hip and shoulder law

[black_spankie]

is the afl's law on the hip and shoulder/bump clear cut (black & white & absolute) or open to interpretation (grey & confusing), or who cares it's Maxwell.
simple.

 

[shawthing09]

The laws are clear. They consistancy in the way they are enforced not so much. I think that is part of the problem with this decision. It has drawn so many peoples attention to laws they don't agree with.

Long story short. If you choose to bump when you can go for the ball your walking a fine line and anything that can cause damage is under your duty of care. The bump is not "against the rules of the game" but if someone gets hurt by the letter of the law you are in trouble.

 

[RoJo Junior]

As long as you bump someone without making high contact... ie over the shoulder. Then its fair game. If your intentions are clear to severely injure an opponent, rather than the objective of take a player out of that play to allow a teammate to gather the ball then its against the laws of the game. Its not that difficult to comprehend... but apparently for the most part everyone seems to think it is.

Maxwell's offence was it was high contact, medium/high impact inclusive of his existing record etc etc ... resulting in his suspension. He caused a broken jaw which evidences the high contact.

If you want to make a legal bump, you must hit from the side or the impact must be from below the shoulder to the waist region. The players duty of care is to ensure they apply the bump correctly. Otherwise they will face a suspension.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

It's pretty simple.

The head is protected. If you chose to bump, don't get the head, or you'll get weeks.

Like I said, simple really.

 

[Power King]

is the afl's law on the hip and shoulder/bump clear cut (black & white & absolute) or open to interpretation (grey & confusing), or who cares it's Maxwell.
simple.

The actual lawa themselves are clear.

The way the AFL carries them out is what's grey.

 

[joshprice69]

The real confusing part to this case is the fact that we now have a couple of people (past players) who are on the rules committe whos job it is to make and change these rules that believe the maxwell incident is a fair and accidently hit. It seems that certain people and groups have hidden agendas in trying to change the game away from a contact sport.

The case could also set an awful precedent where people just clash heads and then the player coming in from the side, even though not doing anything wrong could get reported and get several weeks

 

[Power King]

is the afl's law on the hip and shoulder/bump clear cut (black & white & absolute) or open to interpretation (grey & confusing), or who cares it's Maxwell.
simple.

The actual laws themselves are clear.

The way the AFL carries them out is what's grey.

 

[adelaide_40]

The actual lawa themselves are clear.

The way the AFL carries them out is what's grey.

Agree

 

[smiddaz123]

It's pretty simple.

The head is protected. If you chose to bump, don't get the head, or you'll get weeks.

Like I said, simple really.

What if the actual bump isn't head high, but there is a head clash?

There's always a 'not so simple' circumstance.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

What if the actual bump isn't head high, but there is a head clash?

There's always a 'not so simple' circumstance.

The choice was made to bump, the head was hit.

weeks will come of it.

 

[smiddaz123]

The choice was made to bump, the head was hit.

weeks will come of it.

And what if someone bumps someone who then falls over and hits their head on someone's knee? How many weeks for the bumper?

The bump itself didn't get McGinnity high. The bump was 100% legal, but their heads clashed. It's unfortunate, nothing more.

 

[Truckasaurus]

Everyone's saying how crystal clear the law is, but if you look at section 19.2.2 of the AFL's Lows of Australian Football there's nothing that clearly stipulates that Maxwell should be suspended.

The only time that 'bumping' is specifically mentioned is clause g)(xi), which prohibits "intentionally, recklessly or negligently":

(xi) bumping or making forceful contact to an opponent from
front-on when that player has his head down over the ball.
Note:
- a player can bump an opponent’s body from side-on but any
contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on;
- a player with his head down in anticipation of winning
possession of the ball or after contesting the ball will be
deemed to have his head down over the ball for the
purposes of this law.

They even have diagrams to make the specifics of this law crystal clear.

The only other reportable offences listed that may apply here are:

(v) Charging another person;

(vii) engaging in rough conduct against an opponent which in
the circumstances is unreasonable;

Words like 'unreasonable', 'reckless' and 'negligent' seem like they could infer anything on any given day. They seem very open to differing interpretation.

By the way, if anyone actually wants to download the laws from the AFL website... the link doesn't work.

 

[lookkg386]

rules seem to have changed in last 18 months, and when KB doesn't know about it and he is on the rules comittee then that's pretty "grey".

 

[Truckasaurus]

To be fair, my rule book says 'Laws of Australian Football 2008' on the cover. However I'm not aware of any new laws regarding suspension resulting from high contact that have been brought in for the '09 season or preseason.

If anyone knows different please fill us in.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

And what if someone bumps someone who then falls over and hits their head on someone's knee? How many weeks for the bumper?

I'm not the tribunal, but in that case I would be very surprised if they didn't find that the involvement of a third person in the incident cannot be be seen as anything other than purely accidental/coincidental.

The bump itself didn't get McGinnity high. The bump was 100% legal, but their heads clashed. It's unfortunate, nothing more.

Maxwell chose to bump. A head injury was received.

Think of it like the kicking in danger rule.
The AFL have a rule whereby they except that at any time a player will strike at the ball off the ground, but a duty of care must be made, and if that player shows no regard for the opponents(who are near the ball) wellbieng and injures them he'll be penalised with a free.

The bump rule is similar.

The AFL is saying this. 'If you want to bump, that is fine, but make sure you bump properly, and within the rules, becasue any head injury will be dealt with'.

 

[mess]

It's pretty black and white in that if you go for a bump and make any contact with the head at all it's a rub outable offence no matter what. It's pretty bullshit, and Maxwell was hard done by but I reckon once the players have adjusted to the severity of the rule and honed their techniques, then the tribunal will start cutting some more slack and the bumping component of the game may even improve.

 

[shawthing09]

It's pretty simple.

The head is protected. If you chose to bump, don't get the head, or you'll get weeks.

Like I said, simple really.

The actual lawa themselves are clear.

The way the AFL carries them out is what's grey.

Once a player chooses to go the bump instead of contest the ball they are also responsible for any damage resulting from an impact of that bump, I am pretty sure that was brought in after the Gia and Kosi incident.

Like has been said the laws are clear as day, and going by the laws I can't see why a player would want to lay a bump. However the laws are often ignored and as such people are confused. What makes it even harder is the laws that aren't enforced are ones which most AFL fans probably don't agree with 100%

 

[Power King]

Once a player chooses to go the bump instead of contest the ball they are also responsible for any damage resulting from an impact of that bump, I am pretty sure that was brought in after the Gia and Kosi incident.

Like has been said the laws are clear as day, and going by the laws I can't see why a player would want to lay a bump. However the laws are often ignored and as such people are confused. What makes it even harder is the laws that aren't enforced are ones which most AFL fans probably don't agree with 100%

Are you sure about the first paragraph?

I remember pettigrew (I think last year) bumping Hayes fairly, and in the process broke I believe his collarbone. Nothing happened to grew afterwards...