New charging definition

[Dave]

Nice to see the AFL maintain their record of stuffing things up with their new definition of the charging rule. Instead of a nicely concise rule with no loopholes we have these vague references to "unnecessary" or "unreasonable" force, which the umpires are supposed to determine when laying a report. Supreme court, here we come!Apparently under this new rule the bump in the GF the other night would have been illegal according to Ian Collins.

The question has to be asked, WTF are these idiots trying to do to the game? Do they want a completely sanitised "product" where no-one ever cops anything worse than a broken fingernail? Physical contests are at the absolute core of what Aussie Rules is all about. Remove them and you are essentially destroying the game.

I have no problem with them attempting to prevent the type of incident's such as that in the Geelong St Kilda game last year, but genuine shirtfront/hip and shoulder bumps on players in possession of, or contesting the ball (marking contests aside) must be allowed to remain part of the game. The only time they should be reportable is if contact is made deliberately to the head.

 

[Pessimistic]

Like all lawmakers anywhere they must address the 'Intentional' and 'Actual' damage

If the charger clearly intended to hit the head, for example, and actually did, then it seems to be straightforward. What happens if the inttention was there but no actual damage (although a good 'actor' as a 'chargee' could fake that.
On the other hand if there was no intention, but there is some damage, then that is where the main controversies will lie

But How come they didn't trial it in the ansett cup. The review may be neccessary, but have they rushed it and (probably) stuffed it up ? If they have it will be the Victorian Public's fault, just like everything else they muck up.

 

[sthmelb_dimmies]

Nice to see the AFL maintain their record of stuffing things up with their new definition of the charging rule. Instead of a nicely concise rule with no loopholes we have these vague references to "unnecessary" or "unreasonable" force, which the umpires are supposed to determine when laying a report. Supreme court, here we come! Apparently under this new rule the bump in the GF the other night would have been illegal according to Ian Collins.

Why is this not Flogstradamus tagged?

 

[ManWithNoName]

This bump is so terrible the Charging definition should just be the above post.