Do we need big heavy bumps?

[Winmar7Fan]

I know I'm in the minority on this one but just curious to see opinions on this.

Apart from the thrill of seeing a player get seriously hurt or stretchered of the ground with concussion (which does nothing for me at all) I don't understand the need or purpose of the "FAIR bump" or big hip and shoulder at all regardless of whether it's within 5 metres or not.

IMO a player should be able to focus on getting the ball without someone lining him up out of his vision and totally cleaning them up.

It's one of those things that most people love in the game except when it happens to one of their own players.

As far as I'm concerned that one with Giansiracusa on Kosi was a gutless dogs act (no pun intended) regardless of how far off the ball it was. Would he have gone through with it if Kosi saw him coming? Looking at the two of them something tells me I don't think so.

With the higher level of pace in the game today, the ferocity of tackling has increased and things are still very hard and tough out there and a lot of courage is required by these guys.

I think they are on the right track with this and taking away 100 kg of rock solid muscle hitting someone with force that isn't aware of them coming isn't going to deprive too much from the game.

[Thinline]

Literally evidently we don't.

Except when Kingy does it in wich case a 'veteran's exception rule' should apply.

Oh and when Zac Dawson does it, a 'pretty decent draft pick up' exception should apply.

But when Nick Maxwell does it 'A FILTHY PIG MAGPIE DOG' mandatory half season sentence should be imposed.

[plugger66]

I dont think you should be rubbed out for what Franklin did. It was an accident but under the current rules accidents matter if you get injured. Also Cousins had the ball so he is expecting some contact. I now dont like the Kosi one or the X one but to balance it up I also didnt like the King one or the Zac one. With all these incidents none of the players hit could even expect a little contact let alone being charged into. Get rid of those ones but keep the bump for players who should expect contact.

[Mr Magic]

I dont think you should be rubbed out for what Franklin did. It was an accident but under the current rules accidents matter if you get injured. Also Cousins had the ball so he is expecting some contact. I now dont like the Kosi one or the X one but to balance it up I also didnt like the King one or the Zac one. With all these incidents none of the players hit could even expect a little contact let alone being charged into. Get rid of those ones but keep the bump for players who should expect contact.

Like the one Matt Thomas delivered to Jordan Lewis 1 week after the Dawson/Symes one?
You know the one that the Tribunal stated Symes should have expected contact as the umpire had called 'Play-On' - just like the umpire did in the Dawson/Symes one?

According to the Rules, Frankloi had to go and the Tribunal got the decision correct (according to the rules) this time.

Unfortunately they don't often appear to be consistant in their decisions vis-a-vis the Rules and seemingly similar cases.

[plugger66]

I dont think you should be rubbed out for what Franklin did. It was an accident but under the current rules accidents matter if you get injured. Also Cousins had the ball so he is expecting some contact. I now dont like the Kosi one or the X one but to balance it up I also didnt like the King one or the Zac one. With all these incidents none of the players hit could even expect a little contact let alone being charged into. Get rid of those ones but keep the bump for players who should expect contact.

Like the one Matt Thomas delivered to Jordan Lewis 1 week after the Dawson/Symes one?
You know the one that the Tribunal stated Symes should have expected contact as the umpire had called 'Play-On' - just like the umpire did in the Dawson/Symes one?

According to the Rules, Frankloi had to go and the Tribunal got the decision correct (according to the rules) this time.

Unfortunately they don't often appear to be consistant in their decisions vis-a-vis the Rules and seemingly similar cases.

There you go. You love bringing up other incidents just to prove we get a hard time. Yes Franklin had to go but should he and imagine the outcry if it was a saints player. Would you have such a reasonable comment that you just made if it was a Saints player. Not a hope. How about an opinion on the topic anyway.

[starsign]

the laws of natural evolution predict the bump will go the way of the drop kick.....ie extinct very soon if the current climate continues

the bump is still ok according to Zig & Zag's current interpretations, but if its above the shoulders your gone no matter what the circumstances...

