Head high suspensions

[Adelaide Hawk]

With all the talk about legal action pertinent to concussions, I cannot see where the AFL has any choice ban to ban the bump completely. When I played many years ago, the bump made perfect sense because it was a controlled action and you would hit with the hip and shoulder, but the pace of the game these days means the player is airborne when attempting to bump, and more likely to make head high contact with either an elbow or shoulder.

You can't be talking about legal proceedings with concussion but still allowing the bump to continue.

Just on Buddy, he has always been a clumsy bumper and I'm surprised nobody has been able to eliminate this from his game over all these years.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Right, what on earth is the AFL doing here?

This is so much simpler than those clowns are making it look and sound, and does not need to involve banning bumping at all.

There are two types of bumping actions, one should be legal and one should be illegal because it is extremely dangerous.

1. The way that should be legal to bump. You lead with the hip first to the body and keep your head and shoulders well back from the initial point of impact. These bumps can be spectacular but should pose no significant danger to the head. It is perfectly demonstrated here by a social media specialist, so anybody can do it. There is no need whatsoever to ban this type of bump.




2. The way that should be outlawed, automatic free kick and multiple week suspension for the action alone. This is the head and shoulder first bump. This action is incredibly dangerous, and moreso at the speed these players collide these days.




From there you have the proper basis to proceed and think of penalties and so on.

For mine the second bumping action(like K Pickett's and McAdam's on the weekend) should start from a multiple week suspension for the action alone. Say 2 weeks. Then if the AFL are serious, you get loading according to the damage done and level of culpability.

These "drive by" shoulder first bumps to the head like Franklin on Collins and Stewart on Prestia should start at 3 weeks in the current environment and add loading for severity, intent and so on.

Something like that would clarify for all how a bump can be potentially fairly executed and almost totally wipe out the most dangerous types of bumps.

In game if you concuss someone or put someone into HIA with an illegal bumping action or other illegal suspendable action, the opposition chooses one of your players to go out of the game for the commensurate period. Still 18 v 18 but Cripps, Neale, Heeney or whoever is out of the game for as long as the victim of the bump is off the ground.

 

[Lingsface]

Surely the legal actions are for how it is managed not that it happens in our game.
This is part of what you sign up for, it’s like skateboarding it’s super fun but you jump on the board knowing that something could go wrong and you could get hurt. If a player punches another player or kicks, something completely un related to football play and hurts them, then it’s definitely something that needs to go to court. I thought Mcadam was just making a decision to either tackle and probably give away the free because he would of grabbed him to early or bump, he chose to bump and it slid up but initially the contact was around the sternum, it was a bit of a hospital pass.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Surely the legal actions are for how it is managed not that it happens in our game.
This is part of what you sign up for, it’s like skateboarding it’s super fun but you jump on the board knowing that something could go wrong and you could get hurt. If a player punches another player or kicks, something completely un related to football play and hurts them, then it’s definitely something that needs to go to court. I thought Mcadam was just making a decision to either tackle and probably give away the free because he would of grabbed him to early or bump, he chose to bump and it slid up but initially the contact was around the sternum, it was a bit of a hospital pass.

I too have some sympathy for McAdam. We could also mention we are asking the guy to run 14km's in 36 degree heat but make perfectly reasoned decisions.

But in the end his bumping action was, imo, unsafe. That shoulder first bumping style should definitely be outlawed. I have no issue really with his decision to bump, for the reasons you gave. It is just the form of the bump that is wrong, he should be leading with his hip.

 

[Power Raid]

one-four week suspensions for deliberate and dangerous head bumps, that can result in long term brain damage and loss of quality of life isn't enough. AFL bosses are trading people's health for dollars and simply don't give a shit.

I loved 80s footy but ashamed that my local idols like Platten are paying a huge price for my entertainment. Should we repeat this today, given what we know?

 

[Toump Ass]

Looked pretty intentional to most people

Have a sook mate.

Why would Pickett INTENTIONALLY get himself suspended against a bottom eight team in a meaningless home and away game?

Not like he needed to rile up his teammates or anything like that, Dogs had already rolled over... good boy!

 

[1990crow]

one-four week suspensions for deliberate and dangerous head bumps, that can result in long term brain damage and loss of quality of life isn't enough. AFL bosses are trading people's health for dollars and simply don't give a s**t.

I loved 80s footy but ashamed that my local idols like Platten are paying a huge price for my entertainment. Should we repeat this today, given what we know?

I tend to agree. The deterrent to bump someone when they have their head over the ball needs to be there (and opportunity to tackle).
A shepherd can still be done with your arms to guard space without needing to engage your opponent to bump.

