Do we need big heavy bumps?

[Moods]

I reckon the biggest wank ever introduced was this rubbish about 'the head is sacrosanct.' Now we have players charging at blokes head first b/c they are trying to get a free! Young Rance from Richmond would never have been knocked out if players today didn't think twice before putting his head somewhere it had no right to be.

A generation of footballers will grow up believing that going in head first is fine and won't be taught how to protect themselves. A perfect case in point was the suspension of Gwilt, where the opposing player virtually slid into him, and all he did was hold his ground and brace himself.

Football is a bloody tough sport, and by its very nature is a contact sport. The new rule written smacks of political correctness to appease new age mums and dads who in all probability wouldn't allow little Johnny to play the sport anyway in case he got a cut on his leg. It's also written by a bloke who has never played the game at any sort of level, so his understanding of how fast play moves and decisions need to be made is foreign to him.

Buddy Franklin getting suspended is a farce and a joke. Cousins virtually ran into him, and all Buddy did was move with him, hold his ground tuck his elbow in and brace for contact. There was no malice in what happened in any shape or form. because Cousins was unlucky enough to hurt himself, his height combined with his lesser weight being heavy contributors to the injury sustained, Buddy is somehow held accountable.

I should also add as a footnote, I was sitting probably 10 metres from the Kosi/Gia clash a few ago (fortunate to be with the saints members that day) and whilst what Gia did certainly wasn't brave, or even tough, I would have expected a saints player to do exactly the same thing if the roles were reversed. I watched in amazement at Kosi's terrible awareness. Anyone who has played footy knows you can be picked off in that situation.

To me the shirtfront is one of the things that makes our game one of the toughest sports in the world.

I still love the game, and won't despair for the game, but I love the bump.

[Beej]

I reckon the biggest wank ever introduced was this rubbish about 'the head is sacrosanct.' Now we have players charging at blokes head first b/c they are trying to get a free! Young Rance from Richmond would never have been knocked out if players today didn't think twice before putting his head somewhere it had no right to be.

That should be the job of umpires to deliberate whether the contact was head-to-body or body-to-head.

Players shouldn't be able to throw themselves head first into an opponent's knee and win a free-kick. It's important for the umpire to decide who initiated the contact.

I thought that the rule states exactly that and it's the umpires who get it wrong from time to time.

[Moods]

I reckon the biggest wank ever introduced was this rubbish about 'the head is sacrosanct.' Now we have players charging at blokes head first b/c they are trying to get a free! Young Rance from Richmond would never have been knocked out if players today didn't think twice before putting his head somewhere it had no right to be.

That should be the job of umpires to deliberate whether the contact was head-to-body or body-to-head.

Players shouldn't be able to throw themselves head first into an opponent's knee and win a free-kick. It's important for the umpire to decide who initiated the contact.

I thought that the rule states exactly that and it's the umpires who get it wrong from time to time.

How can anyone possibly expect an umpire to make a split second decision like that on the field - when we're still debating 3 days later, with slo mo replays from all different angles, who actually initiated the contact?

The rule states that a player is to be penalised whether the option to bump was reasonable or unreasonable, if a player is injured and it is deemed that they could have tackled? They decided that Buddy's decision to bump was reasonable but he's still liable for his actions?? Crap I reckon.

[Beej]

I reckon the biggest wank ever introduced was this rubbish about 'the head is sacrosanct.' Now we have players charging at blokes head first b/c they are trying to get a free! Young Rance from Richmond would never have been knocked out if players today didn't think twice before putting his head somewhere it had no right to be.

That should be the job of umpires to deliberate whether the contact was head-to-body or body-to-head.

Players shouldn't be able to throw themselves head first into an opponent's knee and win a free-kick. It's important for the umpire to decide who initiated the contact.

I thought that the rule states exactly that and it's the umpires who get it wrong from time to time.

How can anyone possibly expect an umpire to make a split second decision like that on the field - when we're still debating 3 days later, with slo mo replays from all different angles, who actually initiated the contact?

The rule states that a player is to be penalised whether the option to bump was reasonable or unreasonable, if a player is injured and it is deemed that they could have tackled? They decided that Buddy's decision to bump was reasonable but he's still liable for his actions?? Crap I reckon.

In the instances where a player dives head first into an opponents knee, it's easy to tell who initiates the contact.

The bloke moving is initiating the contact, the bloke standing still is not.

Re Buddy if he tackles he's fine. He decides to bump so therefore he has a duty of care.

