AFL - will they have the balls to get rid of the bump?

[John Who]

The bump is pretty much becoming a bygone era. Though technically, it’s still a legal act if and only if, no head knocks!

Case in point, the Houston-Rankine case:
Rankine running forward to catch a loose ball, then gets shirt-fronted by Houston. Rankine falls back, head impacts ground, concussed.
Umpires called it “play on”, few seconds later, thankfully there was a mark, and then play was stopped to carry Rankine off.
3 days later, we find out the umps “play on” call is now translated by the tribunal as “a 5 weeks suspension”.

I’m getting kind of sick of this paradoxical situations, where it’s deemed a legal act on-field, then becomes a murderous act when assessing it post-match. So..

Should the AFL just come out and say “the bump is now no longer allowed in AFL. If you do it you will get weeks off, regardless of whether a concussion occurs”?

 

[John Who]

Just to clarify, this isn’t me being a Crows fan bitter against the Power, but me being a football fan annoyed with the way the penalties are just based purely on outcome aka random chance.

The AFL are turning a blind eye when the bump goes “right”, and completely going beast mode when a concussion is the end outcome.

 

[fairfooty]

Yes, it's time to get rid of the bump.

In relation to the Rankine case, here's my take:

1. Houston had a duty of care regardless - he failed dismally and his suspension should have extended into next year.
2. He knew that momentum and his size and the size differential between him and any smaller player meant he had to be even more careful - duty of care, no excuse.
3.The AFL could not be more clear on this - a player is concussed you get weeks - period.
4. Rankine showed worrying signs - he looked unconcious before he hit the ground, and it looked like his hand clawed and his body stiffened on the ground - bad signs if correct, not to mention the severe shoulder injury
5. As far as i know it's day 4 post injury and we don't have an injury update/report from the Club (please correct me if I'm wrong here as I may have missed it)
6. Bigger picture: Dixon tried it on Rankine and got reported earlier in the game. Then Houston takes him out. May or may not be connected. I suspect the former given the Port players behaviour on Rankine before half time generally, and how rare two reports on the one player ('victim') in the one game are so rare.
7. I predicted to a friend in the first quarter that Port were determined to take him out - and sadly I was right.
8. Where two reports on the same player happen in a game then I think the coaching staff, particularly the coach who sets the culture, also need to be made culpable. (Although I haven't thought that one through completely).

Go for it. Flame suit on.

 

[Brian McGee]

Yes, it's time to get rid of the bump.

In relation to the Rankine case, here's my take:

1. Houston had a duty of care regardless - he failed dismally and his suspension should have extended into next year.
2. He knew that momentum and his size and the size differential between him and any smaller player meant he had to be even more careful - duty of care, no excuse.
3.The AFL could not be more clear on this - a player is concussed you get weeks - period.
4. Rankine showed worrying signs - he looked unconcious before he hit the ground, and it looked like his hand clawed and his body stiffened on the ground - bad signs if correct, not to mention the severe shoulder injury
5. As far as i know it's day 4 post injury and we don't have an injury update/report from the Club (please correct me if I'm wrong here as I may have missed it)
6. Bigger picture: Dixon tried it on Rankine and got reported earlier in the game. Then Houston takes him out. May or may not be connected. I suspect the former given the Port players behaviour on Rankine before half time generally, and how rare two reports on the one player ('victim') in the one game are so rare.
7. I predicted to a friend in the first quarter that Port were determined to take him out - and sadly I was right.
8. Where two reports on the same player happen in a game then I think the coaching staff, particularly the coach who sets the culture, also need to be made culpable. (Although I haven't thought that one through completely).

Go for it. Flame suit on.

Have you actually seen the incident that Dixon’s reported strike on rankine was for? He was breaking up a wrestle and went to push rankine away, clipped him a little bit. This narrative of crows fans that port were “targeting” him all game is fanciful. Your chairman as a commentator mentioned it during the call, clearly he is objective and has no bias whatsoever in that moment, and you all just roll with it like lemmings. The incidents they showed when discussing it were when Boak tackled him on the boundary line and held his jumper for a couple of seconds too long, nothing malicious in it at all, and another brilliant tackle that brought him to the ground and another port player jumped on to keep the ball in. Honestly if you guys can’t deal with that as anything other than gamesmanship in a high emotion game then you need to follow another sport.

Yes Houston went too far and deserved a suspension. It was poor.

 

[Brian McGee]

In terms of the bump though, it is impossible to get rid of it completely because shoulder to shoulder collisions happen 1000 times a game. They happen in almost every contest. Where do you draw the line on what a bump is and isn’t? Is it just if they have the ball and could have tackled? What about a shepherd? How much force body on body constitutes a bump? It is impossible to legislate against, so they are doing the right thing by making anything high a suspension.

 

[melanChronic]

In terms of the bump though, it is impossible to get rid of it completely because shoulder to shoulder collisions happen 1000 times a game. They happen in almost every contest. Where do you draw the line on what a bump is and isn’t? Is it just if they have the ball and could have tackled? What about a shepherd? How much force body on body constitutes a bump? It is impossible to legislate against, so they are doing the right thing by making anything high a suspension.

