Unbiased discussion about the bump (No hawks fans!)

[Hearts to hearts]

I love the hip and shoulder, and I'm also happy that there's a consequence if you hit an opponent in the head when you're laying one. I don't see that the bump will go from the game - it hasn't been used less all year since the rule came in, and it will survive just fine even if players have to adjust their approach slightly.

Big guys have plenty of advantages in the game - that's how Buddy walks over the top of McMahon, for example - so if they are at a small disadvantage in having to adjust their stance to legally bump a smaller opponent, so be it.

 

[chicachow]

[youtube]2O3h_E80vXw[/youtube]




Much is made of the slow replay being shown over and over but to me it appears the most damming evidence on video is in the first 5 seconds shown at normal pace. Buddy had plenty of time to decide on a tackle or bump and in fact he changed his direction to apply the crunch. Cousins wasn't fumbling and it appears he wasn't about to handball either but to take a bit of a run. Buddy gambled and lost under the letter of the afl rule. He should have taken the week.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

I haven't read the whole thread but was struck by how the incident is interpreted depends so much on the players. I don't like Cuz but I certainly don't think he's soft. He went down hard and it was clear that he was knocked out for a few seconds. So it's hard to argue there wasn't head high contact.

Yet I don't think Buddy intended to hit him in the head. It looked like he was trying a legitimate bump but the difference in their height meant it worked out badly.

The whole "head is sacred" principle is reasonable - no-one wants anyone hit in the head. So Cuz was unlucky, Buddy was unlucky but the Hawks got it badly wrong when they decided to appeal. They should have just copped the week. I don't see how they thought they could talk him out of the charges as there's no doubt Cuz was concussed.

The timing is awful though. The event certainly turned the match but it looks like it's cost the Hawks their last chance of redeeming their season. But if they win these next two games no-one can deny they deserve to be there.

 

[saladin]

Essendon fan here.

Franklin should play. disgraceful wording of the rule that unhinges the spirit and intent of our game.

 

[jim boy]

What I want to know is if we are going to have such lame-arsed over-protectionist rules, why is Cuz not also being suspended?

He ran full pelt at Buddy, knowing that there would be body contact, knowing that he could have laid off and that he risked being wiped out, but he continued on regardless and now buddy is facing the consequences. Cuz is as much to blame for the concussion as Buddy is.

If Cuz had clashed heads with Buddy, would both of them be facing suspension?

Avoiding head clashes isn't just the responsibility of tackler-bumper, the person with the ball should also take reasonable steps to avoid a clash, but the rules juts don't reflect that.

 

[absfab]

Yet I don't think Buddy intended to hit him in the head. It looked like he was trying a legitimate bump but the difference in their height meant it worked out badly.

As much as fans like to think so, not everyone at AFL HQ is a dunce.

There simply can not be a height difference defence. To allow it represents open season any smaller player. A taller guy, should he be so inclined (and there's plenty of guys running around who are ruthless), is capable of making damn sure the shoulder gets the head in a "fair" shirtfront - so long as he has the man lined up square. The reason this hasn't come up much is that its not all that common for a guy to be thoroughly lined up.

As for the Buddy had no choice argument? Pure bulldust. The reason Franklin did get an aware player like Cousins fully lined up and vulnerable was because Cuz lost footing at the crucial instant. THis did not CAUSE the head high, it ALLOWED it. Big difference. Claims that Franklin could not tackle because he was out of position to do anything else are likewise deluded. To deliver a dead square bump you gotta be centred on the player and fully balanced. Funny old thing - that happens to be the perfect set up to lay a good tackle.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

That's easy to answer, just read the rule

"A player shall be quilty of rough conduct, if making a bump on an opponent whether reasonable or unreasonable, causes forceful contact to the head or neck.

Ahh - but here is the question

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it - does it make a sound?

What if Franklin wasn't moving, but braced with a bump and Cousins ran into him?

now what if Franklin was just barely maoving? What if he was walking?

At what point is the "bumper" the one making contact and not the "bumpee"?

Franklin went in to make a contest, cousins shimmied and Franklin braced for contact. There is a constitutional right in this country to protect yourself!

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

If Cousins made contact with Franklin's head in that contest, he would be in serious trouble.

And Franklin's height wasn't an issue - he was easily low enough, before Cousins slipped/lent forward.

