So the bump is banned then as I said as a player cant control whether they have an accident. It’s the definition of accident. It can’t be controlled.
bump is dead.
Dangerfield on Kelly
- Thread starter james Dean
- Start date
- Tagged users None
bump is dead.
if that was the goal hé should of done it with a raised elbow. A raised elbow is now considered the same as a bump to the chest.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Let’s just hope it’s not a whole episode of Hipster
- May 29, 2013
- 5,605
- 14,314
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
No you can bump just dont the hit the head ..... with anything ..... if you do then be prepared to sit out a few weeks
It seriously isn't that hard to understand
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,890
- 7,385
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Don't get airborn and don't bump the opponent front on and those percentages probably swing back in the bumping players favour.
And even if you do get cited the the fact you got low and the angle will work better in your favour than the circumstances of Dangerfield's bump.
They can control the 'when' they should bump and they can control whether to get low or to launch themselves.
You're being a bit silly about this. But I get it, he's a big out.
hawkman
Hall of Famer
How often do you really see the big heavy bump where one players object isn't the ball?
Maybe 1 a week
if he hits him in the chest the slight jump off the ground is irrelevant. Jumping is only wrong if it forces you to go high with the bump. He didn’t go High. He wasn’t even close to high.
ps there is no such thing as a bump where your feet arent slightly off the ground. You can’t get the momentum to implement otherwise.
Every single bump is that circumstance.
But you can’t prevent accidental head clashes in a bump. It’s impossible. You are moving to hit the player in the chest with momentum. Your head is at the same level as your opponent. You cant control how both heads respond to the hit in the chest. You cant control whether the opponent changes direction slightly at the last second.
what you are claiming is an impossibility. thereforethe bump is Russian roulette which means no rational player can now implement it.
Head clashes can still happen with side bumps.
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,890
- 7,385
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Shannon Hurn says otherwise:
The picture was from an article stating 'the bump is here to stay" indicating it is the perfect form for a bump in the modern era.
- Moderator
- #789
And if you don't want to take the risk, don't bump.
The law on bumps is clear and it covers accidental head clashes. If you choose to bump the ball carrier, and your head collects them in the process, you're liable.
- Oct 29, 2017
- 22,687
- 44,585
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Well, all's well that ends well.
HG Pennypacker
Team Captain
It’s hard to fathom why danger would go for the bump than any reason other to ‘punish’ or hurt Kelly. There is no legitimate football reason to try it aside from some type of enforcement/tough guy thing. The player is basically defenceless having just disposed of the ball. It was basically sniping. 3 weeks seems pretty right to me.
edit: not saying he meant to hit his head but that’s the risk you run when you bump these days
edit: not saying he meant to hit his head but that’s the risk you run when you bump these days
Has someone stolen your account recently? You aren’t your usual logical self.
it’s not abuse if there is no one who percieves themselves to be a victim.
the hit to the head was accidental, the hit to the chest was deliberate. you can’t control accidental outcomes by definition. if you get penalised by accidental outcomes then the only solution is to not do the action. Which is the same as the bump being dead.
Was Dangerfield too low on the bump? its the top of Dangerfields head that hits the jaw. Should Dangerfield have jumped higher so any accidental head contact would of been like for like?
- Jan 14, 2016
- 2,890
- 7,385
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Agreed, but you are less likely to cause the damage that you will cause if you line someone up with a front on bump.
Also your penalty is likely to be a lot less if you dont leave the ground as the power of force will be transferred into the body primarily even if there is an incidental head clash.
It's the small points that matter. Eg if Dangerfield's bump was a half second later then he is probably looking at a couple more weeks added.
That’s my point. No rational player should now bump. So it’s the same as the bump being banned. It’s only the reckless players who will still do it. Some will get lucky and not accidentally hit thé head while others will not. It makes no sense to have an action that can reward the reckless and pénalisé the rational.
what happens if there is no accidental head clash but the force of the bump still knocks the player to the ground and he is concussed from the head hitting the ground?
It is probably less but it is still risk and reward.
i don’t understand the second point? Whether he jumps or not doesnt transfer the force beyond where the contact is made. And Dangerfields head was actually lower then his opponents. jump isnt really the right word. He was just running.
- May 29, 2013
- 5,605
- 14,314
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Danger needs to learn how to bump properly with out headbutting a player into next week
Lucky it was only 3
Lucky it was only 3
gingernuts
binlicker
Its been a long day for a cripple like myself. My take on it is the bump is not dead at all.if you bump and the opposition players gets knocked out, well then you get rubbed out. Easy peasy.
I hope all tiger boys get a good night sleep as they have been a bit restless over Danger the last couple of nights. and the hawkers as well, as it could be along year for you guys.
night!
I hope all tiger boys get a good night sleep as they have been a bit restless over Danger the last couple of nights. and the hawkers as well, as it could be along year for you guys.
night!
- Moderator
- #799
Then dont bump. Tackle instead. These rules didnt come in overnight.
If you choose to bump, and get him in the head, you're gone.
Contact is graded as contact on the player by the other player, not the effects of the player hitting the ground.
But a bump forceful enough to bowl a player over onto the ground would be graded as at least medium, and potentially high impact.
- Moderator
- #800
None of which is relevant. Read the damn law!
1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps)
The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck.
Unless Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless:
» The Player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball; or
» The forceful contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen.
In the interests of Player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to Players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all Players and will guide the application of the rule. For the purpose of these guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.
2019-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf (afl.com.au)
The rules expressly provide that 'accidental head clashes' when a player chooses to Bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen by that player in advance of any bump.
You cant argue that it was an accidental clash of heads in a bump. The rules say it doesnt matter, you should have been aware of the possibility, and you took that chance when you elected to bump.
