MRP / Trib. Marlion Pickett, Umpires and the MRO. What is going on here?

[theyellowsash]

WTF is happening to our game ??

If I didn't shepherd a team-mate, my coach would tear me a new one at the next break !!!

There was no malice in that, it was a genuine hip & shoulder, not a shirt-front.

I'd like to see every Collingwood, Essendon & Richmond player rubbed out for life but FFS, that is not a suspendable action !!

The player (moore) also played 120 of 130 minutes for the game, so its dubious whether he even went off afterwards. Looked to me like he was just a little shaken/winded.

Mark my words, soon someone will get suspended for a legal bump that doesn't hit a player high, but sends them off winded.

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Weak as piss

 

[Simche]

I am genuinely a bit perplexed by this one.

From my reading of the Age article it's because the bump apparently glanced high (from what I can tell this wasn't contested), and any bump that even vaguely glances high is assessed as medium impact due to 'the potential to cause injury'. I'm sorry but that's just a ridiculous interpretation of what I would consider a pretty benign footy incident.

So legal tackles that cause injury = suspension
Bumps that may cause injury, but do not = suspension

This is getting a bit farcical in my view, given that offences like striking which are fully intended carry the same penalty.

It's a contact sport and there is potential for injury, including head injury. Clearly the bean counters and lawyers are running the show if acts like Pickett's and Rowbottom's are no longer within the scope of the game.

I wonder what would happen in 2022 if the Stack v Viney bump happened again given that Viney injured his shoulder in that incident......

Looks like the bump is actually dead.

 

[Whiskers]

As much as I don’t want this to be a suspension for Pickett, it’s pretty clear cut what the rules are.
He clearly elected to bump and it did get him high. No malice at all but why are people surprised?

The Rowbottom incident though, what the hell is that all about? Merrett fumbled, it’s a collision not a bump.

 

[lordbob]

I think most of us didn’t think there was head contact with the first footage we had available. And most Richmond supporters on seeing the front on footage have moved to either certain head contact or possible head contact.

To me this is both the correct use of the bump and the correct technique, ie hip first then shoulder to the body. It If forceful contact is made to the head then fair enough a week is ok. But there seems to be no forceful head contact, and if Pickett had gone with a worse technique there likely would have been. The ball was in dispute and within 5 metres and Moore was looking to contest the ball rather than just chase an opponent. So to me, on reflection, this is not the sort of correctly executed side bump we want taken out of the game.

^ is the moment of initial shoulder impact.

This is the next frame just as moores head starts to go back. its not questionable if there was head contact, it is certain. The shoulder is also not to the body at all but rather to the head. Show me the frame where his shoulder hits moores body first?

Moment before impact. you tell me where that shoulder is going towards? his body? haha


Deserves his week. This is most definitely not a well executed bump. Just cos moore has a hard head doesnt mean there wasnt significant force either. Outcomes shouldnt dictate punishments either. If you bump the head you are gone. thats the game.

Now for the next question, why wasnt this head high contact that results in a 1 week suspension not even a free kick?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

This is a disputable point. But beyond the scope o

View attachment 1402750
^ is the moment of initial shoulder impact.
View attachment 1402746
This is the next frame just as moores head starts to go back. its not questionable if there was head contact, it is certain. The shoulder is also not to the body at all but rather to the head. Show me the frame where his shoulder hits moores body first?

Moment before impact. you tell me where that shoulder is going towards? his body? haha
View attachment 1402749

Deserves his week. This is most definitely not a well executed bump. Just cos moore has a hard head doesnt mean there wasnt significant force either. Outcomes shouldnt dictate punishments either. If you bump the head you are gone. thats the game.

Now for the next question, why wasnt this head high contact that results in a 1 week suspension not even a free kick?

This is exactly the way I was taught to bump as a kid in the 1970’s and it has always been the correct and safest way to bump, hip then shoulder. A lot of modern players make the dangerous error of trying to bump head first which is why we see a lot of head clashes in these situations.

I accept from both your still shots, and from the fact Richmond did not contest head contact was made, that Pickett has both elected to bump and contacted the head, albeit not with great force. And that the relevant law says this will “usually" be graded medium impact.

So we need to see whether every single elect to bump that contacts the head is suspended now.

