MRP / Trib. Mitch Duncan bump on Robbie Fox discussion - not sure of report yet

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't hear one word of the commentary.

I'm only going on my judgement from watching a replay without any volume.

It sounded like a quoted rule - where if the bump is fair, head contact with the turf afterward is not considered to be the bumpers fault.

Or they could have been making it up, who knows.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Honestly thought you were taking the piss with your first couple of posts.

He didn't choose to bump at all. Horrible take.
A brace or a bump. They are one and the same. It's the old fashioned hip and shoulder that made contact with the head.

I'm not sure why some are having difficulty understanding what occurred.

The fact is Duncan was in his bumping motion before Fox overran the ball.

So no, I'm certainly not taking the piss.

And I certainly don't agree with the AFL's interpretations either or the way they police it, but the players are well aware of the consequences of their actions should they elect to bump..

But it's Christian... He should have been replaced years ago. He's incompetent.
 
He gets him in the head. Zero doubt. Slow it down and watch his head bounce off the point of Duncan’s shoulder.

View attachment 1667746
Are people still assuming Duncan doesn't make contact with the head?

Talk about rose coloured glasses.
 
A brace or a bump. There are one and the same. It's the old fashioned hip and shoulder that made contact with the head.

I'm not sure why some are having difficulty understanding what occurred.

The fact is Duncan was in his bumping motion before Fox overran the ball.

So no, I'm certainly not taking the piss.

And I certainly don't agree with the AFL's interpretations either or the way they police it, but the players are well aware of the consequences of their actions should they elect to bump..

But it's Christian... He should have been replaced years ago. He's incompetent.

How can you be attacking the football, have your opponent kamikaze you ignoring the football, dive headfirst at you, and be considered to be laying a bump?
 
How can you be attacking the football, have your opponent kamikaze you ignoring the football, dive headfirst at you, and be considered to be laying a bump?
What you've just posted is your imagination.
 
It sounded like a quoted rule - where if the bump is fair, head contact with the turf afterward is not considered to be the bumpers fault.

Or they could have been making it up, who knows.

The head is sacrosanct.

Any contact that causes any impact to the head will be carefully scrutinised.
 
A brace or a bump. They are one and the same. It's the old fashioned hip and shoulder that made contact with the head.

I'm not sure why some are having difficulty understanding what occurred.

The fact is Duncan was in his bumping motion before Fox overran the ball.

So no, I'm certainly not taking the piss.

And I certainly don't agree with the AFL's interpretations either or the way they police it, but the players are well aware of the consequences of their actions should they elect to bump..

But it's Christian... He should have been replaced years ago. He's incompetent.

A brace is not a bump.
A brace is when you brace for contact to protect yourself (head or legs in particular) as we have been taught growing up for decades.
A bump is when you actively move yourself towards another player with an intent to hit them in the chest.
They might look similar to some people but they are very different.

Players brace for contact hundreds of times a game and those instances are not bumps.
 
The head is sacrosanct.

Any contact that causes any impact to the head will be carefully scrutinised.
It'll get to the stage where every player will be forced to wear a helmet.
 
A brace is not a bump.
A brace is when you brace for contact to protect yourself (head or legs in particular) as we have been taught growing up for decades.
A bump is when you actively move yourself towards another player with an intent to hit them in the chest.
They might look similar to some people but they are very different.

Players brace for contact hundreds of times a game and those instances are not bumps.
Ok. We'll agree to disagree.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It'll get to the stage where every player will be forced to wear a helmet.

Helmets dont do much to protect from concussion though (insofar as the current research tells us this could change as more becomes known about concussion).
 
How can you be attacking the football, have your opponent kamikaze you ignoring the football, dive headfirst at you, and be considered to be laying a bump?

There is no 'head first dive'.

Fox tries to position himself between Duncan and the ball. He is upright, on his knees essentially, when Duncan hits him.
 
The impact is completely irrelevant if he's found to have been making a genuine attempt to play the ball.

Tom Lynch KOd Alex Keath by jumping away from the flight of the ball and not even raising his arms in a genuine attempt to mark. He was deemed to be playing the ball and got off. If that gets off then Duncan clearly gets off because he's running directly after the football.
 
Helmets dont do much to protect from concussion though (insofar as the current research tells us this could change as more becomes known about concussion).
I'd say there is some form of protection given otherwise why the hell does Daniel wear one. It isn't to hide a deformity.
 
Ok. We'll agree to disagree.

Fair enough.
Thats why i was so critical of stewart last year because he chose to bump (and more so chose to when he had an alternative) duncan didnt choose to do anything someone ran into him and he braced for contact (as every kid in auskick gets taught to do).
I see bracing and bumping as very different.
We have to get bumps (particularly high bumps) out of the game but bracing is very different and shouldnt be lumped in with that.
You are always going to have players bracing to protect themselves in a 360deg contact sport.
 
A brace is not a bump.
A brace is when you brace for contact to protect yourself (head or legs in particular) as we have been taught growing up for decades.
A bump is when you actively move yourself towards another player with an intent to hit them in the chest.
They might look similar to some people but they are very different.

Players brace for contact hundreds of times a game and those instances are not bumps.
Brace or bump actually doesn’t matter. It’s forceful contact to the head under the rules.
 
I'd say there is some form of protection given otherwise why the hell does Daniel wear one. It isn't to hide a deformity.

Some players choose to wear them after concussions because it makes them feel more confident and secure (call it the placebo effect or whatever). I dont know if thats why daniel does.
But the current research shows what causes concussion damage is more the head bouncing around inside the skull after contact and that helmets dont really reduce that (as far as we currently know).
No doubt science will be working on some sort of head device that protects sportspeople from concussion better.
 
A brace is not a bump.
A brace is when you brace for contact to protect yourself (head or legs in particular) as we have been taught growing up for decades.
A bump is when you actively move yourself towards another player with an intent to hit them in the chest.
They might look similar to some people but they are very different.

Players brace for contact hundreds of times a game and those instances are not bumps.

The fact the head was impacted overrides the debate on brace v bump.
 
No doubt science will be working on some sort of head device that protects sportspeople from concussion better.
I have no doubt that will be the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top