AFL Football Operations Manager Adrian Anderson said it was extremely pleasing for the game at all levels and especially for the parents of junior footballers, to be able to report the lowest incidence of head and neck injuries on record, following reduced tolerance of head-high bumps rs and the introduction of a specific law banning front-on contact when a player has his head down over the ball.

Grown men aren't the only ones who play the game.

Protect the head. We don't want players suffering brain damage. Sport isn't worth that IMO.

[Moods]

OLB - In my opinion you are looking at this situation and simplifying it. Where as I believe it's far more complicated. The example you give is a very basic example and easy to interpret. The Buddy example is not so simple. Cousins whilst deemed in possession wasn't actually holding the ball, as it was bubbling around him. If Buddy had decided to tackle he could quite easily have given away a free for holding the man. His decision was not clear cut.

As for Anderson's grand announcement - more like pushing his own agenda (as he wrote the law) Local leagues and Junior leagues will more often than not, not take on the new rules introduced at AFL level so I don't see how he can take credit. The interpretations at junior level would still be the same.

[plugger66]

OLB - In my opinion you are looking at this situation and simplifying it. Where as I believe it's far more complicated. The example you give is a very basic example and easy to interpret. The Buddy example is not so simple. Cousins whilst deemed in possession wasn't actually holding the ball, as it was bubbling around him. If Buddy had decided to tackle he could quite easily have given away a free for holding the man. His decision was not clear cut.

As for Anderson's grand announcement - more like pushing his own agenda (as he wrote the law) Local leagues and Junior leagues will more often than not, not take on the new rules introduced at AFL level so I don't see how he can take credit. The interpretations at junior level would still be the same.

Just about all leagues take notice of the AFL where practical. Most do not have the quick kick in because of cost of footballs but they do have most other rules. As for junior level after under 10's in would again be the same. Younger ages have different rules for safety.

[barneyboyz]

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.

I had to log on just to agree with this, well at least the rules bit, not so sure of the attack on P66, but you are right with the AFL atm. shytehouse

[TassieJones]

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

His toughness and ability to lay a good fair bump WAS one of his football skills.

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.

when you go out onto a football field you should always be expecting contact. if you get nervous putting your head over the ball then you shouldn't be out there. courage is an integral part of our game, not just the playing of it but the culture and you want to take that away? do you think cousins wanted buddy suspended for the bump? of course not.

[Winmar7Fan]

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

His toughness and ability to lay a good fair bump WAS one of his football skills.

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.

when you go out onto a football field you should always be expecting contact. if you get nervous putting your head over the ball then you shouldn't be out there. courage is an integral part of our game, not just the playing of it but the culture and you want to take that away? do you think cousins wanted buddy suspended for the bump? of course not.

IMO I don't believe it requires any skill to ram someone who's unaware of you coming anymore than the skill it took Barry Hall to lay one on the chin when he did.

I still don't understand why the game becomes woosy with removing highly dangerous parts of the game.

Isn't going in and under, Ferocious tackling, running with the flight of the ball to mark or backing into packs courageous?

You don't think the way Roo and Hayes play requires toughness and courage?

There's a difference to a side bump to put a player off balance to win possession of the ball.

I just don't think Snipers Like Brent Guerra looking for an opportunity to intentionally cause serious injury to a player who's fixed on the footy is needed or courageous and skillful.

It might be great for spectator entertainment but I don't believe it's good for the game.

[SainterK]

Once the hype has died down, I hope players realise there is something they can absorb out of all of this.

*If you don't have the skill to execute a bump properly, don't do it
*If you don't have time to ensure you execute the bump properly, don't do it

[bergsone]

IMO as long as it isnt deliberate head contact fair enough ,see nothing wrong with buddy bump.36 fit men moving flat out will produce contact in split moments ,fact of life



PS what sports are played world wide where it is not possible to be knocked out,swimming,marbles maybe?

[St. Luke]

I haven't read the thread posts, perhaps this has been covered, but I liken AFL to other sports in this regard....it's unique! Our own whinging and whining has brought us "down" to this level, and that has changed the physical aspect to which the game is actually based - toughness! It's comparable to not allowing a competitor to hit an opponent in the boxing ring more than 5 times in the head. It's the nature of the game...not some namby-pamby touch-you report-you style of game, it's a physical sport!