I actually think and always have thought that it should never be legal to shepherd with a bump, that you should have to push or block with your arms. I got cleaned out properly(within the rules) by a bump shepherd when I was desperately chasing an opponent trying to tackle and I did not even see it coming as I had my eyes firmly on the player with the ball. It felt like I had run into a charging bison or something. I was winded but no significant injury but it was then I realised how dangerous this can be. Just the shock of the unexpected impact had an effect on me.

But while laying a bump to shepherd is legal I think the rule to grade any head contact as medium impact is too rigid. It will lead to some stupid outcome like a player missing a Grand Final because he has layed a legal bump where the opponent hasn’t been hurt. And if they let the player play in the GF then it makes a mockery of this type of decision. The rules should not allow the player to be suspended in this situation. There is not a great deal of potential to cause a head trauma injury with that bumping technique. If there was, I think Moore would have been injured because he has basically copped the maximal force this bumping technique allows, ie not much. The AFL advocate described this as a poorly executed bump. There is no way that comes from a brain that understands football - or at least bumping technique - properly.

In regard to your question about the free kick, I think it is evident this was not paid because there was no discernible head high contact from the vantage point of the umpire. How it looks from your still shots is that Pickett has actually momentarily taken front position and the left side of Moore’s body runs at speed into Pickett’s back and shoulder, which would probably explain the recoiling reaction of Moore after the collision.

I am sure Pickett and Richmond will accept the decision now, and not appeal to the full bench of the Tribunal, but something tells me we are going to see troubling outcomes from this rule before this season is out.

 

[lordbob]

Every bump that hits the head is a suspendable offence, not just from now but for a while now.

Bumping with the hips then the shoulder is fine as long as it isnt to the head. if you got taught to put your shoulder into the oppo's head when you bump then thats not the right way to bump anymore.

Dont go down the whole "i didnt punch him he head butted my fist" rabbit hole cos that is ridiculous. Pickett clearly bumped. He lined him up and charged at him and bumped him, hip to hip and shoulder to head. Moore didnt run into pickett.

 

[lordbob]

Also i understand that from the umpires perspective he may not have been able to see the high contact. I was just trying to be a dick.

 

[LordLucifer]

The Rowbottom incident though, what the hell is that all about? Merrett fumbled, it’s a collision not a bump.

And therein lies the big problem here, the game has become a "nanny state" beause the AFL are s**t-scared abut being sued for gazillions down the track by a player with brain issues from playing the game.

 

[Sttew]

And therein lies the big problem here, the game has become a "nanny state" beause the AFL are s**t-scared abut being sued for gazillions down the track by a player with brain issues from playing the game.

Its a genuine problem confronting all contact football codes

 

[Simche]

Its a genuine problem confronting all contact football codes

It is. In soccer there's even talk about potentially banning heading the ball, and broad recommendations have been made that kids don't head the ball until they're 15+ (i.e. when the skull and brain are better developed to deal with the force).

I am not advocating for a blood sport or a return to the 80s where blokes were getting run through just off the contest. I do however think there is intrinsic risk in every aspect of our game, such as the high mark, ruck contest, contested ball situations etc. There needs to be at some point an acceptance by players that the risk exists and that comes with agreeing to play the game.

I suppose with the Rowbottom incident, I'm just unsure how we ever eliminate that from the game. The ball was in contest and if anything I think he's being punished for being harder and more determined than Merrett.

With Pickett, yes the execution of the bump wasn't perfect, but the rationale of 'it could have caused serious injury' could apply to every shepherd. The minor degree of 'high' contact was reflected in the officiating umpire not even deeming it a free. If the aim of the suspension is to minimise the risk, then isn't the answer just to ban the shepherd (which I'm not advocating for btw)?

 

[Sttew]

There needs to be at some point an acceptance by players that the risk exists and that comes with agreeing to play the game.

There is - and its called voluntary assumption of risk. Problem is a footballer can't agree to risks about which he doesn't know. The science around head concussions and diseases like chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is continuing to develop. What we and the VFL/AFL knew 20 years ago pales into insignificance to what we know today and what we know will continue to develop. The question is whether the AFL is up to speed with the latest research and developments and can demonstrate it has at all times followed best practice.

