MRP / Trib. Mitch Duncan bump on Robbie Fox discussion - not sure of report yet

[Cataholic]

What a ridiculous position to put yourself in.

Watch Duncan get 0 weeks.

Footballers regularly try to put themselves between their opponent and the ball.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Brace or bump actually doesn’t matter. It’s forceful contact to the head under the rules.

It does because a bump is avoidable and a brace in some circumstances (like this one) is unavoidable.
The rules specifically say head contact can still be a non suspension where either the other player contributed significantly to the contact (see the brayshaw incident and the same applies here for different reasons) or where the player had no other alternative way to contest the ball. The second one is what geelong should argue.

Let me ask you this-if you think this is a suspension what else do you think duncan could have done to avoid head contact? As far as i can see the answer is he couldnt have done anything. Thats why the distinction between a last second brace (which even kids in junior footy do) and an active choice to bump matters and why the rules have that clause.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Footballers regularly try to put themselves between their opponent and the ball.

Sliding on their knees? I'd say Fox has chosen to bump Duncan in that case.

 

[And_ROOS]

The head is sacrosanct.

Any contact that causes any impact to the head will be carefully scrutinised.

Yes but as we saw with Lynch, who clearly hits the head and concussed the WB player, doesn't mean its a suspension.

Fox didn't get concussed.

It also ignores the fact this who collision was his fault and as one of the other commentators said "what was Duncan meant to do, he is allowed to protect himself".

 

[STPer18]

Duncan's only other option was to either let Fox bust his knee or snap his leg.

He could've executed a split-second frontal somersault to avoid the oncoming sliding player who went miles past the ball. The option was there.

 

[Cataholic]

Yes but as we saw with Lynch, who clearly hits the head and concussed the WB player, doesn't mean its a suspension.

Fox didn't get concussed.

It also ignores the fact this who collision was his fault and as one of the other commentators said "what was Duncan meant to do, he is allowed to protect himself".

Yep, the fact that Fox wasn't concussed is a mitigating factor in the assessment of 'force', but then they'll weigh in the factor of 'potential'.

The usual chook lotto run by the MRO is now layered with hysteria over the concussion issue, hence the confusion over how it'll all be interpreted.

 

[Spearman]

Which is ridiculous because where do you differentiate between which risks youre protecting? Arguably fox bumps duncan and accidentally concusses himself. Are we saying one player's head is worth protecting and the other one isnt? This is the slippery slope when you down this route. As i said duncan didnt bump he protected himself because fox went past the ball and tried to run through him (and slipped as he did it which was unavoidable for duncan)

The afl needs to stop worrying about potential lawsuits and penalise the action not the outcome. If its a fair football action with no alternative then let it go if its a non fair football action (like stewart going past the ball to bump prestia) then sanction it hard. But what we have at the moment is ridiculous

good points

I'm still waiting for some mention of the tacklee or bumpee's duty of care to himself. Also in the game a player picked up a ball, kept his head and went straight into Guthrie's? knees. IIRC Guthrie was basically standing still but got a free against. Okay, but what if the ball carrier had concussed himself in that action?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

good points

I'm still waiting for some mention of the tacklee or bumpee's duty of care to himself. Also in the game a player picked up a ball, kept his head and went straight into Guthrie's? knees. IIRC Guthrie was basically standing still but got a free against. Okay, but what if the ball carrier had concussed himself in that action?

Yep, Guthrie stationary is supposed to mean no free.

 

[Cataholic]

good points

I'm still waiting for some mention of the tacklee or bumpee's duty of care to himself. Also in the game a player picked up a ball, kept his head and went straight into Guthrie's? knees. IIRC Guthrie was basically standing still but got a free against. Okay, but what if the ball carrier had concussed himself in that action?

The AFL / MRO has lost its footing in commonsense, hence the confusion.

 

[Cataholic]

Sliding on their knees? I'd say Fox has chosen to bump Duncan in that case.

Same as when a player has his head over the ball.....his opponent has a responsibility to avoid contact with the head.

That said, it'll come down to how the MRO assesses the individual action of Duncan and Fox.....will they deem both were reasonably making a contest for the ball, or just one of them, or neither of them?

 

[catempire]

It does because a bump is avoidable and a brace in some circumstances (like this one) is unavoidable.
The rules specifically say head contact can still be a non suspension where either the other player contributed significantly to the contact (see the brayshaw incident and the same applies here for different reasons) or where the player had no other alternative way to contest the ball. The second one is what geelong should argue.

Let me ask you this-if you think this is a suspension what else do you think duncan could have done to avoid head contact? As far as i can see the answer is he couldnt have done anything. Thats why the distinction between a last second brace (which even kids in junior footy do) and an active choice to bump matters and why the rules have that clause.

That has not about bump or brace. It’s about what else Duncan could have done. Plenty of braces have been suspended.

I have said he has a good chance to get off at the tribunal on these grounds but he will be cited by the MRO. The MRO doesn’t often get into mitigating circumstances.

 

[jim boy]

The head is sacrosanct.

Any contact that causes any impact to the head will be carefully scrutinised.