Its ridiculous , but it's just not worth the risk in trying to bump someone now especially if you have a height differential at the time of impact


Intent to purely bump doesn't come into consideration
the bump in footy has no future now regardless

So it will go the way of the drop kick.....too risky in terms of execution and too heavy a penalty if you err


Tristons mum will be happier and might stop insisting he tries out for the soccer team!

[BringBackMadDog]

I dont think you should be rubbed out for what Franklin did. It was an accident but under the current rules accidents matter if you get injured. Also Cousins had the ball so he is expecting some contact. I now dont like the Kosi one or the X one but to balance it up I also didnt like the King one or the Zac one. With all these incidents none of the players hit could even expect a little contact let alone being charged into. Get rid of those ones but keep the bump for players who should expect contact.

I think Franklin's biggest problem was that he had another option...he could have and should have tackled Cousins. The AFL will suspend a player if they choose to bump instead of tackle and then connect with the head regardless of intent (which i totally agree with).

[AlpineStars]

Under 10 and 9 local footy don't tackle as it gives the kid with the ball a chance to have a kick or handball, so if you cop 2 bumps and haven't got rid of it you are deemed holding the ball.

Problem is at the end of under 10's some kids have really got the hang of it and are taking other kids out with massive hits.

[Thinline]

Under 10 and 9 local footy don't tackle as it gives the kid with the ball a chance to have a kick or handball, so if you cop 2 bumps and haven't got rid of it you are deemed holding the ball.

Problem is at the end of under 10's some kids have really got the hang of it and are taking other kids out with massive hits.

Makes for great viewing doesn't it!

[plugger66]

I dont think you should be rubbed out for what Franklin did. It was an accident but under the current rules accidents matter if you get injured. Also Cousins had the ball so he is expecting some contact. I now dont like the Kosi one or the X one but to balance it up I also didnt like the King one or the Zac one. With all these incidents none of the players hit could even expect a little contact let alone being charged into. Get rid of those ones but keep the bump for players who should expect contact.

I think Franklin's biggest problem was that he had another option...he could have and should have tackled Cousins. The AFL will suspend a player if they choose to bump instead of tackle and then connect with the head regardless of intent (which i totally agree with).

Yes that what they said but in normal motion Im not sure he could have tackled as Cousins fumbled the ball which left Franklin in 2 minds. it was an accident and the guy had the ball so I think he should be fair game but he isnt under the rules at the moment.

[borderbarry]

Did not appear accidental to me. I thought he dipped his shoulder slightly to Cousin's head height.

[Mr Magic]

I dont think you should be rubbed out for what Franklin did. It was an accident but under the current rules accidents matter if you get injured. Also Cousins had the ball so he is expecting some contact. I now dont like the Kosi one or the X one but to balance it up I also didnt like the King one or the Zac one. With all these incidents none of the players hit could even expect a little contact let alone being charged into. Get rid of those ones but keep the bump for players who should expect contact.

Like the one Matt Thomas delivered to Jordan Lewis 1 week after the Dawson/Symes one?
You know the one that the Tribunal stated Symes should have expected contact as the umpire had called 'Play-On' - just like the umpire did in the Dawson/Symes one?

According to the Rules, Frankloi had to go and the Tribunal got the decision correct (according to the rules) this time.

Unfortunately they don't often appear to be consistant in their decisions vis-a-vis the Rules and seemingly similar cases.

There you go. You love bringing up other incidents just to prove we get a hard time. Yes Franklin had to go but should he and imagine the outcry if it was a saints player. Would you have such a reasonable comment that you just made if it was a Saints player. Not a hope. How about an opinion on the topic anyway.

I would offer the same opinion if it was a Saints player. If it is against the rules , then the player has to go. My objection has always been to the inconsistancy of the MRP and Tribunal in adjudicating those rules.

If the question you are asking is whether I think the rule is correct or not, then I'll give you an answer.
I think that it is wrong to punish a player if there was no intent on hitting the opponent's head - if the head was contacted by incidental contact.

BUT that does not mean that the player delivering the bump should be able to make an 'unreasonable' attempt to bump (Maxwell in the pre-season).

Maybe it'd be simpler to disallow any bumping of a player who has the footy - therefore you can only tackle him?
Save the bump for the players trying to get to the footy. Those that are actually holding the footy are not really in a position to defend themselves (brace) from contact.