 

[Back One Out]

The bump is legal in this situation. I would argue it should not be and you should have to shepherd by pushing or blocking with your arms, but that is a completely different argument. You are currently allowed to shepherd with a bump. Pickett has led with his hip then shoulder and almost all the force seems to have been taken by Moore’s body. Interesting to see what the Tribunal makes of it. But one thing is for certain, the MRO has given Pickett, yet again, the worst possible penalty he could get from the incident.

No, it wasn't. It was high contact and it should've been a Hawthorn free kick. An error by the umpire not to penalise Pickett.

Same with Tom Lynch v Jarman Impey. He raised the forearm and cut Impey over the eye. That's been an automatic 1 week suspension for my entire life, but somehow Lynch escaped a ban. (You win some, you lose some, I guess...)

As for Pickett, the rules are quite clear. Don't bump your opponent in the head.

LOL at your mate's "frame by frame" analysis. (Have another cone, k31th )

Why do we keep having these same circular arguments whenever a player is suspended? It's 2022, for f**k's sake. We've had these rules for over 12, 13 years! People keep on feigning ignorance & confusion as though they've stepped out of a time machine from the year 1999. (I heard Neil Balme complaining about the tribunal ruling - what a dinosaur! He's taking the piss, surely?)

If I was running the AFL, I wouldn't suspend any player, by the way. I'd make it open slather. A full-on, no-holds-barred, gladiator blood sport with 3 or 4 players getting stretchered off in every game and all-in brawls every quarter. That would liven up our boring game. Unfortunately the AFL doesn't want a gladiator sport. They want the sanitised game we see today. So these are the rules we must follow. At least they're consistent.

The players know... It's only the one-eyed diehard fans and ex-player dinosaurs who seem to have trouble with the MRO's adjudication on head high bumps.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

No, it wasn't. It was high contact and it should've been a Hawthorn free kick. An error by the umpire not to penalise Pickett.

Same with Tom Lynch v Jarman Impey. He raised the forearm and cut Impey over the eye. That's been an automatic 1 week suspension for my entire life, but somehow Lynch escaped a ban. (You win some, you lose some, I guess...)

As for Pickett, the rules are quite clear. Don't bump your opponent in the head.

LOL at your mate's "frame by frame" analysis. (Have another cone, k31th )

Why do we keep having these same circular arguments whenever a player is suspended? It's 2022, for f**k's sake. We've had these rules for over 12, 13 years! People keep on feigning ignorance & confusion as though they've stepped out of a time machine from the year 1999. (I heard Neil Balme complaining about the tribunal ruling - what a dinosaur! He's taking the piss, surely?)

If I was running the AFL, I wouldn't suspend any player, by the way. I'd make it open slather. A full-on, no-holds-barred, gladiator blood sport with 3 or 4 players getting stretchered off in every game and all-in brawls every quarter. That would liven up our boring game. Unfortunately the AFL doesn't want a gladiator sport. They want the sanitised game we see today. So these are the rules we must follow. At least they're consistent.

The players know... It's only the one-eyed diehard fans and ex-player dinosaurs who seem to have trouble with the MRO's adjudication on head high bumps.

When I wrote the bump is legal in the situation what I meant was it is legal to bump as the ball is within 5 metres. I didn’t mean the execution of the bump was strictly legal under current rules. It would only be a free kick here if the umpire a) perceived the high contact, and b) perceived it to be of sufficient force to warrant a free kick. I guess the Tribunal has given us the answer to the second part, but we will likely never have a way of umpires perceiving that contact in real time. Watching live it just looked to me as I believe it would have appeared to the umpire, heavy body contact, which it clearly was. Nobody would be able to confidently perceive the head contact in one real time viewing, imo.

The Tom Lynch on Impey like many other similar incidents before it has me mystified. It seems if you have possession of the ball you can use your forearm to smash someone’s face so long as it does not appear deliberate. I don’t understand that, and I have posted about it on this thread.

My issue with the final result in the Pickett case is not guided by parochialism. I agree with using the potential to cause injury clause for dangerous acts where the player struck is not injured, I just don’t think this is the correct application for that clause. As stated on this thread, I don’t think bumping to shepherd should be allowed. But it is(if the ball is within 5 metres.)

