on the result. If he was hit in the head then he will go even if it was an accident as that is the new rule from last season.

It just comes down to whether or not the bump was a reasonable hit and that Maxwell did all he could to avoid head high contact. It looked in the play, the kid did not have his head down, and Maxwell did not leave the ground so as to hit him high, and he had everything tucked in. Don't know what more he could do.

tackle

I agree the bump was executed OK but UNDER the current rules if you choose to bump rather than tackle and there is head high contact you
are likely to be in trouble.

Yeah, poor rule in my view. Most of us punters love the physicality of the game. It was a very good hit in my view. Hope he challenges it.

[S.A Saint]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

You don't think a broken jaw is 'taking it over board'?

It will be very interesting to see what the MRP/Tribunal do with this incident given taht they warned players before last season about teh tackler/shepherder/bumper's 'duty of care' to teh 'victim'?

its not like he hit him on the jaw...from watching the game the other night it was a solid hitting running at full speed both players....i don't think he was expecting the hit...

as much as i hate the filth i wouldn't want to see maxwell get rubbed out for this instant..in the past he has been a reckless bloke but i believe this hit was fair and square....

[yipper]

never cease to amaze me how many people on here live in the 70s as to what is tough play

if the wc boy was a sainter you would be calling for maxwells head.

fqf

Not condoning any violebnt acts on the footy ground at all. Head high contact should be avoided at all costs. But, and it is only my opinion, Maxwell took the option to bump instead of tackle in the manner of a shepherd - the kid did not have the ball, but was pursuing his opponent who did have it. Therefore a tackle was a free kick. So he laid a heavy shepherd instead, within 5 metres of the ball, and did it in a responsible way. Can't really see why we need to come down harshly on him for that. This is AFL and we do expect to see the elite players going at it very hard, Glen Archer and Aaron Hamill would never take backward steps. Hamill broke Ackermanis's collarbone with a legitimate bump / shephard. It is part of the game. If it was a saints player on the receiving end then so be it.

[HarveysDeciple]

if the rule is outlawing those sorts of bumps, then it's going the wrong way.

By all means protect players heads but footy is still a phyiscal game.

Nothing like a good shirtfront.

[Mr Magic]

spot on...and when we are blocking for our players we should aim also to hit other opponent hard so that they feel it not a little soft bump.... take nick maxwell for example the other night with that hip and shoulder...he didn't have to do it that hard but when he hit him the kid stayed down...that's what i want to see from our players more aggression without taking it over board....

You don't think a broken jaw is 'taking it over board'?

It will be very interesting to see what the MRP/Tribunal do with this incident given taht they warned players before last season about teh tackler/shepherder/bumper's 'duty of care' to teh 'victim'?

its not like he hit him on the jaw.....

Well what broke the jaw if it wasn't Maxwell?
There's no suggestion it was broken by the turf when he hit the ground, so it can only be Maxwell's shirtfront that did the damage.

There's absolutely no rule stopping any player delivering a shirtfront.
BUT you hit your opponent in the head and you have to suffer the consequences.

[Mr Magic]

never cease to amaze me how many people on here live in the 70s as to what is tough play

if the wc boy was a sainter you would be calling for maxwells head.

fqf

Not condoning any violebnt acts on the footy ground at all. Head high contact should be avoided at all costs. But, and it is only my opinion, Maxwell took the option to bump instead of tackle in the manner of a shepherd - the kid did not have the ball, but was pursuing his opponent who did have it. Therefore a tackle was a free kick. So he laid a heavy shepherd instead, within 5 metres of the ball, and did it in a responsible way. Can't really see why we need to come down harshly on him for that. This is AFL and we do expect to see the elite players going at it very hard, Glen Archer and Aaron Hamill would never take backward steps. Hamill broke Ackermanis's collarbone with a legitimate bump / shephard. It is part of the game. If it was a saints player on the receiving end then so be it.

So when did a shepherd stop being holding your arms out to 'shepherd' and become a full on charge at a player attempting to (legally) inflict the most damage you can?

Anybody recall X Clarke vs Geelong from last season?
The Geelong player was only'shepherding' his teammate from X - although X wasn't actually chasing him at the time!

The truth is that this change in tactic from what used to be a 'shepherd' to the current version of 'taking out' the chasing player is, IMHO, the reason we keep getting these types of incidents.

There are too many of these serious injuries occuring and almost all of them are attributable to the 'attacking player' choosing to 'bump' the 'chasing player' rather than 'shepherd' him away.

Giansiracusa's bump on Kosi?
West on X Clarke?
Whelan on Ball?

All three incidents occured when the Saints player was chasing an opposition player with the footy and on each occasion they were 'taken out' by 'bumps' rather than 'shepherds'.

The AFL obviously had seen enough of these types of incidents and changed the rules accordingly.

[chook23]

if the rule is outlawing those sorts of bumps, then it's going the wrong way.

By all means protect players heads but footy is still a phyiscal game.

Nothing like a good shirtfront.

but without head contact......
taken me a while to come too grips coming from 'old school'

I agree nothing like a good shirt front but now be aware of the current rules.

[sunsaint]

Anybody recall X Clarke vs Geelong from last season?
The Geelong player was only'shepherding' his teammate from X - although X wasn't actually chasing him at the time!

Leaving aside the inconsistencies of the tribunal.
-the X incident was very different, fair way off the ball and would not be in a position to expect contact.
-Kosi should have expected contact but has no vision/awareness.

very different incidents/levels of impact injury. But same tribunal result.

I thought Maxwell's hit was reasonable. And Im not sure the level of injury should be reason for a charge to be laid in the first place. You could run that smae incident 1000 times and the results would range from no injury to a broken coccyx from being put on your backside. Media witch hunts should not be a factor. Typically the AFL tribunal always wants to stamp its authority early.