Gibson bump

Remove this Banner Ad

hk89

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 12, 2009
8,503
10,459
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Edwards had his head down preparing to pick up the ball and Buddy hit him front on. It is the perfect case for the potential to be used.

Not on the footage I'm looking at. Buddy gets Edwards just before he gets to the ball, and Edwards is almost (but not quite) completely upright. Don't get me wrong , I think it was worth 3 given other incidents, but I can see how the guidelines end up with it at 1 after early plea.
 

smeltitdeltit

Premiership Player
Jul 2, 2012
3,847
6,042
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Not convinced the "Potential to cause injury" clause was relevant in the Buddy situation, the guidelines say:
"The potential to cause serious injury is also relevant in the following cases: » Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position; forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling; » Spear tackles; and » Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned
"

My memory of the Buddy vs Edwards bump was that Edwards didn't really have his head over the ball, in fact the criticism of Buddy largely centered around Buddy having passed the ball and going for Edwards instead of the ball, implying Edwards himself hadn't reached the ball yet. Was it Lewis that got reference to the "injury potential"? If so , again that seems right via the guidelines, "forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact" sounds like a not unfair characterisation of Lewis late spoil attempt. I blame the guidelines more than anything, they are fundamentally broken in my opinion. Whether or not they are being used as part of an AFL agenda is another matter, but I can see how the MRP would give out what we have seen without an agenda in play given the way the guidelines are worded.

The key word there is "also" and I read it differently to you and Bruce (we've gone over this before)
You read it meaning as well as the actual impact, ALSO when a player has head over etc etc etc potential will be looked at
I read it as well as actual impact, potential to cause injury will ALSO be looked at. Ie not exlusivly those 4 scenarios.. Evidenced by Hodges getting increased despite not meeting any of the 4 criteria, and no it wasnt a round arm, that would be the Lewis one

Full quote here:
Firstly, consideration will be given the extent of force and in particular, any injury sustained by the Player who was offended against�

Secondly, strong consideration will be given to the potential to cause serious injury� For example, contact to the head will generally have more impact than contact to the body if the force used is similar� The potential to cause serious injury is also relevant in the following cases:

»»Any head-high contact with a Player who has his head over the ball, particularly when contact is made from an opponent approaching from a front-on position; forceful round-arm swings that make head-high contact to a Player in a marking contest, ruck contest or when tackling;

»»Spear tackles; and»»Driving an opponent into the ground when his arms are pinned�


I guess the question is, willow entail only be applied if the action meets one of the criteria listed ( head high over the ball/ spear tackle / round arm
 

hk89

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 12, 2009
8,503
10,459
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The key word there is "also" and I read it differently to you and Bruce (we've gone over this before)
You read it meaning as well as the actual impact, ALSO when a player has head over etc etc etc potential will be looked at
I read it as well as actual impact, potential to cause injury will ALSO be looked at. Ie not exlusivly those 4 scenarios..

Yes , on a second reading I see your interpretation, to be honest not very well worded. Is that document we are quoting from their official rulebook on this stuff, or is it a human (i.e. non-lawyer) friendly version of a more rigorously worded "official" version?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dacksaredown

Club Legend
Jun 20, 2012
1,777
1,626
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Houston Rockets
Can anyone clarify the difference between Richards bump on Mitchell and Gibon's bump on the Freo player? I seem to think they are both similar, yet only Richards got suspended. Was Richards given one week because there was more impact? Both had the potential to physically harm the player's head and both players bumped seemed to get up and play normally. Mitchell had his best game probably ever!!
 
Can anyone clarify the difference between Richards bump on Mitchell and Gibon's bump on the Freo player? I seem to think they are both similar, yet only Richards got suspended. Was Richards given one week because there was more impact? Both had the potential to physically harm the player's head and both players bumped seemed to get up and play normally. Mitchell had his best game probably ever!!
Just from memory Gibson looked like he was trying to slow down and lean out of the bump to minimise impact as he realised the player was lower than he may have anticipated. Who knows how the MRP thinks.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,308
40,470
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Can anyone clarify the difference between Richards bump on Mitchell and Gibon's bump on the Freo player? I seem to think they are both similar, yet only Richards got suspended. Was Richards given one week because there was more impact? Both had the potential to physically harm the player's head and both players bumped seemed to get up and play normally. Mitchell had his best game probably ever!!

So how many weeks should Jetta have got for his hit on Breust?

Far more impact than the Gibbo bump.

Huh?
 

Dacksaredown

Club Legend
Jun 20, 2012
1,777
1,626
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Houston Rockets
So how many weeks should Jetta have got for his hit on Breust?

Far more impact than the Gibbo bump.

Huh?

Why are you answering a question with a question? Bit defensive aren't ya?

My question is how they determine a penalty for head high bump. So, if gibson actually connected, he would have got weeks? That wouldn't make sense since he would argue it was accidental and he tried to pull out of it. So it's more to do with actually connecting than if you intend to take their head off.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,308
40,470
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Why are you answering a question with a question? Bit defensive aren't ya?

My question is how they determine a penalty for head high bump. So, if gibson actually connected, he would have got weeks? That wouldn't make sense since he would argue it was accidental and he tried to pull out of it. So it's more to do with actually connecting than if you intend to take their head off.

Mark Evans said it is very much about the damage done. Which I think is wrong. There should be a minimum punishment for anything deemed illegal and dangerous. They have a fine system, and should use it. No letting players get off for force being too low.

That said, accidental doesnt come in to it when you have other options. Gibson would have argued it was accidental because he was knocked off balance by another player.