Would I rather take my chances being bumped the way Pickett bumped Moore or copping a forceful forearm to the face in the way Impey did? The AFL seems to think what Pickett did is more dangerous than what Lynch did. I don’t even have to think about it. I copped a similar incident to Impey once and was absolutely apoplectic chasing the opponent all the way down the field with my rapidly inflating black eye wanting to remonstrate. I have been smashed with bumps and shirtfronts including having my mouth bleeding so obvious head contact and I have never blamed the opponent one bit, because it was obvious the high contact was secondary to the body contact. So I think exactly the opposite to the AFL, players doing what Lynch did should get multiple weeks. Players doing what Pickett did, unless actually causing head trauma or executing the bump in a particularly dangerous way to cause forceful head contact should not be suspended.

These are not circular arguments for me. The rule regarding automatic medium impact gradings for low impact head contact when a player elects to bump is new this year. And you have to ask yourself, if Luke Hodge was ruled out of the 2015 Grand Final for doing what Pickett did in the PF, where the player bumped was unhurt, what would you think of it? I would spew if that happened to a player even if it was a player from another team.

 

[Vassp]

It is. In soccer there's even talk about potentially banning heading the ball, and broad recommendations have been made that kids don't head the ball until they're 15+ (i.e. when the skull and brain are better developed to deal with the force).

I am not advocating for a blood sport or a return to the 80s where blokes were getting run through just off the contest. I do however think there is intrinsic risk in every aspect of our game, such as the high mark, ruck contest, contested ball situations etc. There needs to be at some point an acceptance by players that the risk exists and that comes with agreeing to play the game.

I suppose with the Rowbottom incident, I'm just unsure how we ever eliminate that from the game. The ball was in contest and if anything I think he's being punished for being harder and more determined than Merrett.

With Pickett, yes the execution of the bump wasn't perfect, but the rationale of 'it could have caused serious injury' could apply to every shepherd. The minor degree of 'high' contact was reflected in the officiating umpire not even deeming it a free. If the aim of the suspension is to minimise the risk, then isn't the answer just to ban the shepherd (which I'm not advocating for btw)?

Messi s been heading the ball since he could walk, nothing wrong with him...

Although it sucks and there was no malice there, It was a pure ACCIDENT. Probably worth a fine.
We need to make sure that all players are protected. no one wants to see players out. so moving on its just going to have to change.
players will have to be more careful and attack the ball not the man.

 

[lordbob]

When I wrote the bump is legal in the situation what I meant was it is legal to bump as the ball is within 5 metres. I didn’t mean the execution of the bump was strictly legal under current rules. It would only be a free kick here if the umpire a) perceived the high contact, and b) perceived it to be of sufficient force to warrant a free kick. I guess the Tribunal has given us the answer to the second part, but we will likely never have a way of umpires perceiving that contact in real time. Watching live it just looked to me as I believe it would have appeared to the umpire, heavy body contact, which it clearly was. Nobody would be able to confidently perceive the head contact in one real time viewing, imo.

The Tom Lynch on Impey like many other similar incidents before it has me mystified. It seems if you have possession of the ball you can use your forearm to smash someone’s face so long as it does not appear deliberate. I don’t understand that, and I have posted about it on this thread.

My issue with the final result in the Pickett case is not guided by parochialism. I agree with using the potential to cause injury clause for dangerous acts where the player struck is not injured, I just don’t think this is the correct application for that clause. As stated on this thread, I don’t think bumping to shepherd should be allowed. But it is(if the ball is within 5 metres.)

Would I rather take my chances being bumped the way Pickett bumped Moore or copping a forceful forearm to the face in the way Impey did? The AFL seems to think what Pickett did is more dangerous than what Lynch did. I don’t even have to think about it. I copped a similar incident to Impey once and was absolutely apoplectic chasing the opponent all the way down the field with my rapidly inflating black eye wanting to remonstrate. I have been smashed with bumps and shirtfronts including having my mouth bleeding so obvious head contact and I have never blamed the opponent one bit, because it was obvious the high contact was secondary to the body contact. So I think exactly the opposite to the AFL, players doing what Lynch did should get multiple weeks. Players doing what Pickett did, unless actually causing head trauma or executing the bump in a particularly dangerous way to cause forceful head contact should not be suspended.

These are not circular arguments for me. The rule regarding automatic medium impact gradings for low impact head contact when a player elects to bump is new this year. And you have to ask yourself, if Luke Hodge was ruled out of the 2015 Grand Final for doing what Pickett did in the PF, where the player bumped was unhurt, what would you think of it? I would spew if that happened to a player even if it was a player from another team.

