Protecting the head

[NoParkingOnMatchDays]

Interested in peoples logical opinion about the bump to the head going out of the game.

There will be those that say the game is dead and ruined and Andy D is a cucca poo poo head for spoiling everything however, is banning head high contact, whether or not it's accidental really a bad thing though?

Part of my pre match routine this week was to watch the Geelong v Bulldogs game again. It made the hairs on my back stand up not only 'cause we are awesome but because it was tough, fast, brave and great footy. It didn't need any unconsciousness to make it a fantastic game. It was good enough.

Saints v Geelong earlier in the year was one of the best games I've seen - again bloody tough, fast, and courageous. Tingles were there and the hair stood up so much my 3yo came out with a comb and asked if she could brush my fur. Again it was good enough.

Seeing B Sewell unconscious today with his muscles in spasm made we question whether that is something worth preserving and fighting for. Where's the enjoyment or point of that for the supporter? Is allowing a hit on someone that causes a temporary brain injury really worth it. Maybe we actually do need the rule to stay as is.

Thoughts?

[AndrewP6]

Don't think that frowning on head-high contact is a bad thing. The game is great without needing blokes wellbeing to be endangered. Franklin could have tackled, but chose not to, and paid the penalty - fine by me. My beef is the lack of consistency with which the rule is enforced. Watching the Bombers game today, after Sewell got cleaned up, there were about 3 more hits that should have seen the book out... but the monkeys let them go. Fair enough to miss maybe one, but they should be acting upon these as they happen, not letting the MRP do the work.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Don't think that frowning on head-high contact is a bad thing. The game is great without needing blokes wellbeing to be endangered. Franklin could have tackled, but chose not to, and paid the penalty - fine by me. My beef is the lack of consistency with which the rule is enforced. Watching the Bombers game today, after Sewell got cleaned up, there were about 3 more hits that should have seen the book out... but the monkeys let them go. Fair enough to miss maybe one, but they should be acting upon these as they happen, not letting the MRP do the work.

Demetriou is a poo poo head.

You cannot compare the lloyd incident with the Franklin one. lloyd will be charged under a different (more serious) rule altogether.


And this, in a nutshell, is what gets me so angry at the AFL.


We have a rule under reportable incidents that says:

"Front on contact to a player with their head over the ball". This is what Lloyd (quite correctly) will be charged with. This is an excellent rule and protects the ball player from serious injury.


This is not the rule that Franklin was charged with; Franklin was charged with rough play. This is the all-encompassing rule brought in to deal with incidents otherwise not covered that the AFL were scared might embarass them. Throwing an opponent into the fence, perhaps, pulling a knife and stabbing an opponent in the heart, stuff like that.

Rough play has turned into the "Mum-might-not-like-the-look-of-that-rule".


We have a rule to protect the ball player, leave it at that.

Two weeks for Franklin's bump? FFS, no wonder they call us GAYFL in NSW.

[mighty_west]

Comparing the Buddy & Lloyd bumps, with Buddy recieving 2, Lloyd should get 6.

By the letter of the law, Buddy had to go, he made contact to the head, i don't agree with it, but as it stands, it was a correct call by the tribunal.

Lloyd ran straight towards Sewell, almost picking him off, there was minimal contact from Dowler from behind which IMO didn't have any affect on the force of the contact, therefor a deliberate shoulder flush to the head, and causing serious concussion, was far worse than what Buddy did.

[AndrewP6]

Demetriou is a poo poo head.


I didn't even mention AD!


You cannot compare the lloyd incident with the Franklin one. lloyd will be charged under a different (more serious) rule altogether.

Both incidents could well have ended with serious injuries from the contact.


This is not the rule that Franklin was charged with; Franklin was charged with rough play.
Rough play has turned into the "Mum-might-not-like-the-look-of-that-rule".

Then they buggered up the reporting process...still remains that serious injury could've resulted. And that Franklin had a choice - could've tackled, chose to hit him...



Two weeks for Franklin's bump? FFS, no wonder they call us GAYFL in NSW.

They follow a game where you have to pass backwards so you can go forwards... couldn't give a stuff what they think.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Then they buggered up the reporting process...still remains that serious injury could've resulted. And that Franklin had a choice - could've tackled, chose to hit him...


I don't think a serious injury could have resulted at all. Cousins ended up with a headache. Meh. Shit happens, a hamstring would be worse.

Sewell had his head down, Cousins didn't - that's a massive difference - Sewell really could have been hurt.

Lloyd should get 4; Franklin should have got off.