 

[Power Raid]

I tend to agree. The deterrent to bump someone when they have their head over the ball needs to be there (and opportunity to tackle).
A shepherd can still be done with your arms to guard space without needing to engage your opponent to bump.

yep

I love the bump and it can still be a part of the game but 3 of the 4 I saw (I didn't see the 4th) were reckless and 2 of the 4 were intentional to cause head impact.

 

[Power Raid]

Have a sook mate.

Why would Pickett INTENTIONALLY get himself suspended against a bottom eight team in a meaningless home and away game?

Not like he needed to rile up his teammates or anything like that, Dogs had already rolled over... good boy!

it is hard to suggest it wasn't intentional

a charge, a leap and positioning the body for impact

 

[conrad_437]

Have a sook mate.

Why would Pickett INTENTIONALLY get himself suspended against a bottom eight team in a meaningless home and away game?

Not like he needed to rile up his teammates or anything like that, Dogs had already rolled over... good boy!

You tell me. Seemed like a pretty stupid thing to do, and yet he still did it.

Jumping off two feet directing his shoulder at the head of Smith well after he disposed of the ball doesn't seem careless, it's clearly intentional.

 

[Hoops]

it is hard to suggest it wasn't intentional

a charge, a leap and positioning the body for impact

Are you saying he intentionally went for the head. Why would he?

 

[Toump Ass]

You tell me. Seemed like a pretty stupid thing to do, and yet he still did it.

Jumping off two feet directing his shoulder at the head of Smith well after he disposed of the ball doesn't seem careless, it's clearly intentional.

Right we must be talking about different bumps then. The one Pickett was suspended for couldn’t have been half a second between disposal and impact.

 

[SplintWhisky]

one-four week suspensions for deliberate and dangerous head bumps, that can result in long term brain damage and loss of quality of life isn't enough. AFL bosses are trading people's health for dollars and simply don't give a s**t.

I loved 80s footy but ashamed that my local idols like Platten are paying a huge price for my entertainment. Should we repeat this today, given what we know?

It is the intentionality that makes the biggest difference. I believe that McAdam did not make any head high contact so the fact he got rubbed out is a shame.

To the point about AFL trading lives for profit, well that is pretty much all businesses. But it is offset by the compensation for the work. The AFL needs to make sure that the aftercare is world class and also ban the bumps that are against the rules (intention and high contact) but to start making changes on the potential to injure is crazy. If you the player do not find the risk acceptable for injury, then you find another career. I fear sharks and drowning so I accept I will never be a submariner or a fisherman.

 

[conrad_437]

Right we must be talking about different bumps then. The one Pickett was suspended for couldn’t have been half a second between disposal and impact.

Bailey had kicked the ball before Pickett had even left the ground. Even more so, the ball had left Smith's hand in his ball drop before Pickett had even started to brace during his bumping action.

This should be clear evidence that Pickett knew he was bumping a player without the ball. This is before you even consider the fact he LAUNCHED off the ground with his shoulder aimed at the head. It was never going to end any other way, frankly its a miracle that Bailey got up straight away.

 

[Power Raid]

It is the intentionality that makes the biggest difference. I believe that McAdam did not make any head high contact so the fact he got rubbed out is a shame.

To the point about AFL trading lives for profit, well that is pretty much all businesses. But it is offset by the compensation for the work. The AFL needs to make sure that the aftercare is world class and also ban the bumps that are against the rules (intention and high contact) but to start making changes on the potential to injure is crazy. If you the player do not find the risk acceptable for injury, then you find another career. I fear sharks and drowning so I accept I will never be a submariner or a fisherman.

You should tell that to the department of prosecution and judges when considering criminal liability

As probability concepts are the foundation of the law

 

[SplintWhisky]

You should tell that to the department of prosecution and judges when considering criminal liability

As probability concepts are the foundation of the law

There is always a risk that something will happen. If the AFL punishes all the illegal bumps that catch players high/off the ball and gives good after care to those who get injured then there is no criminal liability. There isn't even a criminal act from the AFL. It would be like suing the Defence department for being shot by an enemy whilst working a non-combat role. Sure you may of signed on to be a mechanic/cook/logistics specialist but you still understood that being part of the Defence force brought risk that someone, somewhere from some other country may take a shot at you.

 

[CakeEater]

Just to show the inconsistency- watch Broad get 1 week

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Just to show the inconsistency- watch Broad get 1 week

And burt9n will get 2

 

[HugeJohnson]

View attachment 1571199-8ba50442666b22c6e4e267d0f614609d.mp4





Can someone tell me why this wasn't even looked at by the MRO?

 

[HairyO]

View attachment 1640863

View attachment 1640864

View attachment 1640865

Can someone tell me why this wasn't even looked at by the MRO?

He turns his back at the last second which may have saved him but to not even comment on it is pretty poor.

But the MRO has a long history of only looking at incidents the media highlight.