Watching it live i was shocked and screaming at the TV that it wasnt a free kick with his head flying back as a clear indicator that contact to the head was made.

 

[lordbob]

so moving on its just going to have to change.
players will have to be more careful and attack the ball not the man.

Have you not been watching footy for the last decade?

This changed years ago, but i guess not everyone got the memo.

Its not "going to have to change" it changed years ago but some people just want to still go the man and then have to face the consequences when things dont go exactly as intended.

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Kyle Chandler, 2 weeks, Liam Ryan

1

Liam Ryan

Age

27

Ht

181cm

Wt

76kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.3

3star

K

8.6

3star

HB

2.7

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.0

4star

G

1.3

5star

D

9.9

3star

K

8.0

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.3

3star

T

1.6

3star

G

1.3

5star

D

11.4

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

2.4

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

1.6

5star

, nothing. Racist??

 

[Vassp]

Have you not been watching footy for the last decade?

This changed years ago, but i guess not everyone got the memo.

Its not "going to have to change" it changed years ago but some people just want to still go the man and then have to face the consequences when things dont go exactly as intended.

as footy supporters go we don't remember every specific rule and its intricacies, we get a feel for the game and generally go with what we think is right.

AS I said, move on and play the ball not the man.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Watching it live i was shocked and screaming at the TV that it wasnt a free kick with his head flying back as a clear indicator that contact to the head was made.

Plenty of people have watched it live and had the benefit of replays and are of the opinion it should have been play on with no suspension.

Go back and watch the footage from case 1 in my opening post on this thread. Pay attention to the Bailey high swinging arm tackle on Pickett which rocks Pickett’s head back. There was without doubt high contact there, no free kick(umps missed it somehow,) and even more unbelievably it avoided any MRO scrutiny. Tell me which of the two incidents, Bailey on Pickett, Pickett on Moore, had the more obvious head high contact….

 

[ryancash]

Richmond supporters - Fair and well executed bump.....(I tend to agree)

Hawthorn supporters - Not fair got him high.

Both views are understandable. but I'll guarantee you this, If the offender was Luke Hodge back in the Hawks heyday. Every hawks supporter would up in arms about how soft the AFL had become. That it was a completely legitimate to bump to a player with a hip and shoulder, it's a mans game after all blah blah blah......

Interestingly Jake Kolodjashnij

8

Jake Kolodjashnij

Age

28

Ht

193cm

Wt

100kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.4

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

5.6

4star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

148.5

2star

D

10.6

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

3.6

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

1.2

2star

MG

115.6

2star

D

11.8

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

6.4

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.2

5star

MG

69.4

1star

concussed Jack Higgins with a bump but nothing came of it.

 

[Back One Out]

When I wrote the bump is legal in the situation what I meant was it is legal to bump as the ball is within 5 metres. I didn’t mean the execution of the bump was strictly legal under current rules. It would only be a free kick here if the umpire a) perceived the high contact, and b) perceived it to be of sufficient force to warrant a free kick. I guess the Tribunal has given us the answer to the second part, but we will likely never have a way of umpires perceiving that contact in real time. Watching live it just looked to me as I believe it would have appeared to the umpire, heavy body contact, which it clearly was. Nobody would be able to confidently perceive the head contact in one real time viewing, imo.

The Tom Lynch on Impey like many other similar incidents before it has me mystified. It seems if you have possession of the ball you can use your forearm to smash someone’s face so long as it does not appear deliberate. I don’t understand that, and I have posted about it on this thread.

My issue with the final result in the Pickett case is not guided by parochialism. I agree with using the potential to cause injury clause for dangerous acts where the player struck is not injured, I just don’t think this is the correct application for that clause. As stated on this thread, I don’t think bumping to shepherd should be allowed. But it is(if the ball is within 5 metres.)