[AndrewP6]

I don't think a serious injury could have resulted at all. Cousins ended up with a headache. Meh. Shit happens, a hamstring would be worse.
Sure, Cousins may not have ended up with a serious injury...but my point is he COULD have, due to the high contact. If it's in the right spot (wrong spot?) permanent injury can result from head contact. The fact it didn't eventuate is luck more than anything.


Sewell had his head down, Cousins didn't - that's a massive difference - Sewell really could have been hurt.


So a player with his head up should expect high contact?

[NoParkingOnMatchDays]

Sure, Cousins may not have ended up with a serious injury...but my point is he COULD have, due to the high contact. If it's in the right spot (wrong spot?) permanent injury can result from head contact. The fact it didn't eventuate is luck more than anything.



Totally agree - whether the player has his head up, down, is expecting it or not, it doesn't matter. There's no room for smacking someone in the head so that they lapse into unconsciousness. Even arguing that the player had his arm tucked in and hit his opponent with his shoulder is irrelevant when you look at the result.

[Sockeye Salmon]

It's a contact sport - sometimes stuff is going to happen.

Matthew Robbins broke his collarbone in a perfectly fair shoulder to shoulder bump with Glen Jakovich.

What about a head clash, who gets the blame?

If a player has his head over the ball he can get seriously hurt - this must be stamped out, and there is a rule specifically for this.

No-one is really going to get hurt if a bump hits him a bit high.


This is Gary Ablett's article from this mornings Herald Sun. It's pretty much what I mean.

"Tackles can still result in the point of the shoulder hitting someone high, causing a broken nose or jaw. But as long as the intent is to lay a fair tackle, it's just a free kick.

For most footballers, if you're on the end of a bump, and you know it's been dished out in the right spirit, you cop it and get on with it. In fact, you want to show your opponent you've taken the best shot he had to offer.

That's part of the game, and we love that physical side of it, that hard stuff. It has been ingrained in football, footballers and fans for more than 100 years, and it's very hard to change that. More to the point, do we want to change it?"

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,26000166-19742,00.html

[Go_Dogs]

It's a contact sport - sometimes stuff is going to happen.

Matthew Robbins broke his collarbone in a perfectly fair shoulder to shoulder bump with Glen Jakovich.

What about a head clash, who gets the blame?

That's the thing though, if the hip and shoulder doesn't hit the head, it's fine. You just have to be prepared to go low with the bump to the body.

If a player is knocked out because their head hits the ground after a fair (no head contact) bump, then the bumping player won't get suspended.

If a player is knocked out on the ground but the bump was applied with head contact, you can bet the guy will get a couple of weeks.

I'm fine with that, and think the head should be protected at all times.

The bump is not out of the game, it just needs to be utilised differently. Don't hit the head, don't hit the head! It's that simple.

[Sockeye Salmon]

That's the thing though, if the hip and shoulder doesn't hit the head, it's fine. You just have to be prepared to go low with the bump to the body.

If a player is knocked out because their head hits the ground after a fair (no head contact) bump, then the bumping player won't get suspended.

If a player is knocked out on the ground but the bump was applied with head contact, you can bet the guy will get a couple of weeks.

I'm fine with that, and think the head should be protected at all times.

The bump is not out of the game, it just needs to be utilised differently. Don't hit the head, don't hit the head! It's that simple.

All right, how about this one (I'm only using these articles as examples because I'm crap at the whole "putting-words-together-and-making-sentences" thing).


"Ben Cousins has been accused of a lot in recent times but I reckon he contributed to the accident with Franklin as much as the Hawthorn man.

When you watch the play, Cousins picks up, has plenty of time to dispose of the ball but decides to run off on an unpredictable line to avoid being caught. Cousins is one of the best blind turn players in football.

The art of the blind turn is to run into as dangerous a position as possible for a bump or a tackle and then spin out of the way.

Cousins, on this occasion, was also feigning a handball.

Where it all turned pear-shaped was when Cousins fumbled the ball.

In doing so, Franklin could do nothing other than make contact with his Richmond opponent.

Had Cousins executed the handball and Franklin tackled him, the Hawthorn man would have given away a free kick and a 50m penalty, another new rule this year. So there is a disincentive to tackle.

As it was, the ball bobbled in Cousins's hand, he was forced to hold up his spin, grab the ball, lean forward further than he anticipated, throw himself off balance and lower his position.

Franklin, who was running at full tilt, did what he is supposed to do - he braced himself and made contact.

The chain of mistakes to which Cousins contributed led in a split second to two highly trained, explosive athletes crashing into each other at top speed.

Had Cousins taken the bump on the shoulder and spun out of trouble, it would have been play on. Had he hit Buddy straight up the middle it might have been Franklin carted off the ground.