 

[Dawson]

Ahh - but here is the question

If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it - does it make a sound?

What if Franklin wasn't moving, but braced with a bump and Cousins ran into him?

now what if Franklin was just barely maoving? What if he was walking?

At what point is the "bumper" the one making contact and not the "bumpee"?

Franklin went in to make a contest, cousins shimmied and Franklin braced for contact. There is a constitutional right in this country to protect yourself!

I don't think you are quite grasping this "Read the Rule" thingy, are you?

 

[Kickin_Goals]

[youtube]2O3h_E80vXw[/youtube]




Much is made of the slow replay being shown over and over but to me it appears the most damming evidence on video is in the first 5 seconds shown at normal pace. Buddy had plenty of time to decide on a tackle or bump and in fact he changed his direction to apply the crunch. Cousins wasn't fumbling and it appears he wasn't about to handball either but to take a bit of a run. Buddy gambled and lost under the letter of the afl rule. He should have taken the week.

You are outrageously blind, he fumbles as he acts to handpass and has to steady with the other hand in that action he lurches slightly both players collide.
So what is your point that he wasnt about to handball hes faked to handball at least, what exactly is the purpose faking the handball other then to throw off your opponent....Get real, between the time hes grabbed back that ball in both hands and been hit how long is that? half a second, wise up...

Buddy can't be held responsible for the way another player lurches around hes simply fronted up to him and this is a very weak decision, how much lower is buddy seriously expected to get any lower and your looking at a possible clash of heads...

His chins smacked down on his shoulder hes hit him in the chest and hes winded him, did you all count him out? was there some great need for him to get up with no air in his lungs right away?
sigh...is the sky really purple out? Cousins had jack all awareness before he was hit why should he look aware heightened and switched on afterwards certainly doesnt mean hes out on his feet...

 

[BlueTouchPaper]

Buddy had plenty of time to decide on a tackle or bump and in fact he changed his direction to apply the crunch. Cousins wasn't fumbling and it appears he wasn't about to handball either but to take a bit of a run. Buddy gambled and lost under the letter of the afl rule. He should have taken the week.

Please take this seriously.

 

[Johnson#26]

It happens, it's footy. Let the bump continue. We've played the game for 150+ years, why the hell would you change what's great now?

 

[Mondeo]

I haven't read the whole thread but was struck by how the incident is interpreted depends so much on the players. I don't like Cuz but I certainly don't think he's soft. He went down hard and it was clear that he was knocked out for a few seconds. So it's hard to argue there wasn't head high contact.

Yet I don't think Buddy intended to hit him in the head. It looked like he was trying a legitimate bump but the difference in their height meant it worked out badly.

The whole "head is sacred" principle is reasonable - no-one wants anyone hit in the head. So Cuz was unlucky, Buddy was unlucky but the Hawks got it badly wrong when they decided to appeal. They should have just copped the week. I don't see how they thought they could talk him out of the charges as there's no doubt Cuz was concussed.


The timing is awful though. The event certainly turned the match but it looks like it's cost the Hawks their last chance of redeeming their season. But if they win these next two games no-one can deny they deserve to be there.

One of the few sensible posts in the whole thread - imho

 

[wolvesjr34]

I just want to say, that some of the "hysterical" Hawthorn reactions stem from the fact Rance punched Franklin the face while three guys held him down, caused Franklin's mouth to bleed, and yet Rance got off because not enough force was used (there wa sblood, I'd say that was enough force).

But this was a deliberate Cowardly act. And as most people have said, Buddy made every effort to make a fair bump, that may technically be correct suspension wise, but still incidental/accidental contact - and he is the one punished?

That is where some of the hysteria comes from. It is a clear double standard. The Afl do not wnat head high contact, but it is OKAY to punch somebody in the face while he is being held down by three players.

That's what angers me, I don't care if Buddy is suspended or not... it's technically there although some very good arguments have been made about whether he had an option to tackle... but if Buddy goes, Rance should go too. Just my opinion.

Just thought I should bring a little perspective as to why the majority of Hawthorn fans are so riled up about this.

 

[greennick]

In something of an absurdity, if Cousins didn't have the ball - it appears Franklin would have been fine.

Why do you think that?

