MRP / Trib. Mansell bump on Martin

[bindi27]

Nic Martin had the ball near the boundary line, and Mansell decided to bump him rather than tackle. Martin has picked up a serious knee injury as a result.

Players have a duty of care when executing bumps. I don't think that Mansell could have foreseen an ACL injury, sure, but given he had the option to tackle instead should he not be held responsible for the outcome of his action?

Fiery bump sees star Bomber subbed in heated start

Nic Martin is subbed out of the match with a knee injury after Rhyan Mansell sends him over the boundary line

www.afl.com.au

 

[Smeg Head]

A certain AP must surely be calling for a jail sentence for Mansell. Any less would be hypocritical.

 

[Seadog]

A certain AP must surely be calling for a jail sentence for Mansell. Any less would be hypocritical.

I seem to recall Jeremy McGovern getting suspended for something similar, so taking into account the VFL discount a paltry fine should suffice.

 

[SpeckieMcVeigh]

Nic Martin had the ball near the boundary line, and Mansell decided to bump him rather than tackle. Martin has picked up a serious knee injury as a result.

Players have a duty of care when executing bumps. I don't think that Mansell could have foreseen an ACL injury, sure, but given he had the option to tackle instead should he not be held responsible for the outcome of his action?

Fiery bump sees star Bomber subbed in heated start

Nic Martin is subbed out of the match with a knee injury after Rhyan Mansell sends him over the boundary line

www.afl.com.au

He won't cop anything beyond a fine at worst, but he should. Duty of care shouldn't just extend to head injuries.

There were plenty ways of Mansell could've made a statement and hit Martin hard and legally, but a forearm to the back, right near the boundary, is just asking for Martin to land on the track/crash into the fence.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

3 weeks for this unnecessary act of thuggery

 

[Waca Jr]

If that's a suspension they may as well lock him up for life. **** me.

 

[tigs2010]

Essendon fans all breathing a sigh of relief it wasn't one of them that started this abortion of a thread

 

[Waca Jr]

Essendon fans all breathing a sigh of relief it wasn't one of them that started this abortion of a thread

Absolutely laughable

 

[lalorGOAT]

Delete this embarrassing thread. It was a fair bump.

 

[SpeckieMcVeigh]

Delete this embarrassing thread. It was a fair bump.

Is that why it was awarded a free kick for contact in the back? Didn't realise it was within the rules of AFL to lead with a forearm to the back when trying to bump someone, my bad!

Also, very easily could've laid a clean, brutal tackle here, but instead elects to be a fake tough guy, leading to yet another ACL tear to an Essendon player.

 

[lalorGOAT]

Is that why it was awarded a free kick for contact in the back? Didn't realise it was within the rules of AFL to lead with a forearm to the back when trying to bump someone, my bad!

Also, very easily could've laid a clean, brutal tackle here, but instead elects to be a fake tough guy, leading to yet another ACL tear to an Essendon player.
View attachment 2366431


View attachment 2366432

Umpires get it wrong sometimes. You can see in that still it's a fair bump to the side. Just terrible luck.

 

[SpeckieMcVeigh]

Umpires get it wrong sometimes. You can see in that still it's a fair bump to the side. Just terrible luck.

I realised I didn't zoom in properly on the second screenshot, but as you were replying, I edited it with one that I grabbed right at the point of contact.

It's all good from a "was Marto in the field of play standpoint", but looks like forearm is the first point of contact and that it's straight into Marto's rear deltoid on his left side, not side on contact.

Whether the intent was to hit him in the back of the shoulder or not is a fair debate, but that's the risk players take when electing to bump over tackle.

In my view, if Mansell had the time to line up that hit, he had the time to lay a big tackle instead of a forearm to the back right next to the track (whether that was the intent or not), which has a significantly lower risk of injury. Even a hip and shoulder to the side is much less of an injury risk, not to mention would've been 100% legal.

Instead, I'm pissed off at yet another serious injury, except for once it was actually somewhat avoidable (which makes it even more frustrating).

I'm not sure how the "duty of care" rules are adjudicated beyond incidents that cause head injuries, but I guess we'll find out next week.