That's the issue: in a game that encourages physical contact, with an oval ball and no off-side rules, there are so many "had he's" that there has to be an "accident" rule."

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25998846-5000117,00.html

[Go_Dogs]

All right, how about this one (I'm only using these articles as examples because I'm crap at the whole "putting-words-together-and-making-sentences" thing).

It's exactly the same - just don't hit him high. Yes it's not always easy to do, especially when you're a big boy like Franklin, but bend the knees.

This situation here is even tougher because you've got the make the decision whether to tackle or not at the last possible moment as you are unsure whether the player who has the ball will still hold the ball at the time of tackle.

But, if you decide not to risk the tackle (as you are unsure whether the player will possess the ball at the time of the tackle and don't want to give away the free), then you can still bump. Just don't hit the head.



My guess is that in the Franklin scenario the coach would want you to tackle every time anyway, even if it does result in the free, as it gives your players a chance to get back. (the ball was exiting the Hawks forward line).


The game is becoming quicker, and this is the necessary by product. I don't have a problem with the rule, as I think the head just must be protected every time. It just means players are going to have to work on ensuring they can effect solid bumps on the body and work on their techniques so they don't hit high with the bumps. Players are generally fairly smart these days and like they have with the head over the ball rule, this one shouldn't be too hard for the players to adapt to.

[mighty_west]

So a player with his head up should expect high contact?

It is a contact sport, which what makes our game so great, there are always going to be injuries, and the faster the game gets, the harder the contact.

That said, IMO Buddy's bump on Cuz was fair, the fact that he got him high was an accident, he certaintly went out to bump Cousins, and thats fine, why should he have to tackle? as long as you are allowed to bump, it's all fair game, IF he went straight at Cousin's head, yeah sure, throw the book at him, like with Lloyds contact on Sewell, but he didn't.

If a player IMO is rubbed out, and there have been due to accidental contact, it's a shame that a player might lose a Brownlow because of an ACCIDENT, if he mean't it, yeah, no drama's.

Buddy's bump = fair [head contact] = an accident

Lloyd's bump = not fair, was a reckless & crude bump = not accidental that high contact was made.

[Sockeye Salmon]

But, if you decide not to risk the tackle (as you are unsure whether the player will possess the ball at the time of the tackle and don't want to give away the free), then you can still bump. Just don't hit the head.


How can you avoid hitting the head every so often if the guy is moving around, trying to dodge you? Sometimes it will happen. We allow the bump, but if you attempt it - and don't forget the target is moving - and miss by a fraction, you're gone. It's just not realistic.



My guess is that in the Franklin scenario the coach would want you to tackle every time anyway, even if it does result in the free, as it gives your players a chance to get back. (the ball was exiting the Hawks forward line).


If Franklin had tackled, but Cousins had disposed of the ball a split second before, Franklin could not only have given away a free but also a 50m penalty for impeding him after he had disposed of the ball.

[mighty_west]

One thing that annoys me is that commentators & people are saying, but he could have or should have tackled, SO WHAT, he could or should have also bumped him, which he did, the fact that high contact was made was purely accidental, and getting suspended for an "ACCIDENT" is so wrong it's not funny.

Should Rance & Selwood have both been suspended because there was head high contact on collision? If Buddy was, then they should have as well!

[Go_Dogs]

How can you avoid hitting the head every so often if the guy is moving around, trying to dodge you? Sometimes it will happen. We allow the bump, but if you attempt it - and don't forget the target is moving - and miss by a fraction, you're gone. It's just not realistic.

True, and I guess that is the risk that you take. If a player deliberately ducks his head aware of the oncoming bump, that should be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor. At the end of the day though, as the player laying the bump you owe the duty of care to protect the head. If you think you might collect the player high, exercise caution.

I can see the merits of having a 'special circumstances' disclaimer on the rule, but it probably only adds to the difficulty of applying the law in what is already a very difficult area to adjudicate. As you say, split second decisions and interpretations of the circumstances make it very difficult to give clear cut, definitive answers.


If Franklin had tackled, but Cousins had disposed of the ball a split second before, Franklin could not only have given away a free but also a 50m penalty for impeding him after he had disposed of the ball.

If it had been Ablett instead of Cousins, definitely.

This comes down to awareness. If you go for the tackle, hopefully the player is still holding the ball. Examples of this happen every week and it's pretty common. Some times players get the free, other times they don't. If Ablett is involved, you can almost guarantee the 50m penalty. That's an umpire issue and not a MRP, Rules committee one imo at least.

4 characters!