They'll need to have a "dangerous bump" rule just like the dangerous tackle rule they brought in.

 

[fairfooty]

Have you actually seen the incident that Dixon’s reported strike on rankine was for? He was breaking up a wrestle and went to push rankine away, clipped him a little bit. This narrative of crows fans that port were “targeting” him all game is fanciful. Your chairman as a commentator mentioned it during the call, clearly he is objective and has no bias whatsoever in that moment, and you all just roll with it like lemmings. The incidents they showed when discussing it were when Boak tackled him on the boundary line and held his jumper for a couple of seconds too long, nothing malicious in it at all, and another brilliant tackle that brought him to the ground and another port player jumped on to keep the ball in. Honestly if you guys can’t deal with that as anything other than gamesmanship in a high emotion game then you need to follow another sport.

Yes Houston went too far and deserved a suspension. It was poor.

Yes I did see the Dixon incident and it was far more than a 'clip' - which is why he was reported. Houston went 'too far' did he? So how far was he planning to go? Now toddle back to your own board

 

[Brian McGee]

Yes I did see the Dixon incident and it was far more than a 'clip' - which is why he was reported. Houston went 'too far' did he? So how far was he planning to go? Now toddle back to your own board

I thought you said flame suit on? Pretty thin skin to tell me to go back to my own board.

 

[fairfooty]

I thought you said flame suit on? Pretty thin skin to tell me to go back to my own board.

It is on - and no I don't have thin skin otherwise I'd be ripping shreds off you! We're allowed to talk here on our own board without interference from your type. Haven't you got planning to do for your next game tactics? Now go away.

 

[Brian McGee]

It is on - and no I don't have thin skin otherwise I'd be ripping shreds off you! We're allowed to talk here on our own board without interference from your type. Haven't you got planning to do for your next game tactics? Now go away.

Mate you are on the umpiring, mrp and tribunal board. So maybe have a think before you post shit like this.

 

[John Who]

Yes, it's time to get rid of the bump.

In relation to the Rankine case, here's my take:

1. Houston had a duty of care regardless - he failed dismally and his suspension should have extended into next year.
2. He knew that momentum and his size and the size differential between him and any smaller player meant he had to be even more careful - duty of care, no excuse.
3.The AFL could not be more clear on this - a player is concussed you get weeks - period.
4. Rankine showed worrying signs - he looked unconcious before he hit the ground, and it looked like his hand clawed and his body stiffened on the ground - bad signs if correct, not to mention the severe shoulder injury
5. As far as i know it's day 4 post injury and we don't have an injury update/report from the Club (please correct me if I'm wrong here as I may have missed it)
6. Bigger picture: Dixon tried it on Rankine and got reported earlier in the game. Then Houston takes him out. May or may not be connected. I suspect the former given the Port players behaviour on Rankine before half time generally, and how rare two reports on the one player ('victim') in the one game are so rare.
7. I predicted to a friend in the first quarter that Port were determined to take him out - and sadly I was right.
8. Where two reports on the same player happen in a game then I think the coaching staff, particularly the coach who sets the culture, also need to be made culpable. (Although I haven't thought that one through completely).

Go for it. Flame suit on.

While it seems obvious Rankine was targeted, I highly doubt the instructions were to fully bash into a player to cause a concussion. Bearing in mind the Port players know full well they’re likely to end in the top 4 with the double chance. Causing a concussion effectively ends the player’s season with no Finals games.

Though I’m more interested in the AFL doing something with the rules to either lessen these incidents, or to abandon the bump altogether.

 

[John Who]

They'll need to have a "dangerous bump" rule just like the dangerous tackle rule they brought in.

I actually said this in the Crows board. How ridiculous is it to have frees for a dangerous tackle (for a potential injury), and “play on” when there was an actual significant hit with actual concussion?!

IMO, if any player ends up concussed, their team automatically gets a free kick. This way, it helps to stop play straight away and they can be attended to.

 

[John Who]

In terms of the bump though, it is impossible to get rid of it completely because shoulder to shoulder collisions happen 1000 times a game. They happen in almost every contest. Where do you draw the line on what a bump is and isn’t? Is it just if they have the ball and could have tackled? What about a shepherd? How much force body on body constitutes a bump? It is impossible to legislate against, so they are doing the right thing by making anything high a suspension.

In the least, the AFL needs to ban bumps that will likely cause serious injuries/concussions. Such as in this particular case, where a player runs forward to catch a loose ball and gets shirt-fronted by an opponent. Whiplash injuries and head hitting the ground are likely outcomes.

The main focus here is on the intentional bumps during play, not accidental footy collisions.

 

[Eshay187]

It is probably time for a “charging” rule, yes. Umpires will have to use their discretion as to when to call it. I think we all know the difference between a charge and an incidental bump.

Wrong decisions will happen, people will get mad, but hopefully fewer people will have years knocked off their lives due to CTE

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Yes, it's time to get rid of the bump.