Would I rather take my chances being bumped the way Pickett bumped Moore or copping a forceful forearm to the face in the way Impey did? The AFL seems to think what Pickett did is more dangerous than what Lynch did. I don’t even have to think about it. I copped a similar incident to Impey once and was absolutely apoplectic chasing the opponent all the way down the field with my rapidly inflating black eye wanting to remonstrate. I have been smashed with bumps and shirtfronts including having my mouth bleeding so obvious head contact and I have never blamed the opponent one bit, because it was obvious the high contact was secondary to the body contact. So I think exactly the opposite to the AFL, players doing what Lynch did should get multiple weeks. Players doing what Pickett did, unless actually causing head trauma or executing the bump in a particularly dangerous way to cause forceful head contact should not be suspended.

These are not circular arguments for me. The rule regarding automatic medium impact gradings for low impact head contact when a player elects to bump is new this year. And you have to ask yourself, if Luke Hodge was ruled out of the 2015 Grand Final for doing what Pickett did in the PF, where the player bumped was unhurt, what would you think of it? I would spew if that happened to a player even if it was a player from another team.

Good post

I think the AFL has hand-cuffed themselves with their head high bump policy. They can’t walk it back. They’re going on legal advice that to prevent class action lawsuits from ex-players suffering long-term effects of concussion, the AFL must do everything in their power to make the “work environment” as safe as possible for its employees. Which we all know is load of bullshit because it’s footy, for f**k’s sake. It’s a dangerous game. A collision sport where accidents happen and can’t be legislated for.

So that’s the problem, as I see it. We live in a litigious society with too many lawyers. But I suppose, if you look at it from that angle, then maybe the AFL is right to cover its arse by tightening up the rules wherever it can over high contact. And part of that means ‘no mercy’ on anyone who elects to bump and collects the head, even for relatively minor in-the-play football incidents that weren’t dirty and leaves everyone scratching their heads and wondering “What else was he supposed to do?”

As for your question about a favourite toughnut captain missing out on a Grand Final because of a suspension incurred from one these careless “medium impact” bumps, you didn’t need to use Luke Hodge as a hypothetical. You could’ve just cast your mind back to the 2017 Prelim when Trent Cotchin knocked Dylan Shiel out of the game and somehow escaped a ban.

The AFL have shown in the past they will be strong against certain things throughout the home & away season, but then they’ll give players a bit more latitude in September (especially the star players)

The AFL can be quite rubbery and selective with their rules when it suits them. e.g. Buddy was suspended at least half a dozen times for head high bumps when he was at Hawthorn (many of those were very soft, no damage) but at Sydney, he escaped suspension countless times for head high hits on opponents (often getting a fine, or no case to answer)

We’ve seen it also with Paddy Dangerfield and Joel Selwood. The AFL like to make an example out of fringe players such as Marlion Pickett while looking the other way and giving the star treatment to the big name players.

The Lynch elbow/forearm on Impey is a classic case in point. The MRO said his actions were “not unreasonable” in the circumstances… You and I both know that is complete horseshit. Hundreds & hundreds of players have been given a 1-2 week ban for lifting their forearm into the face of an oncoming tackler. It’s always been an automatic suspension. Guaranteed, if Lynch wasn’t leading the Coleman, if he was some two-bit half back who did that, he would’ve been suspended.

Like most things in life, it always gets back to money. Silly unworkable rules & harsh suspensions for high contact…? Money. F**k you Slater & Gordon. We aint getting sued. Star players getting away with s**t? Money. Channel 7 tv ratings. Dreamtime at the G, Lynch suspended? You’re dreaming…

 

[Sttew]

Interestingly Jake Kolodjashnij concussed Jack Higgins with a bump but nothing came of it.

Brett Ratten came out later and said Higgins was concussed in an earlier incident; it wasn't the Kolodjashnij bump

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Good post

I think the AFL has hand-cuffed themselves with their head high bump policy. They can’t walk it back. They’re going on legal advice that to prevent class action lawsuits from ex-players suffering long-term effects of concussion, the AFL must do everything in their power to make the “work environment” as safe as possible for its employees. Which we all know is load of bullshit because it’s footy, for f**k’s sake. It’s a dangerous game. A collision sport where accidents happen and can’t be legislated for.

So that’s the problem, as I see it. We live in a litigious society with too many lawyers. But I suppose, if you look at it from that angle, then maybe the AFL is right to cover its arse by tightening up the rules wherever it can over high contact.

As for your question about a favourite toughnut captain missing out on a Grand Final because of a suspension incurred from one these careless “medium impact” bumps, you didn’t need to use Luke Hodge as a hypothetical. You could’ve just cast your mind back to the 2017 Prelim when Trent Cotchin knocked Dylan Shiel out of the game and somehow escaped a ban.