What Franklin did was 110% okay in my books! It was 110% fair! (Even though I dislike Franklin merely because of his hit on Harvs last Prelim - so I'm quietly laughing about it now!). But seriously....if this was one of our players I'd be furious! The charge and conviction against Franklin, is a charge and conviction against every other player in the AFL from here on in! In the early days (Not that I was living here, I was brought up in a Rugby League State, so I didn’t experience it personally) players were taught if they put their head over the ball they’d have it knocked off! These days players are encouraged to put their head over the ball because if they are hit there, they’ll receive a free kick! The rules that have changed to make the game safer have actually made it more dangerous! Whinging and whining have achieved the opposite outcome of the desired result! Plain bloody Stoooopid!! Players like Steven Baker are becoming a dying breed! Sad, sad day!

[Beej]

IMO as long as it isnt deliberate head contact fair enough

Posted this in another thread but it's relevant here also

I think the ruling is correct.

I didn't think there was any intent to hit Cousins' head but how can you prove that in every case? You can't get into the minds of the players.

Just say Buddy got off... then what happens if a player bumps another player's head, honestly doesn't mean to, but unfortunately it happens to look intentional? Suspend him? That would be wrong.

What happens when a player intentionally bumps someone's head but makes it look a complete accident? Entirely possible. A player can line another player up in the corner of his eye but look away just before and at the point of contact and say, "obviously it was unintentional as I was not looking in the player's direction at the time, it was pure luck that I happened to hit his head".

What do you think we should do? Polygraph?

The only way around it is to say "you can't bump the head, accidental or not".

The bump still exists and is an important part of the game. Just don't bump the head.

[saint vince]

I have watched the vision of the buddy hit as much as anyone. And I rekon he had a clear oppurtunity to tackle, if he was good enough. Lenny or CJ would have wrapped cousins up and forced a stoppage.

The rule has been in place and only one bloke has been reported under it. That means that during the whole year there has only been one time that someone has executed an illegal bump of this nature.

How many legal ones have been delievered. The bump is not dead just needs to be dlivered properly.

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

[Beej]

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

Totally agree.

Another thing that frustrates me is when a player attempts to bump when they could easily try to smother.

[St. Luke]

The bump isn't dead, but jeeez it makes you think long and hard about jeopardizing the rest of the team with something that mightn’t come off quite as you’d expected. I mean, knocking a player off his feet or preventing him coming in to tackle one of your team-mates is an accurate science isn’t it? Bloody ridiculous! There would have to be a million different scenarios approaching a player running flat-out and then having the presence of mind to do something in the seconds proceeding. I’m sure every player out there would like to have the same freeze-frame and rewind ability with some of the decisions they’ve made as effortlessly as the review panel seem to. When you rewind and slow down an action 10 times, it would appear you have ALL the time in the world to change your mind…but fact is…you don’t!

Didn’t the smallest bloke in the AFL fracture Kosi’s skull?? It’s the friggin’ luck of the draw. Don’t step in if you’re not prepared to get hurt! Bump this friggin salary cap up and lets get serious!

Jarryd Allen is out now, and there was nothing illegal that had happened to him! It's a contact sport and every player knows the potential consequences!

[plugger66]

I have watched the vision of the buddy hit as much as anyone. And I rekon he had a clear oppurtunity to tackle, if he was good enough. Lenny or CJ would have wrapped cousins up and forced a stoppage.

The rule has been in place and only one bloke has been reported under it. That means that during the whole year there has only been one time that someone has executed an illegal bump of this nature.

How many legal ones have been delievered. The bump is not dead just needs to be dlivered properly.

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

The bump was delivered properly as mentioned by the tribunal its just under this silly rule that an accident can get you weeks. the rule is stupid and reckon most people who have played the game and actually watched it in normal motion would see he was about to tackle but Cousins fumbled and changed directions causing Buddy to bump him.

[saint vince]

I have watched the vision of the buddy hit as much as anyone. And I rekon he had a clear oppurtunity to tackle, if he was good enough. Lenny or CJ would have wrapped cousins up and forced a stoppage.

The rule has been in place and only one bloke has been reported under it. That means that during the whole year there has only been one time that someone has executed an illegal bump of this nature.

How many legal ones have been delievered. The bump is not dead just needs to be dlivered properly.

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

The bump was delivered properly as mentioned by the tribunal its just under this silly rule that an accident can get you weeks. the rule is stupid and reckon most people who have played the game and actually watched it in normal motion would see he was about to tackle but Cousins fumbled and changed directions causing Buddy to bump him.

My argument is that I rekon that if he was a good enough tackler he still would haveliminating the issue of being cited. Would Lenny of changed his mind because of Cousins fumble or would he have still wrapped him up??????????

[plugger66]

I have watched the vision of the buddy hit as much as anyone. And I rekon he had a clear oppurtunity to tackle, if he was good enough. Lenny or CJ would have wrapped cousins up and forced a stoppage.

