THE BUMP is back after the AFL Appeals Board upheld Collingwood’s bid to clear skipper Nick Maxwell on Friday morning.

Outed for four weeks on Tuesday night for his bump on West Coast youngster Patrick McGinnity, Maxwell is now free to play in Collingwood’s NAB Cup quarter-final against Richmond on Thursday.

More importantly, he is free to lead his team out when the home-and away season gets under way.

Appeals Board members Peter O’Callaghan QC, Brian Collis QC and John Winneke QC created history by upholding Collingwood’s challenge.

Since the current judicial system came into place in 2005, all 10 attempts to overturn tribunal decisions have failed.

After a surprisingly eventful 90-minute hearing, the Appeals Board took less than five minutes to deliver their verdict.

“The board is of the view that this appeal should be upheld and the reasons will be published in due course,” Appeals chairman O’Callaghan said.

There were smiles all round from the Magpies entourage – which included president Eddie McGuire, chief executive Gary Pert and football manager Geoff Walsh.

Maxwell said he was relieved he was free to play, and wished McGinnity well in a recovery which will take at least 12 weeks.

"I feel great that we've been vindicated in this," Maxwell said of Collingwood's decision to fight his case.

"I'd also like to wish Patrick McGinnity all the best in his recovery and hope he comes back and has a long and distinguished AFL career."

Maxwell again sat beside player advocate Terry Forrest, QC, but was not called upon to give evidence during the appeal process.

To add further drama to the morning the AFL’s legal counsel, Jeff Gleeson, called an unorthodox 10-minute break an hour into proceedings. Things were looking up for the Magpies at the time, and this only heightened their hopes.

Upon resuming, it had been found that an error of law had been made with regards to a question asked of Tuesday night’s jury panel – something that might have played a key factor in finding Maxwell guilty.

Earlier in the hearing Forrest, with a new audience in front of him, re-worked his argument from earlier in the week.

On Wednesday morning Collingwood lodged its appeal on the basis that the AFL Tribunal’s decision was “so unreasonable that no tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it.”

And, in the fresh faces of the Appeals Board, Forrest seemed to have a receptive crowd.

Maxwell had been found guilty of rough conduct on Tuesday night, the tribunal finding he did have a “reasonable alternative” to contest the ball.

The prospect of a victory had appeared bright for the Pies’ throughout Tuesday night’s hearing, however from early on in Friday morning’s hearing they seemed even brighter.

Former long-time tribunal boss Brian Collis noted at one point: “The laws of the game permit you can shepherd if the ball is within 5m of the contest”.

While again going through video footage of the incident that left McGinnity with a broken jaw, Forrest emphasised the proximity of the ball to the boundary line.

“It’s also relative to the contest … it’s within 5m,” O’Callaghan said.

In summing up his argument on Friday, Gleeson again questioned Maxwell’s decision to shepherd – the basis on which the Tribunal found the Pies’ skipper guilty earlier in the week.

But Forrest refuted that in his closing.

He said Maxwell putting his head over the ball, with two players bearing down on him at great speed was not a “reasonable alternative”, saying Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse would be livid at his skipper for giving up a two-on-one advantage.

“What is Mr Maxwell to do in this situation?” Forrest said, suggesting that pulling out of the contest was laughable.

“Oh, I’m a tenth of a second away from this contest, I’m only the captain … sorry Mick!”

With Appeals chairman Peter O’Callaghan not divulging the reasons for the board’s decision, it was difficult to know whether it was the error in law that turned the decision in Maxwell’s favour or whether it was Forrest’s persuasive manner with a new audience.

But the board’s reasons will make for interesting reading.