[Dis Believer]

I am in favour of big, heavy bumps, particularly those attached to the front of attractive young ladies.

AS for the footy, I wish the rotten tools on the rules commitee would leave our game the hell alone. Why do we need a permanent rules commitee in the first place? ALl other major sports seem to do just fine without one.

[plugger66]

I am in favour of big, heavy bumps, particularly those attached to the front of attractive young ladies.

AS for the footy, I wish the rotten tools on the rules commitee would leave our game the hell alone. Why do we need a permanent rules commitee in the first place? ALl other major sports seem to do just fine without one.

What are the bad rules they have brought in over last 10 years that have wrecked the game?

[Dis Believer]

I am in favour of big, heavy bumps, particularly those attached to the front of attractive young ladies.

AS for the footy, I wish the rotten tools on the rules commitee would leave our game the hell alone. Why do we need a permanent rules commitee in the first place? ALl other major sports seem to do just fine without one.

What are the bad rules they have brought in over last 10 years that have wrecked the game?

Should have known you'd have leapt from a nearby phone box in your cape and undies ready to defend the poor downtrodden AFL..
Try "hands in the back" instead of a "push" in the back for a start.
Next we have the marvellous interchange fiasco brought as a kneejerk reaction to ONE incident of cheating by the AFL lovechild, so now teams get a free shot at goal for players prematurely crossing an arbitrary line OFF THE FIELD of play! That's a really good one!
50 metre penalties for one's "demeanour" towards the umpire.
A rough conduct rule that relies on a completely subjective MRP decision as to whether or contact could "reasonably" be expected (who decides what's reasonable???) in place of the old cut and dried "5 metres" definition.

There's a few to start with, nut let's not waste everyone's time by going down this path, because we all know that if the AFL introduced a rule that allowed them to nuke Saints players for having their hair too long, you would find a way to defend it, so let's just not go there.

[plugger66]

I am in favour of big, heavy bumps, particularly those attached to the front of attractive young ladies.

AS for the footy, I wish the rotten tools on the rules commitee would leave our game the hell alone. Why do we need a permanent rules commitee in the first place? ALl other major sports seem to do just fine without one.

What are the bad rules they have brought in over last 10 years that have wrecked the game?

Should have known you'd have leapt from a nearby phone box in your cape and undies ready to defend the poor downtrodden AFL..
Try "hands in the back" instead of a "push" in the back for a start.
Next we have the marvellous interchange fiasco brought as a kneejerk reaction to ONE incident of cheating by the AFL lovechild, so now teams get a free shot at goal for players prematurely crossing an arbitrary line OFF THE FIELD of play! That's a really good one!
50 metre penalties for one's "demeanour" towards the umpire.
A rough conduct rule that relies on a completely subjective MRP decision as to whether or contact could "reasonably" be expected (who decides what's reasonable???) in place of the old cut and dried "5 metres" definition.

There's a few to start with, nut let's not waste everyone's time by going down this path, because we all know that if the AFL introduced a rule that allowed them to nuke Saints players for having their hair too long, you would find a way to defend it, so let's just not go there.

Only the hands in the back rule was suggested by the rules committee. The rest where from the AFL footy department. Dont like the hands in the back rule but some of the others they have suggested are good IMO.

[iwantmeseats]

I am in favour of big, heavy bumps, particularly those attached to the front of attractive young ladies.

AS for the footy, I wish the rotten tools on the rules commitee would leave our game the hell alone. Why do we need a permanent rules commitee in the first place? ALl other major sports seem to do just fine without one.

Herein lies the crux of the problem.

[BaysideSaint]

the one i hate is when the bloke takes on a defender and all that the defender does is stop his run, wrap his arms around the bloke and the bloke gets done for holding while on his feet (happens to lenny all the time). needs to be a ball-up.
at least with a bump there is the prospect that someone will get knocked off their feet. must protect the head though.

[desertsaint]

Gawd - if the bump goes we'll see even more stoppages - hey maybe we could introduce a rule where we have rolling mauls and we play on a long as the pack remains in motion!

no hold on, there's a game for that already.
keep the bump!

