-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
MRP / Trib. RD 4 Cats V Hawks - Menegola 1 Week, Parsons 2 Weeks
- Thread starter dazbroncos
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Gibson, unlike Duncan, has been doing these dodgy bumps for years. And yep, they may be legal but they may also be late, excessive, to man on the mark, to an exposed player and so forth. It's not tough. He virtually came from behind Ruggles in this case -not really buying that Geelong is contributing because we have to be prepared for a cheap shot from the Hawks. Happy to see fair hard bumps but that is not Gibson's MO.
So Gibson had a substantial head bandage applied because Ruggles head hit the ground. Please.
Accuracy is your strength in this forum.
Last edited:
David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #204
No doubt there was head contact...thats a given...but it arose more due to kinetics than intent.
MRP were ...for once...correct on this one IMO.
MRP were ...for once...correct on this one IMO.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I would think that it is up to the AFL to protect the players just like any employer. If they choose to create rules which endanger the players then it is just a matter of time before the lawyers get involved.
Those whom are saying that the concussion came from contact with the ground may be correct, however it should not make any difference. It is like saying ... not guilty your honour....yes I hit him in the back of head and he fell to the ground but he died from the concrete hitting his head....
Also to use this logic the sling tackle would have no penalty.... it is the groung that caused the danage not the player...hmmm
I don't want to see teams use this as a way of winning a game, and I don't want Geelong to do it. We see players use knees a lot, Roughhead, and stray elbows. This crap should not be part of the game.
Gibson had intent. The outcome for him and his team was perfect.
As I said for Menegolas unduly rough conduct guilty call, we will see plenty more of these and the MRP will flop about. .
For Gibson's case, if in future a key player is taken out by a feet on ground bump and "accidental" head clash occurs there will be an outcry from the commentators and the MRP will react accordingly.
For the record I thought two for Parsons was correct (even though I had hoped for 2 down to 1).
Ziebell should have received a sanction because a bump was not his only option (e.g. smother or push to unbalance the kicker) and he caused serious harm in the bump. He did NOT exercise a duty of care to a player who could not body up and defend because he is kicking. If his bump had been laid in a way that did NOT result in broken ribs THEN there is no problem.
dazbroncos
Max Rooke Appreciation Society
- Oct 9, 2010
- 55,887
- 96,429
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Denver Broncos, Red Bull Racing
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #207
Im still not a fan of the practice, much like KB stated the other day and yes I uppercutted myself for agreeing with him - of allowing the blocking of the man on the mark by an opposition player.
Ruggles was defending the mark running laterally to it, well pretty much, after he played on and Gibbo nailed him.
The bump to me is legal in nature, but getting cleaned up whilst in essence being on the mark is not in the spirit of the game.
Go Catters
Steve Johnson checked Dan Hannebery in the last game of 2012 season, copped a week for unnecessary body contact, we know what happened the week after.
David the Cat
Moderator
- Moderator
- #209
Got to say I tend to agree.
I wondered at one stage whether the man on the mark should be protected from interference, but on deeper reflection realized this wouldn't work.
The only solution I can see is that other players must stay a designated meterage from the Man on the Mark until the umpire calls "play on"...giving the MOM perhaps a little more time to assess the challengers around him while pressuring the kicker...
Yep, and my understanding was the league brought in a protected zone last year-not sure if they wiped it or simply not enforcing it because Hawks certainly impeded several times on Monday. Maybe they think it will fade given the Hawks decline so will sort itself out?
Quite agree with Mengelola getting a week -it was careless but with what looked like pretty benign intent whereas Gibson's bump was more cynical for mine. And yep,as your good point re sling tackle tells us, it's more complex than 'legal bump, carry on'. Not sure how one can watch the incident and not see Ruggles as a sitting duck. Gibson's opponent has to make a quick decision whether to follow him in and hard to predict what Gibson is going to do, or wait to block the potential handball and play on from Smith. So Ruggles on his own really and fair enough as most players do a reasonable thing.
Ah well, guess I'll have to go watch the last half and have some fun to recover my joviality!
Last edited:
Started by the very "talented" Nick Maxwell.
Who knows....in any other part of the field of play it would be an automatic free kick.
It is a scourge and do not like that we have started doing it now as well.
Catdog
Club Legend
Its a wonder they didn't rub Ruggles out for head contact against Gibson.
Not in the "hold your arms out like an aeroplane in Under 9s style" shepherd, no. But I think you're getting a bit tied up in etymology - I've certainly seen off-the-ball bumps on a chaser referred to as a heavy shepherd.
- Nov 7, 2010
- 28,208
- 38,822
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- WADA
The first time I saw the tactic I didn't like it I still don't,just extend the protected zone around to include the area behind the man on the mark problem solved.
It looks to me like the rules on "shepherding" the man on the mark are:
You can stand anywhere you like (as close as you like but not in front ) but not make contact until the umpire calls play on. Pretty simple.
They seem (to me anyway) to use it mainly when they have a long kicking defender and occasionally a forward with a difficult set shot angle. As he moves in to kick he runs off the line deliberately forcing the umpire to call play on. Then the shepherder engages and clears the way for the kicker to get around the man on the mark. If kicker is a left footer the shepherder sits next to the right shoulder of the MOM and vice versa.
It also allows / alerts players ahead that this kick will be 10 or 20 m deeper than if the player kicks over the mark directly (assuming they decide not to run the ball). They can have their marking target ready to drop back.
I am amazed that it is rarely used by other teams. Its not a good look but it certainly has delivered advantage to the Hawks ( and good on them for working it out). I have been trying for a long time to work out what the disadvantage of the manouvre is (there must be some, or other coaches would be on the bandwagon ?).
The solution proposed by DTC seems quite reasonable - and simple. the practice would disappear pretty quickly.
Last edited:
Yeah, no doubt...the AFL should be a bit more clearer on it but they will probably make it worse (ie 3rd man up rules).
- Dec 11, 2009
- 35,907
- 48,509
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Or be mindful of the tactic and drop a guy off to clean the sniper up with a heavy shepherd before he bodies the player standing the mark.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Dec 11, 2009
- 35,907
- 48,509
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Similar threads
- Locked