The AFL have shown in the past they will be strong against certain things throughout the home & away season, but then they’ll give players a bit more latitude in September (especially the star players)

The AFL can be quite rubbery and selective with their rules when it suits them. e.g. Buddy was suspended numerous for head high bumps at Hawthorn (many of those were very soft) but with Sydney, he escaped suspension numerous times for head high hits on opponents (often getting a fine, or no case to answer)

We’ve seen it also with Paddy Dangerfield and Joel Selwood. The AFL like to make an example out of fringe players such as Marlion Pickett while looking the other way and giving the star treatment to the big name players.

Not sure why you threw the Cotchin on Shiel one in there. Cotchin was contesting the ball, and didn’t knock Shiel out of the game at all, and the damage incurred by Shiel out of that clash with Cotchin was to his shoulder. He was concussed later in a clash with Astbury, so Cotchin certainly didn’t knock Shiel out of the game. Where are there any examples of players doing what Cotchin did being suspended in any matches, let alone to miss a Grand Final? The AFL had a go at trying to get David Mackay rubbed out last year for a sort of similar incident and failed. Cotchin on Shiel to me is not an example of the AFL going soft on a player so he could play in a GF, it was just a decision consistent with rulings before it and after.

If you think the AFL have given players more latitude in and around big finals can you think of other examples where you think the player would have been suspended if it was a home and away match? Toby Greene has been rubbed out a couple of times to miss finals.

Regarding potential litigation, I think you are probably right that this is what is spooking the AFL. But if that is so, they need to get it right, and for a start ensure players trying to tackle or contest the ball are not subjected to forearms to the head/face, like Dangerfield on Vlastuin, Hawkins on May, Fritsch on Powell, Lynch on Impey and others. What they definitely do not need to do is wrongly penalise fair bumps that don’t injure players, I can’t see what that achieves towards avoiding litigation.

 

[TheOptimum18]

Same with Tom Lynch v Jarman Impey. He raised the forearm and cut Impey over the eye. That's been an automatic 1 week suspension for my entire life, but somehow Lynch escaped a ban. (You win some, you lose some, I guess...)

The Tom Lynch on Impey like many other similar incidents before it has me mystified. It seems if you have possession of the ball you can use your forearm to smash someone’s face so long as it does not appear deliberate. I don’t understand that, and I have posted about it on this thread.

Very interesting discussion thus far, but I'm very surprised people thinks Lynch should be suspended for the Impey incident. People would call me a biased Richmond support and whatnot, but I am still surprised. From Robbo's outrage on 360, to people on the boards thinking Lynch is being treated differently to others.

The Greene on Dangerfield suspension was brought up by both Robbo and Cornes as reasons as to why Lynch should've been suspended, and that Greene is treated differently to everyone else. Honestly, that is just bs to me. Greene on Dangerfield was a high elbow to the throat that led to Dangerfield being sent to hospital. Mason Redman has been suspended for the same action just this week, and Bontempelli escaped a suspension cause the medical report on Nick Haynes came out after the Michael Christian made his decision. Clearly, this isn't a Toby Greene thing.

Now onto the Lynch incident. I'm astounded that people automatically go to the Greene incident on Dangerfield, when there was a similar, maybe worse action based on outcome, the week prior. Have we forgottten that Hogan concussed Bews with the same action the week before? The biggest difference is that the Hogan incident came when play had stopped and there was absolutely no need for the elbow, whereas Lynch was in the middle of contesting the ball, and was unlucky in making high contact to Impey? When you have a KPF picking up the ball, and a half back comes in low to tackle, I think there are going to be times when high contact is made due to the size difference. Its part of the game. We all accepted (I don't why) that the Dangerfield on Vlaustin elbow in the GF was a footballing incident, which was why Dangerfield wasn't suspended, yet Lynch trying to contest the ball and makes accidental high contact to Impey isn't a footballing incident?

This head hunt (yes, I will call it that cause that is what it is) on Lynch is quite frankly disgusting when no one even made a mention regarding the Hogan incident the week prior that left a player concussed.

The only thing wrong with the Lynch incident is the umpire missing the high free kick to Impey.