[bornadog]

The head must be protected, however, there are the bumps that are intentional and they go wrong because contact was high and there are the Franklin type. The Franklin incident, happened in a mili second, so no time to make a decision on exactly what you are going to do.. Franklin did not go into that contest thinking he was going to bump Cousins, it was Cousins actions that it turned out that way. Lloyd went straight into the contest to take the player out. Whether he hit his head I am not sure, hard to tell on the replay, however, because he was knocked out, you would think he hit him in the head.

Therefore, a player has a duty of care when applying the bump and they should avoid the head. However, there are accidental hits and these are just a free kick, ala Franklin.

[AndrewP6]

It is a contact sport, which what makes our game so great, there are always going to be injuries, and the faster the game gets, the harder the contact.

No problems with hardness, but head-high contact is going too far IMO...


That said, IMO Buddy's bump on Cuz was fair, the fact that he got him high was an accident, he certaintly went out to bump Cousins, and thats fine, why should he have to tackle?

Don't think intent should come into it. His actions caused the contact. If intent was claimed as accidental, players would be doing it every week (claiming "accident"). He doesn't have to tackle, but if he's going to bump, and gets the bloke high, he has to accept the consequences - in this case, a fortnight off.


If a player IMO is rubbed out, and there have been due to accidental contact, it's a shame that a player might lose a Brownlow because of an ACCIDENT,

If it's accidental contact to a player's head, then que sera sera. That's the chance you take.
[/QUOTE]

[sikpup64]

we are stuck with this crappy rule til the end of the season whether we like it or not for now

[Sockeye Salmon]

No problems with hardness, but head-high contact is going too far IMO...



Don't think intent should come into it. His actions caused the contact. If intent was claimed as accidental, players would be doing it every week (claiming "accident"). He doesn't have to tackle, but if he's going to bump, and gets the bloke high, he has to accept the consequences - in this case, a fortnight off.



If it's accidental contact to a player's head, then que sera sera. That's the chance you take.
[/QUOTE]

What's the difference between Franklin's hit in Cousins and Cross' hit on McCarthy.

Both knocked out their opponents? Surely Cross must go?

[AndrewP6]

What's the difference between Franklin's hit in Cousins and Cross' hit on McCarthy.

Both knocked out their opponents? Surely Cross must go?

He might...

[SonofScray]

Players shouldn't be rubbed out because they make contact with the head. Not in isolation anyway, which is what is currently happening. Any contact with the head in a bump and they invoke this crap "rough conduct" rule.

Likewise, the outcome to the opposing player shouldn't even be factored in to it. A fair bump can still KO someone just as an elbow might not do any damage. Its not fair to judge the act on the consequence.

The rule is supposed to look after the guy with his head over the ball, in case they are any Byron Picketts about. It is supposed to protect the payer in the marking contest from being lined up from the other direction by a bloke not going for the ball. See Buddha Hocking on Harvey a few years back. Its to prevent the elbows being raised or swung out in the bump - Sinclair v Picione.

When you hit the head in this manner, its a report.

It shouldn't be used to crucify anyone that puts a hard bump on the opposition instead of going the ball. You are allowed to bump a bloke within 5m of the contest - you can line up a player chasing and take him out with the bump, thats a shepherd. You can go past the ball and take out the other contesting player, thats a shirtfront. You are allowed to do it.

If you hit the head in these instances it is a free kick.

A lot of "head high" reports should have been free kicks and that's it. Murphys report against the Hawks last year was neither and he still got weeks. Buddy's was as fair as you can get.

.

[Go_Dogs]

He might...

I thought the same thing when I saw the incident. A bit of a head clash. Will be interesting to see what happens as I'm sure it will get looked at this week.

[bornadog]

What's the difference between Franklin's hit in Cousins and Cross' hit on McCarthy.

Both knocked out their opponents? Surely Cross must go?

One was a bump the other a tackle and accidental clash of heads.

[Sockeye Salmon]

One was a bump the other a tackle and accidental clash of heads.

Of course. I was being facetious.


The arguement was the Franklin deserved to be suspended because he knocked the other bloke out, regardless of whether it was accidental or not, regardless of his intent.

Cross knocked someone out accidentally, surely the only thing that matters is that Mrs. McCarthy's little boy got hurt?


Using the same logic that applies to the bump, the tackle must be banned immediately!

[bornadog]

Of course. I was being facetious.


The arguement was the Franklin deserved to be suspended because he knocked the other bloke out, regardless of whether it was accidental or not, regardless of his intent.

Cross knocked someone out accidentally, surely the only thing that matters is that Mrs. McCarthy's little boy got hurt?


Using the same logic that applies to the bump, the tackle must be banned immediately!

true