The rule has been in place and only one bloke has been reported under it. That means that during the whole year there has only been one time that someone has executed an illegal bump of this nature.

How many legal ones have been delievered. The bump is not dead just needs to be dlivered properly.

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

The bump was delivered properly as mentioned by the tribunal its just under this silly rule that an accident can get you weeks. the rule is stupid and reckon most people who have played the game and actually watched it in normal motion would see he was about to tackle but Cousins fumbled and changed directions causing Buddy to bump him.

My argument is that I rekon that if he was a good enough tackler he still would haveliminating the issue of being cited. Would Lenny of changed his mind because of Cousins fumble or would he have still wrapped him up??????????

Would Lenny have kicked 100 goals last year?

[SainterK]

Alistair Clarkson's interview was strange, he kept saying that this has brought up a grey area that should be of concern to all AFL clubs. However, the problem for the Hawks on this occasion is the lack of grey area, it's completely black and white....hence there is no room for discretion.

[bozza1980]

The bump was delivered properly as mentioned by the tribunal its just under this silly rule that an accident can get you weeks. the rule is stupid and reckon most people who have played the game and actually watched it in normal motion would see he was about to tackle but Cousins fumbled and changed directions causing Buddy to bump him.

I look at it from a different view point.

The AFL is saying that the bump is dangerous and the player delivering it owes a duty of care, to the player he is bumping, that he will not put him in any undue danger of head/neck/back injury. Really that isn't that unreasonable is it??

Basically, It's a bit like driving at the speed limit and not slowing down ,when an opportunity to do so is available, and hitting a car stopped in front of you. Driving at the speed limit isn't against the law but not attemptin to stop when you saw the other car is.

[saint vince]

I have watched the vision of the buddy hit as much as anyone. And I rekon he had a clear oppurtunity to tackle, if he was good enough. Lenny or CJ would have wrapped cousins up and forced a stoppage.

The rule has been in place and only one bloke has been reported under it. That means that during the whole year there has only been one time that someone has executed an illegal bump of this nature.

How many legal ones have been delievered. The bump is not dead just needs to be dlivered properly.

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

The bump was delivered properly as mentioned by the tribunal its just under this silly rule that an accident can get you weeks. the rule is stupid and reckon most people who have played the game and actually watched it in normal motion would see he was about to tackle but Cousins fumbled and changed directions causing Buddy to bump him.

My argument is that I rekon that if he was a good enough tackler he still would haveliminating the issue of being cited. Would Lenny of changed his mind because of Cousins fumble or would he have still wrapped him up??????????

Would Lenny have kicked 100 goals last year?

I didn't realise that Buddy was suspended for kicking 100 goals. Or was this you attempt at deflecting from my post???????

[plugger66]

I have watched the vision of the buddy hit as much as anyone. And I rekon he had a clear oppurtunity to tackle, if he was good enough. Lenny or CJ would have wrapped cousins up and forced a stoppage.

The rule has been in place and only one bloke has been reported under it. That means that during the whole year there has only been one time that someone has executed an illegal bump of this nature.

How many legal ones have been delievered. The bump is not dead just needs to be dlivered properly.

I was always told by every coach to tackle the bloke with the ball and not bump him. Nothing frustrates me more than watching a bloke bump when he has a chance to tackle.

The bump was delivered properly as mentioned by the tribunal its just under this silly rule that an accident can get you weeks. the rule is stupid and reckon most people who have played the game and actually watched it in normal motion would see he was about to tackle but Cousins fumbled and changed directions causing Buddy to bump him.

My argument is that I rekon that if he was a good enough tackler he still would haveliminating the issue of being cited. Would Lenny of changed his mind because of Cousins fumble or would he have still wrapped him up??????????

Would Lenny have kicked 100 goals last year?

I didn't realise that Buddy was suspended for kicking 100 goals. Or was this you attempt at deflecting from my post???????

No but Lenny is our best tackler why not use kosi.

[saint vince]

Because my argument is that if Franklin was a BETTER tackler he would not have done what he did. I could have used Rix instead of Hayes but then I would be saying anyone would have done it different blah blah. I am saying is that he did have a different option he just was not good enough to execute it.

[plugger66]

Because my argument is that if Franklin was a BETTER tackler he would not have done what he did. I could have used Rix instead of Hayes but then I would be saying anyone would have done it different blah blah. I am saying is that he did have a different option he just was not good enough to execute it.

And i am saying Franklin kick goals and tackling isnt his best part of his game where as it is one of Lennys best of his game. Just because he isnt a great tackler doesnt make the rule right IMO.