The whole 'ban the bump' thing didn't really bother me much.
Polaxing a guy with your hip or shoulder to the head was really something that the game could do without. I mean, you can still bump of course, but you've got to stay low.
It does bother me that you can still get weeks even if you do bump low and the guy ends up concussed incidentally - but even though the bump has been effectively outlawed, collisions still occur so the heavy, potentially dangerous contact that is a key part of the game still exists.
That's a good thing. Banning the bump hasn't wrecked the fabric of the game.
The chance of being hurt is a legitimately fundamental part of AFL footy. Take that away, and the game is dead. You are just creating a boring version of basketball. But intentional high bumps to the head, the game can live without.
But... the tackle. That's a different story. You cannot outlaw strong tackles. You just can't. The AFL have to be so careful about their position on 'dangerous tackles'. If they overcook this, they'll kill the game.
I don't agree with the premise that you must 'protect the player with the ball'. When I last played, like 20-25 years ago, having the ball was terrifying. You knew you had to get rid of it fast, otherwise you'd get pummeled, or pinged for a free kick. That's why it was such an appealing game TBH. The adrenalin was outrageous, and to apply skill at a high level when the opposition was trying to maim you was a incredibly hard. That's why it was such an achievement.
When you have the ball, the onus is on you. The onus to get rid of it quickly, and to protect yourself.
There are obviously rules in place to protect you to some degree, but fundamentally I've always believed that a key difference between AFL footy and most other sports is that when you have the ball, you're under the most pressure. It's like civilised British Bulldogs!
Stay with me... I'm going somewhere with this.
The Butler tackle being cited is appalling. That is just a good tackle. It's footy.
It is a fundamental of the game. The guy with the ball is owed no favours, other than knowing that the opposition is not allowed to intentionally cause him a head injury.
No more than that.
Penalising good, fair football tackles is a blight on the game, and the first real sign that the sport could be f**ked. It needs to be knocked on the head, quickly.
So when I see Guelfi stage a dangerous tackle by lunging head first into the turf, to get a Free kick, it angers me.
It makes the players complicit in this nonsense.
That was the worst case of staging I reckon I've ever seen. It was so blatant, and was just plain old cheating. But the umpire bought it, and Essendon kicked a goal from it.
He needs to be given 8 weeks as a deterrent. There's too much at stake with this dangerous tackle nonsense for players to be milking it.
Polaxing a guy with your hip or shoulder to the head was really something that the game could do without. I mean, you can still bump of course, but you've got to stay low.
It does bother me that you can still get weeks even if you do bump low and the guy ends up concussed incidentally - but even though the bump has been effectively outlawed, collisions still occur so the heavy, potentially dangerous contact that is a key part of the game still exists.
That's a good thing. Banning the bump hasn't wrecked the fabric of the game.
The chance of being hurt is a legitimately fundamental part of AFL footy. Take that away, and the game is dead. You are just creating a boring version of basketball. But intentional high bumps to the head, the game can live without.
But... the tackle. That's a different story. You cannot outlaw strong tackles. You just can't. The AFL have to be so careful about their position on 'dangerous tackles'. If they overcook this, they'll kill the game.
I don't agree with the premise that you must 'protect the player with the ball'. When I last played, like 20-25 years ago, having the ball was terrifying. You knew you had to get rid of it fast, otherwise you'd get pummeled, or pinged for a free kick. That's why it was such an appealing game TBH. The adrenalin was outrageous, and to apply skill at a high level when the opposition was trying to maim you was a incredibly hard. That's why it was such an achievement.
When you have the ball, the onus is on you. The onus to get rid of it quickly, and to protect yourself.
There are obviously rules in place to protect you to some degree, but fundamentally I've always believed that a key difference between AFL footy and most other sports is that when you have the ball, you're under the most pressure. It's like civilised British Bulldogs!
Stay with me... I'm going somewhere with this.
The Butler tackle being cited is appalling. That is just a good tackle. It's footy.
It is a fundamental of the game. The guy with the ball is owed no favours, other than knowing that the opposition is not allowed to intentionally cause him a head injury.
No more than that.
Penalising good, fair football tackles is a blight on the game, and the first real sign that the sport could be f**ked. It needs to be knocked on the head, quickly.
So when I see Guelfi stage a dangerous tackle by lunging head first into the turf, to get a Free kick, it angers me.
It makes the players complicit in this nonsense.
That was the worst case of staging I reckon I've ever seen. It was so blatant, and was just plain old cheating. But the umpire bought it, and Essendon kicked a goal from it.
He needs to be given 8 weeks as a deterrent. There's too much at stake with this dangerous tackle nonsense for players to be milking it.
Last edited:
