Unbiased discussion about the bump (No hawks fans!)

[el toado]

I was just wondering what supporters of every other club apart from hawthorn think about the decision to give Buddy 2 weeks for his bump and what it means for the future of the hip and shoulder in the AFL.

I dont want hawks fans in this thread because the last few days have shown that they cannot discuss this issue reasonably because its thier player and potential finals birth at stake. I hardly think they would be calling for break away leagues, Andy D's head or even doing press releases if it was a North Melbourne player instead of Buddy.

I believe that you cannot fault the tribunal and thier decision as they were only following the rule that was put in place after the Maxwell incident, therefore if anything it is a problem with the rule. I think that the bump will become a marginalised skill in the game and that worries me.

I understand that the head should be protected and if the hip and shoulder directly makes contact with the other players head then a report should happen. However I think that if the hip and shoulder leads to incidental contact with the head then it may warrant a free kick but nothing more.

What do other people think? I know I would not be too happy if this decision happened to a player in my team however I also think that there should be some protection for the head. I would also be asking why buddy didnt tackle (yes going by the rules cousins was in possesion of the ball).

*** Please hawks fans could you just let this go, you may be pleasantly suprised to find most supporters may just agree with you! (most just cant stand your crying!) ***

 

[frednirk]

Remember Kosi was almost killed from a bump from Giansiracusa? Giansiracusa got off because it was a fair bump and in the spirit of the game. Pay attention to your surroundings or get hammered.

Franklin should not have got 2 weeks because Cousins was clumsy and unaware.

Awesome bump.

Carry on.

EDIT: Imagine if Schneider or Milne got bumped like Cousins. Nobody would think twice because they are hated players.

 

[Roachy8]

I thought it was 95% fair...

Worthy of a free kick due to high contact and at worst, a referal to the tribunual and maybe a reprimand... (asking Buddy to be aware that as a 6 foot 5 inch big bloke he has to be aware and take care of his height difference when tackling & bumping to avoid high contact.)

 

[DapperDon]

2 things.

1. As much as I should be happy Lance is out of this weeks game I would be ropeable if it was one of my players involved, it was a fair bump, the tribunal said it was a fair bump. I'm struggling to see how he got done.

2. If it wasn't Buddy invloved and a lessor player say Mitch Thorp would there be all this media build up over it? Would the Hawks fans care as much? I know it was a wrong decision, but I think the player involved is making it much bigger.

 

[Ant_]

Fair bump

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Wasn't malicious. Can't see what else he could have done.

 

[peejay]

There are currently 20 threads on the first page of the hawks board relating to this.

Fair to say they are pissed off.

 

[peejay]

Fair bump

No its not a fair bump !

I think what you mean is that it was a fair bump before the rules were changed earlier this year and that 90% of the football public would like it to be a fair bump.

But it wasn't.

 

[Ant_]

To me it's a fair bump, laws/rules are not always fair.

 

[el toado]

Remember Kosi was almost killed from a bump from Giansiracusa? Giansiracusa got off because it was a fair bump and in the spirit of the game. Pay attention to your surroundings or get hammered.

Franklin should not have got 2 weeks because Cousins was clumsy and unaware.

I agree, the player being bumped has to have some awareness about him but still it is the responsibility of the player instigating contact to ensure that they dont get the other player high.

If the bump is fair and hard and results in an injury then bad luck however if the bump is hard and high then whatever you get is your fault.

 

[CaptainDavey]

2 things.

1. As much as I should be happy Lance is out of this weeks game I would be ropeable if it was one of my players involved, it was a fair bump, the tribunal said it was a fair bump. I'm struggling to see how he got done.

2. If it wasn't Buddy invloved and a lessor player say Mitch Thorp would there be all this media build up over it? Would the Hawks fans care as much? I know it was a wrong decision, but I think the player involved is making it much bigger.

Wholeheartedly agree with this second point. If it was Clint Bartram bumping Steven Dodd in a dead rubber between 16th and 15th I'd imagine the hype would be next to none. Yes I know it's essentially a final next week and it was a marquee player that was rubbed out who apparently gets unfair treatment, but that still doesn't make it right that it should gain any more importance than any other decision. People are fickle

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Knocked him out with head high contact, was offered a week, should of taken it.
If any player had done the same they would have been offered a week or more.

When it comes down to it hes lucky not to have been suspended before, can't get off every time.

Dawson got rubbed out for 2 and their was no high contact and the players wasn't knocked out.
King got rubbed out for 4 because he knocked a player out.
Looks like Buddy got a 2 week reduction because it was at least on the ball and he could have accepted just the 1.