 

[Simche]

This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen and I've been on here a very long time.

It is a contact sport, injuries happen.

That kind of contact between Mansell and Martin happens every week — a dozen times a game. Trying to conflate head-high contact and ‘duty of care’ into some strange, consequentialist argument that blames Mansell for Martin doing his knee is, quite frankly, ridiculous. I hope you all wake up tomorrow and have a good, hard think about it.

 

[Kappa]

Severe impact (ACL is gone) so you'd be thinking 3-4 weeks based off that alone.

 

[Atavistic]

Very unfortunate for Martin, but how can the player performing the bump be held responsible for the ACL? We wouldn't even be talking about it if not for the injury, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the action - apart from it arguably being a free kick.

 

[quotemokc]

If he had concussed Martin he would be getting suspended for sure.

Same as if he had pushed him back in to a marking contest.

Who knows with this one.

 

[Waca Jr]

Is that why it was awarded a free kick for contact in the back? Didn't realise it was within the rules of AFL to lead with a forearm to the back when trying to bump someone, my bad!

Also, very easily could've laid a clean, brutal tackle here, but instead elects to be a fake tough guy, leading to yet another ACL tear to an Essendon player.
View attachment 2366431

View attachment 2366433

You're a ****wit

 

[sabso]

I realised I didn't zoom in properly on the second screenshot, but as you were replying, I edited it with one that I grabbed right at the point of contact.

It's all good from a "was Marto in the field of play standpoint", but looks like forearm is the first point of contact and that it's straight into Marto's rear deltoid on his left side, not side on contact.

Whether the intent was to hit him in the back of the shoulder or not is a fair debate, but that's the risk players take when electing to bump over tackle.

In my view, if Mansell had the time to line up that hit, he had the time to lay a big tackle instead of a forearm to the back right next to the track (whether that was the intent or not), which has a significantly lower risk of injury. Even a hip and shoulder to the side is much less of an injury risk, not to mention would've been 100% legal.

Instead, I'm pissed off at yet another serious injury, except for once it was actually somewhat avoidable (which makes it even more frustrating).

I'm not sure how the "duty of care" rules are adjudicated beyond incidents that cause head injuries, but I guess we'll find out next week.

Rear deltoid you say? As you will know the deltoid muscle is found on the upper arm, not the back, therefore it is not a push in the back. And unless I’m mistaken the Laws do not consider a bump to the arm to be prohibited contact.

 

[THECHIEFTON]

(Obviously feel sorry for Martin)

 

[Profop]

Martin just as likely to do an ACL in a tackle then after a bump

 

[JP2]

It's an interesting test-case. If Mansell chooses to do that exact action and nothing happens to Martin, then it's not even a free-kick. If he chooses to do that exact action but Martin ducks his head at the last minute and / or hits his head on the fence and gets concussed then Mansell gets suspended. But I'm not sure how the duty of care the players are supposed to exercise and the consequentialist nature of suspensions (e.g. players more likely to be suspended when the opposing player is concussed) extends to serious knee injuries. If he had chosen to bump and the bump had accidentally led to serious head injuries, then it would have been judged as severe impact and almost certainly resulted in a suspension. But if that's the case, why wouldn't the same action resulting in an ACL (potentially just as threatening to the playing career and future health of the player as a concussion) also be judged as severe impact?

 

[Waca Jr]

How the **** Is this thread still open. Any danger the mods can close it and suspend this school holiday joker for wasting peoples time?

 

[Muddiemoose]

Very unfortunate for Martin, but how can the player performing the bump be held responsible for the ACL? We wouldn't even be talking about it if not for the injury, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the action - apart from it arguably being a free kick.

Yup
Very sad for Martin, I don’t give a **** who someone plays for I hate seeing them cop those awful acl injuries

If we want to have a serious discussion about the incident we need to acknowledge the Astro turf that is around the boundary of the game

Definitely looks like we see Martin loose traction once his feet hit that stuff

 

[GroggSquad]

It is a contact sport, injuries happen.

When has that stopped countless players getting 3 weeks for the outcome of football acts?

 

[Yoda_]

Delete this embarrassing thread. It was a fair bump.

so was Zac Bailey's