And that's how it should be. That's where footy is right now and where it will be going forward. But that does not mean that the person who 'hit' should be assumed to be at fault. IMHO Fox tripped up, went past the footy and ran into Duncan's path giving Duncan really no options. It was just an accidental clash. It was a lot softer than the Lynch incident, which I thought deserved weeks. Also the Rohan incident from two weeks ago - that was deserving of a week

 

[Cataholic]

And that's how it should be. That's where footy is right now and where it will be going forward. But that does not mean that the person who 'hit' should be assumed to be at fault. IMHO Fox tripped up, went past the footy and ran into Duncan's path giving Duncan really no options. It was just an accidental clash. It was a lot softer than the Lynch incident, which I thought deserved weeks. Also the Rohan incident from two weeks ago - that was deserving of a week

Yes, the head has to be protected, and the game has adapted to that need quite well.

What hasn't adapted so well is the MRO and its use of Russian Roulette to arrive at its decisions. The fact that there is so much uncertainty on how this incident will be assessed is a damning indictment on the MRO, and its lack of consistency, in the bigger picture.

 

[bombersboy]

A brace or a bump. They are one and the same. It's the old fashioned hip and shoulder that made contact with the head.

I'm not sure why some are having difficulty understanding what occurred.

The fact is Duncan was in his bumping motion before Fox overran the ball.

So no, I'm certainly not taking the piss.

And I certainly don't agree with the AFL's interpretations either or the way they police it, but the players are well aware of the consequences of their actions should they elect to bump..

But it's Christian... He should have been replaced years ago. He's incompetent.

Duncan's eyes were on the ball. Fox goes past the ball. The collision was Fox's fault.

 

[standupand]

He gets him in the head. Zero doubt. Slow it down and watch his head bounce off the point of Duncan’s shoulder.

View attachment 1667746

What that angle doesn't show is how Fox was coming in at much greater speed than Duncan and how Fox recklessly diverts from the line of the ball to take Duncan out. It should have been a free to Duncan. Watch it from the regular tv angle and it's pretty clear.

I'm pretty strong on the need to improve player safety in the game. I don't think the answer is harsher suspensions but sensible changes to the way the game is played. But it's reckless acts like Fox's where he could have done serious harm to himself or to Duncan that should be called out as unacceptable. It's the equivalent of a reckless slide tackle in soccer where the player goes right over the top of the ball.

 

[jim boy]

What hasn't adapted so well is the MRO and its use of Russian Roulette to arrive at its decisions. The fact that there is so much uncertainty on how this incident will be assessed is a damning indictment on the MRO, and its lack of consistency, in the bigger picture.

I tend to think of the MRO having a more prosecutorial role taking the dimmest view rather than a more even judgement role which belongs to the tribunal. It should not necessarily be interpreted that the tribunal overturning the MRO as the MRO getting it wrong.

 

[catempire]

What that angle doesn't show is how Fox was coming in at much greater speed than Duncan and how Fox recklessly diverts from the line of the ball to take Duncan out. It should have been a free to Duncan. Watch it from the regular tv angle and it's pretty clear.

I'm pretty strong on the need to improve player safety in the game. I don't think the answer is harsher suspensions but sensible changes to the way the game is played. But it's reckless acts like Fox's where he could have done serious harm to himself or to Duncan that should be called out as unacceptable. It's the equivalent of a reckless slide tackle in soccer where the player goes right over the top of the ball.

No argument from me. I’m merely responding to those saying he didn’t get him in the head.

 

[Cataholic]

I tend to think of the MRO having a more prosecutorial role taking the dimmest view rather than a more even judgement role which belongs to the tribunal. It should not necessarily be interpreted that the tribunal overturning the MRO as the MRO getting it wrong.

See what you're saying, but I still think the MRO could / should display more commonsense to avoid unnecessary debate, and provide more consistent guidelines on what is / isn't acceptable behaviour.

 

[Cataholic]

Duncan's eyes were on the ball. Fox goes past the ball. The collision was Fox's fault.

He had some eyes on Fox, or he wouldn't have tucked the arm in and braced himself ready for the collision.

 

[Strange Cat]

Head hitting the turf is basically all it takes to get a week these days.

It was in play and no option to tackle …I’m hoping for a fine but who knows

 

[Cataholic]

It was in play and no option to tackle …I’m hoping for a fine but who knows

It'll come down to whether they think Duncan had an option to avoid, or minimise, the contact.

 

[Hamingja]

I think he will get off because Fox overran the ball and essentially initiated the contact.

The interesting part for me would be the follow up contact with the player hitting his head on the ground.

If you executed a perfect shoulder to shoulder bump and the player then gets knocked out because they hit their head on the ground because of the impact of the bump, would that by extension fall under the duty of care of the person performing the bump or not.

Whatever happens with this Duncan one the AFL should make a statement on that.

 

[Strange Cat]

It'll come down to whether they think Duncan had an option to avoid, or minimise, the contact.

Can’t see how that’s possible when he was going for the ball and the other player slipped pretty low

But i am bias

 

[Orange crush]

Surely Fox clattered into Duncan? This is unavoidable contact surely?

 

[TheEscapeClub]

He could've executed a split-second frontal somersault to avoid the oncoming sliding player who went miles past the ball. The option was there.

But then his heels maybe have clipped a Swan's player as he was performing the manoeuvre, knocking them out.