 

[EOP26]

The bump can be fair and legit, but if it causes injury to the neck or head, you are gone... that’s what Anderson put in place after Maxwell’s incident.
I am amazed that Anderson can put an amendment to a rule, without consulting the Rules of the game committee...

 

[Richo83]

Remember Kosi was almost killed from a bump from Giansiracusa? Giansiracusa got off because it was a fair bump and in the spirit of the game. Pay attention to your surroundings or get hammered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyvuEnFgYxI

Now if this can get off (and I believe it should have) then so should this. Look I know the head is protected and for good reason, BUT, the AFL need to use some common sense and apply the rule case by case, in this instance, I don't think Franklin was malicious, late, or anything like that and I think it was just a bump. People comparing it to other reports are missing the point, the AFL have gone overboard, according to the rules Franklin was in the wrong, but are the rules fair?

 

[KcanHawks]

I know technically I am "banned" from this discussion board, however I think reading this particular discussion thread gives you more of an insight into a football fans opinion on the matter.

You can't really read the Hawthorn Boards without getting some pretty extreme bias.

Basically my opinion on a thread I shouldn't get shouted down in is: The decision was a fair one but a crap one. The rule sucks but Buddy did make contact with the head, and under the rules, that is a suspension. It is just the rule that stinks (in my opinion).

Is that a fair assumption from a biased Hawthorn supporter?

 

[ziad]

There are currently 20 threads on the first page of the hawks board relating to this.

Fair to say they are pissed off.

where is jeff, are we in for another barry hall circus?

 

[sainter12riewoldt]

YES AN NO.

NO because it was a great hit, and a stupid rule.

YES because he broke one of the laws of football.
In making a bumb, you are hold responsible, if you make contact to head or neck, reasonable or unreasonable, and shall be charged with rough conduct. there's nothing in the rule saying if it was the person getting hits fault or the height difference.. he made a front on bump and AFL want to get rid of that, NOT the BUMP altogether. shoulder to shoulder bumps are not gone if NO CONTACT is made to the head. remember you cant touch players above the head.

remember Dawson got two weeks for a bumb that made NO contact to the head. and Glesson even said what Dawson did WAS allowed as he was making an attempt at a protect a teammate.
whether we like that law or not, its there and he broke it, so must pay the price.
if it had of been D.Fletcher there would be NO calls to clear him.
JUST because it is BUDDY, doesnt mean he should get different treatment. he was lucky only to get 2.

 

[ILY Leonard]

there's something wrong with anyone who didn't love it.

should have zero weeks.

 

[ArGhHhH]

Agree with most sentiments about it being a fair bump.

In the rules of the game, the suspension was there; it's the rule that needs revision and I think Buddy should not have been suspended!

 

[Helfarch]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyvuEnFgYxI

Now if this can get off (and I believe it should have) then so should this. Look I know the head is protected and for good reason, BUT, the AFL need to use some common sense and apply the rule case by case, in this instance, I don't think Franklin was malicious, late, or anything like that and I think it was just a bump. People comparing it to other reports are missing the point, the AFL have gone overboard, according to the rules Franklin was in the wrong, but are the rules fair?

Terrible example, just like anyone comparing it to Maxwell early on this year. Shoulder to the head attempting a hip and shoulder is not in the same realm as an accidental head clash while completing a legal hip and shoulder. Franklin had at least three other options and all of them would have been preferable to what should have been a free on the ground and has now cost him two weeks.

At no time should a hip and shoulder contact the head which doesn't make the game soft it just makes players less likely to sustain head, neck and brain injuries. Frees for resting your hand on a player, telling the umpire what you think of his incompetence or assuming a negative demeanor rolleyes makes the game soft.

 

[damochandler]

i thought it was a fair bump. it looked like cuz was stumbling to me and that's how i saw. if the afl are concerned about kids not playing our game and the parents. they should be telling the parents. bumping isnt alowed in auskick or under 8's last time i looked

 

[manureid]

Based on similar precedent, 2 weeks was fair, should have taken the 1.

 

[Jedi01]

Crap that he got rubbed out for 2. Was a fine bump that should be allowed in our game.

 

[Major Colvin]

Fair bump

Disgraceful decision.

Seem to remember a similar incident involving Stenglein and a young Port player, where the Port player was knocked out but the bump was probably fair. Stenglein got weeks for it, but noone particularly kicked up a fuss. I think the real reason this decision is so lambasted is because of the importance of the upcoming game.

 

[flight23]

To me it's a fair bump, laws/rules are not always fair.

there's something wrong with anyone who didn't love it.

should have zero weeks.

agree with this