[ace]

Only the hands in the back rule was suggested by the rules committee. The rest where from the AFL footy department. Dont like the hands in the back rule but some of the others they have suggested are good IMO.

And which AFL department do you work in.

[Winmarvellous]

I can't believe this is even being discussed. The shirtfront is one of the greatest sights to behold on the footy field. Dealing them out is an art most of the time too. If a bloke puts himself in the postion to be cleaned up he's fair game, Saints player or not. It can change the game in an instant, and makes the flashy players just that little bit more edgy when a none exponent is around. I love watching fancy players getting cleaned up by a BIG bump when they go to baulk, or spin out of trouble.

[TassieJones]

I can't believe this is even being discussed. The shirtfront is one of the greatest sights to behold on the footy field. Dealing them out is an art most of the time too. If a bloke puts himself in the postion to be cleaned up he's fair game, Saints player or not. It can change the game in an instant, and makes the flashy players just that little bit more edgy when a none exponent is around. I love watching fancy players getting cleaned up by a BIG bump when they go to baulk, or spin out of trouble.

excellent post. I wonder if Winmar7fan enjoyed watching Winmar demolish Schwass?

the bump is an art from and beautiful to watch. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous situations when it is a far better option then a tackle (Buddy's bump being one such case).

honestly if you do not enjoy watching a good fair hit then you should question whether you should be following a contact sport.

[stinger]

I know I'm in the minority on this one but just curious to see opinions on this.

Apart from the thrill of seeing a player get seriously hurt or stretchered of the ground with concussion (which does nothing for me at all) I don't understand the need or purpose of the "FAIR bump" or big hip and shoulder at all regardless of whether it's within 5 metres or not.

IMO a player should be able to focus on getting the ball without someone lining him up out of his vision and totally cleaning them up.

It's one of those things that most people love in the game except when it happens to one of their own players.

As far as I'm concerned that one with Giansiracusa on Kosi was a gutless dogs act (no pun intended) regardless of how far off the ball it was. Would he have gone through with it if Kosi saw him coming? Looking at the two of them something tells me I don't think so.

With the higher level of pace in the game today, the ferocity of tackling has increased and things are still very hard and tough out there and a lot of courage is required by these guys.

I think they are on the right track with this and taking away 100 kg of rock solid muscle hitting someone with force that isn't aware of them coming isn't going to deprive too much from the game.

not much wrong in what you say...the dog act on kossi was always worth weeks..imhfo....even before the subsequent knee jerk afl rule changes.....

[Winmar7Fan]

I can't believe this is even being discussed. The shirtfront is one of the greatest sights to behold on the footy field. Dealing them out is an art most of the time too. If a bloke puts himself in the postion to be cleaned up he's fair game, Saints player or not. It can change the game in an instant, and makes the flashy players just that little bit more edgy when a none exponent is around. I love watching fancy players getting cleaned up by a BIG bump when they go to baulk, or spin out of trouble.

excellent post. I wonder if Winmar7fan enjoyed watching Winmar demolish Schwass?

the bump is an art from and beautiful to watch. Not to mention the fact that there are numerous situations when it is a far better option then a tackle (Buddy's bump being one such case).

honestly if you do not enjoy watching a good fair hit then you should question whether you should be following a contact sport.

No I actually prefer to remember and appreciate him for his football skills.

As far as a contact sport isn't there still enough contact in the game? Where is the line drawn on defining a contact sport? I believe since the biff behind play and all the other cleaning up of players trying to just go the man has come it's helped the game.

I'd prefer players feel more free and confident to attack the ball and have a more faster, free flowing, skillful, high scoring game as we do now.

Rather than always being nervous about putting their head over the ball because it's an opportunity for some gutless thug like a Barry Hall to try and put them in hospital for a week.

[Beej]

Nothing wrong with the bump. Just don't hit the head and if you do, even without the intent, bad luck. It's impossible to prove whether someone intentionally hits the head so just make the head sacrosanct - the rule is good.

I'm a strong advocate of the bump.

I'm also a strong advocate of protecting the head.