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Why do you think that?

then its just a collision from someone awkwardly runnin through the line of a player whos hit him awkwardly and the intentions changed.

 

[snapperbowler]

I believe that Buddy's intention was to deliver a fair bump that resulted in accidential head contact.

I don't believe that any player regardless of size, team, nationally should be suspended or even reprimanded for this.

 

[greennick]

It happens, it's footy. Let the bump continue. We've played the game for 150+ years, why the hell would you change what's great now?

The rules have changed plenty over the last 150 years. Originally pushing and tripping were allowed. Later on players got suspended for the smallest contact. Then the contact interpretations were relaxed after the wars. The rules were then tightened from the 90's onwards to counteract this and because of public pressure, whether perceived or real.

The rules and interpretations of this game have changed for as long as it has existed. I wish people would just go with the flow and let it all happen. People that have thought about the rules and the effects of them a lot more than us and are a lot more objective. They have the rules the way they are for a reason. We all don't agree with them all, but they are there for a reason, evolved over the past 150 years.

 

[Dawson]

I believe that Buddy's intention was to deliver a fair bump that resulted in accidential head contact.

I don't believe that any player regardless of size, team, nationally should be suspended or even reprimanded for this.

"A player shall be quilty of rough conduct, if making a bump on an opponent whether reasonable or unreasonable, causes forceful contact to the head or neck.

 

[yeahmate]

"A player shall be quilty of rough conduct, if making a bump on an opponent whether reasonable or unreasonable, causes forceful contact to the head or neck.

Who was "making" the bump? Was it Buddy or was it Cousins?

Who "caused" the forceful contact? Was it Buddy bracing or Cousins ducking?

Still think he will get off on appeal (and yeah i know, no Hawks fans posting in this thread )

 

[greennick]

then its just a collision from someone awkwardly runnin through the line of a player whos hit him awkwardly and the intentions changed.

My understanding of the rules is that is not correct. Buddy still caused the contact. There is no denying that.

If Buddy did that without Cousins having the ball and the ball being within 5m, the same penalty would apply.

If Buddy did that without Cousins having the ball and the ball was nowhere near, the penalty still would have been more severe (ie, the difference between Hall striking McGuire 'in play' = reprimand or "out of play" = suspension).

 

[greennick]

Who was "making" the bump? Was it Buddy or was it Cousins?

Who "caused" the forceful contact? Was it Buddy bracing or Cousins ducking?

Still think he will get off on appeal (and yeah i know, no Hawks fans posting in this thread )

Buddy clearly made the bump and caused the contract. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. A player that is running doesn't cause contact. The player that chooses to get in the way, prop and shove his shoulder in the other players face is clearly the one who causes the contact.

 

[yeahmate]

Buddy clearly made the bump and caused the contract. You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. A player that is running doesn't cause contact. The player that chooses to get in the way, prop and shove his shoulder in the other players face is clearly the one who causes the contact.

The first one about "making" - probably agree with you. The second about who "caused" the contact to me is the real issue that should be explored on appeal. Otherwise we will end up with a rule that suspends players who go to bump, second player ducks to get a free and first player ends up taking the head. To me that rule would result in an injustice.

we will see tonight anyway i guess.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The question is why are these rules changed?

I have been involved with football for 35 years and could not provide one name in this so called vicous game that has had a serious head injury at the clubs I have been around. I am sure some have had some injury's and maybe even given the game away because of it but its hardly an epidemic.

At AFL level the only one I can think of is Carrecella, again there may be a couple more but not an epidemic.

Of course rules are change as things evolve, but the basic rules of the game should never change. Thats the game.

When you walk on to an Aussie rules field you need to expect contact, thats part of the game, sometimes you will get contact which you may get hurt from and again that is part of the game.

Glen Archer explained it the best when he said its the soccer mums rule, this is not an evolving law that has been changed. It has nothing at all to do with the game evolving.
It is simply a public appeasement rule, and the silliest part of all of this is the majority of the public hate it.

So at the highest level of the game which has been played for 150 odd years can anyone name 10 players that have been forced out of the game because of serious spinal/head injuries? maybe some of you can? And I am only talking about the highest level.

Pathetic mummies rule as Archer said. It is becoming embarresing to speak about the evolvement of our game from where it was to what it is now.

 

[Dawson]

Neil Sache (sp?)