In relation to the Rankine case, here's my take:

1. Houston had a duty of care regardless - he failed dismally and his suspension should have extended into next year.
2. He knew that momentum and his size and the size differential between him and any smaller player meant he had to be even more careful - duty of care, no excuse.
3.The AFL could not be more clear on this - a player is concussed you get weeks - period.
4. Rankine showed worrying signs - he looked unconcious before he hit the ground, and it looked like his hand clawed and his body stiffened on the ground - bad signs if correct, not to mention the severe shoulder injury

Severe Shoulder injury that Rankine shows no sign of while clowing around on Adelaide Crows social media.

5. As far as i know it's day 4 post injury and we don't have an injury update/report from the Club (please correct me if I'm wrong here as I may have missed it)

On day 4 the Crows post a video of Izak Rankine up and running at training. This is the minimum time required before a player can start jogging. So much for it being an extra bad concussion....

6. Bigger picture: Dixon tried it on Rankine and got reported earlier in the game. Then Houston takes him out. May or may not be connected. I suspect the former given the Port players behaviour on Rankine before half time generally, and how rare two reports on the one player ('victim') in the one game are so rare.
7. I predicted to a friend in the first quarter that Port were determined to take him out - and sadly I was right.
8. Where two reports on the same player happen in a game then I think the coaching staff, particularly the coach who sets the culture, also need to be made culpable. (Although I haven't thought that one through completely).

Go for it. Flame suit on.

Yet another stanard Crows take. Divorced from reality.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Pretty easy. No shirtfronts - they're easy to pick by a granny in the crowd let alone an umpire so little grey area compared to a side on bump. They are dangerous and can cause serious injury or, rarely, death.
The vast majority of fans go to see good footy not shirtfronts.

Do a shirtfront - free kick if no injury, report/suspension if there is. The game will survive without them.

 

[HugeJohnson]

If Pickett gets suspended for his hit on Moore tonight things will get very interesting for the AFL. He would literally have had no idea that Moore was going to drop his knees and dive in to the ball as it happened right at the last second, I'm not a great fan of Kossie, I think he's a bit of a sniper actually, but in this case he should have no case to answer, it was 100% Darcy Moores fault for not keeping his feet. Yet the fact it resulted in a concussion makes it interesting, especially after the Houston 5 week suspension Last week. For me its going to be one of the biggest cases of the year. The AFL have made it very clear if you choose to bump and it results in a concussion, you will be suspended. I'll be looking forward to seeing how consistent they are with their interpretations.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I've followed football since the 1960s. I have loved the bump, both as a spectator and as a player. However, the game is an entirely different one to which I played, and social restraints are redefining how the game is played. The game is too quick these days to deliver a perfectly timed hip and shoulder bump. Reluctantly, I would support banning the bump, it is inevitable.

 

[Stax on the mill]

If Pickett gets suspended for his hit on Moore tonight things will get very interesting for the AFL. He would literally have had no idea that Moore was going to drop his knees and dive in to the ball as it happened right at the last second, I'm not a great fan of Kossie, I think he's a bit of a sniper actually, but in this case he should have no case to answer, it was 100% Darcy Moores fault for not keeping his feet. Yet the fact it resulted in a concussion makes it interesting, especially after the Houston 5 week suspension Last week. For me its going to be one of the biggest cases of the year. The AFL have made it very clear if you choose to bump and it results in a concussion, you will be suspended. I'll be looking forward to seeing how consistent they are with their interpretations.

Pickett had a choice, attempt to pick up the ball himself, or bump. He chose the latter, so this is on him. Attempting to blame Moore for Pickett’s poor decision is misplaced, made even worse by Slobbo running the same crap line.

Having said that, compared to some of Pickett’s prior “dog” acts, this is at the lower end of offending.

 

[Whiskers]

Pickett had a choice, attempt to pick up the ball himself, or bump. He chose the latter, so this is on him. Attempting to blame Moore for Pickett’s poor decision is misplaced, made even worse by Slobbo running the same crap line.

Having said that, compared to some of Pickett’s prior “dog” acts, this is at the lower end of offending.

Bump him out of the way and than you win the ball. It’s a very straight forward tactic and that is his strength.
A bump isn’t illegal, it’s part of our game. The type of bump he was executing was not dirty, it happens every game, he just got very unlucky that Moore goes to ground.

The suspension infuriates me and I have no skin in the game.

 

[Erakor]

Yes, it's time to get rid of the bump.

In relation to the Rankine case, here's my take:

1. Houston had a duty of care regardless - he failed dismally and his suspension should have extended into next year.
2. He knew that momentum and his size and the size differential between him and any smaller player meant he had to be even more careful - duty of care, no excuse.
3.The AFL could not be more clear on this - a player is concussed you get weeks - period.


Go for it. Flame suit on.

Yeah, this is why the game is screwed.

You use terms like ‘duty of care’ in the context of a professional 360 degree contact sport.

You also say bigger bodied or taller players should be ‘more careful’, like it’s AusKick.

Houston executed a perfectly good bump, which unfortunately resulted in head contact to the ground. It’s going to happen.

You are never going to have a sport like AFL and 100% no head injuries. Either the game or your desired head free injury vision will fail.