But I would like to know how many weeks Jetta should have got for his cheap late hit on Breust.

Surprised there isnt another Gibbo thread after his gut punch last night. Definitely getting a fine, but do they give him a week to make the Tigs game more interesting.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mic59

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 20, 2002
18,184
10,243
Alberton, the chosen land
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Blyth Spartans, Dallas Cowboys
The "below required force" rule had a good intent when it was brought in, initially it was due to the fact that players would get suspended for jumper punches which were often defensive or actions which were just clumsy. But it has, as so many changes do, started to be misused. Deliberate punches should not be just treated as "below required force", they are not part of the game and a suspension should follow.
Some of the players from the old state leagues would have loved this rule as it would have allowed them to get away with murder.
 
Apr 17, 2006
27,237
16,555
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
The "below required force" rule had a good intent when it was brought in, initially it was due to the fact that players would get suspended for jumper punches which were often defensive or actions which were just clumsy. But it has, as so many changes do, started to be misused. Deliberate punches should not be just treated as "below required force", they are not part of the game and a suspension should follow.
Some of the players from the old state leagues would have loved this rule as it would have allowed them to get away with murder.
I can't remember a player ever being suspended for a jumper punch
 

Dacksaredown

Club Legend
Jun 20, 2012
1,777
1,626
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Houston Rockets
Mark Evans said it is very much about the damage done. Which I think is wrong. There should be a minimum punishment for anything deemed illegal and dangerous. They have a fine system, and should use it. No letting players get off for force being too low.

That said, accidental doesnt come in to it when you have other options. Gibson would have argued it was accidental because he was knocked off balance by another player.

But I would like to know how many weeks Jetta should have got for his cheap late hit on Breust.

Surprised there isnt another Gibbo thread after his gut punch last night. Definitely getting a fine, but do they give him a week to make the Tigs game more interesting.

Objectively, Gibson should get at least a week for punching a guy in the guts when he's not looking. You can literally kill someone doing that. That would apply if it was any other player. But, to me, it seems that the tribunal never apply the same rules to every situation. Based on their past rulings they have to give a fine, otherwise they would appear incompetent. Fyfe's scissor kick was the best example. Tripping is just a no go zone and always was. Just suspend these things and everyone knows where they stand.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,308
40,470
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Objectively, Gibson should get at least a week for punching a guy in the guts when he's not looking. You can literally kill someone doing that.

There have probably been about 50,000 or 60,000 jumper punches and gut punches in the VFL and AFL over the years. Could you provide some stats on how many players have died from it?

Thanks.

Firrito deliberately punched Buddy hard in the back of the head when he was late to a marking contest. He got a fine. So Gibbo should get a punishment bigger than that for a gut punch?

Jetta shoulder charged Breust to the head late after he had kicked a goal and he was floored for about 30 or 40 seconds. He got a fine. Gibbo should get a bigger punishment than that?

Schulz sling tackled Richards and knocked him in to next week and got no penalty. Gibbo should get a bigger punishment than that?

Tippett elbowed someone to the head in a deliberate and late hit in a marking contest. He got a week. Gibbo should get the exact same punishment as that?

Weller from the Stains punched a player in the head behind play and knocked him to the ground and got a week. Gibbo should get the exact same punishment as that?

What youre saying is that there needs to be some sort of penalty loading because Gibbo plays for Hawthorn, and if he had stayed at the Roos he'd get a fine and that would be just about right.
 

Dacksaredown

Club Legend
Jun 20, 2012
1,777
1,626
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Houston Rockets
There have probably been about 50,000 or 60,000 jumper punches and gut punches in the VFL and AFL over the years. Could you provide some stats on how many players have died from it?

Thanks.

Firrito deliberately punched Buddy hard in the back of the head when he was late to a marking contest. He got a fine. So Gibbo should get a punishment bigger than that for a gut punch?

Jetta shoulder charged Breust to the head late after he had kicked a goal and he was floored for about 30 or 40 seconds. He got a fine. Gibbo should get a bigger punishment than that?

Schulz sling tackled Richards and knocked him in to next week and got no penalty. Gibbo should get a bigger punishment than that?

Tippett elbowed someone to the head in a deliberate and late hit in a marking contest. He got a week. Gibbo should get the exact same punishment as that?

Weller from the Stains punched a player in the head behind play and knocked him to the ground and got a week. Gibbo should get the exact same punishment as that?

What youre saying is that there needs to be some sort of penalty loading because Gibbo plays for Hawthorn, and if he had stayed at the Roos he'd get a fine and that would be just about right.

No, I am saying that, objectively, Gibson should get rubbed out, based on what I think is within the game, nothing to do with him being a hawthorn player. If there was a loading, it would be the fact that he has purposely done this twice in the space of four weeks. The incidents are nowhere near the ball and this is something the league has being trying to get rid of for years.

My main point is that his incident is less severe than a lot of other incidents going around in the game, the ones you have pointed out, when some serious stuff could and did happen and the penalty is always the same, a fine or one week. I am saying that the tribunal seems to be weak in all circumstances when it comes to handing out penalties, especially intentional, take the guy out, stuff. The Richards on Mitchell bump should get two weeks, the Fyfe on Breust charge one week, the lewis hit on Goldstein, like Forrito, five or six, the Fyfe trip, two weeks. If they did that, there would be no comparisons needed, the player would cop what he deserves and the tribunal would appear impartial. Just my observation. Maybe others think the tribunal is going awesome.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Back