Paddy Ryder bump on Will Day

[staffonly]

Leigh Montagna played a lot of football. He's a Saints man, too. He said Paddy Ryder "absolutely deserved a suspension" (1 match) because he elected to bump Day, got him late and caused a concussion. He laughed at his fellow panelists Daisy Thomas and Wayne Carey for using the "but but but Paddy was stationary and Day ran into him" excuse.

Point being: opinion was divided. Everyone agreed Ryder pulled up and he didn't run through Day.
If he had done so, the AFL would've thrown the book at him. Six weeks minimum.

So it was on the low end of the scale of reportable offences.

But for people to claim it was somehow Day's fault is just a joke. He was in the act of kicking the ball when Ryder ran forwards about 15m to bump him and initiated the collision. Day had literally just kicked the ball and had taken ONE step when he collided with the point of Ryder's shoulder.

Just because Ryder stopped running a split-second before impact doesn't exonerate him.

Ryder actually leaned into the bump.. He leveraged his 110kg frame into knocking Day on his feet. He didn't have to do that. He could've wrapped Day in up in a tackle. He could've turned side on to bump, but then pulled back and not leaned into it as heavily as he did and not caused any damage.



Bottom line: As we've all been told 1000 times, if a player elects to bump, then they are 100% responsible for any head injuries which occur as a result of their actions. Which goes to show just how thick-headed many AFL footballers are that the message just doesn't appear to sink in. They are stuck in the past.

Day had to have some awareness when he had the ball.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

How many players dying from suicide and other CTE relates injuries are ok for you as long as you get to keep watching your collisions ?

What is the number thats acceptable ?

How about just brain damage and memory issues, failed marriages and friendships from mental illness?

Be honest. I mean you clearly love your footy.

But if that's your line in the sand, then you have to ban knees in marking contests too.

It is completely devoid of logic to be so concerned about concussions that key elements of the game are banned - but then still allow other really dangerous s**t to be legal.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Leigh Montagna played a lot of football. He's a Saints man, too. He said Paddy Ryder "absolutely deserved a suspension" (1 match) because he elected to bump Day, got him late and caused a concussion. He laughed at his fellow panelists Daisy Thomas and Wayne Carey for using the "but but but Paddy was stationary and Day ran into him" excuse.

Point being: opinion was divided. Everyone agreed Ryder pulled up and he didn't run through Day.
If he had done so, the AFL would've thrown the book at him. Six weeks minimum.

So it was on the low end of the scale of reportable offences.

But for people to claim it was somehow Day's fault is just a joke. He was in the act of kicking the ball when Ryder ran forwards about 15m to bump him and initiated the collision. Day had literally just kicked the ball and had taken ONE step when he collided with the point of Ryder's shoulder.

Just because Ryder stopped running a split-second before impact doesn't exonerate him.

Ryder actually leaned into the bump.. He leveraged his 110kg frame into knocking Day on his feet. He didn't have to do that. He could've wrapped Day in up in a tackle. He could've turned side on to bump, but then pulled back and not leaned into it as heavily as he did and not caused any damage.



Bottom line: As we've all been told 1000 times, if a player elects to bump, then they are 100% responsible for any head injuries which occur as a result of their actions. Which goes to show just how thick-headed many AFL footballers are that the message just doesn't appear to sink in. They are stuck in the past.

I don't know what the debate is?

Did he bump him, or just brace himself to protect himself?

It appeared to be a bump.

So then the question is simply, did he get him in the head?

Apparently he did.


So he cops whatever the punishment is for concussing someone with a high bump.

Pretty straight forward I'd have thought.

 

[Back One Out]

Day had to have some awareness when he had the ball.

What do you want him to do? Fly away like a bird? Or wave his magic wand and make Ryder disappear?

You can't blame Day for lacking awareness. He was in the act of kicking the ball. Like anyone in that circumstance, he leaves himself wide open when his focus is on spotting up his teammate 25m away. He is not expecting to be bumped after he has disposed of the ball. Maybe 10, 20 years ago he would expect it. But footballers today are playing by different rules than the old school footballers played under.

He had literally taken one step after kicking the footy



Another thing is... People have a tendency to base their opinion of these incidents on watching the same edited, slowed down footage which gets replayed over and over. That's why you hear nuffies saying Day "changed direction" and that Ryder "was stationary" and Day "ran into him".

This is all warped opinion from watching a slow-mo snippet of what occurred. Technically correct, if you only view the edited slowed-down version, but it is not reflecting the totality of what occurred.

If you watch the entire incident from different angles at normal speed, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Ryder bumped Day. It's silly for people to even debate this obvious fact.

If a guy is running along and you step into his path, plant your feet, brace for impact and knock him off his feet, then that is a BUMP.

 

[Back One Out]

I don't know what the debate is?

Did he bump him, or just brace himself to protect himself?

It appeared to be a bump.

So then the question is simply, did he get him in the head?

Apparently he did.


So he cops whatever the punishment is for concussing someone with a high bump.

Pretty straight forward I'd have thought.

Yeah, pretty much.

I wasn't celebrating Ryder getting rubbed out and I wasn't pissed off about Day being concussed

I just get a bit frustrated with the commentary surrounding these incidents. That's all. This idea that Day was somehow to blame for getting himself concussed and that Paddy wuz innocent... Laughable.

Numbskulls like Wayne Carey shouldn't be given a microphone to talk into. He was a moron even before he pickled his brain with drugs and alcohol.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

He had literally taken one step after kicking the footy

It only takes one step to change direction. Its very easy to change your direction a full 180 degrees in a single step.

If a guy is running along and you step into his path, plant your feet, brace for impact and knock him off his feet, then that is a BUMP.

Correct, not sure what it has to do with this situation though.

Paddy Ryder never stepped into Will Day's path. Day changed direction after kicking the ball, resulting in him colliding with Ryder.

 

[Back One Out]

It only takes one step to change direction. Its very easy to change your direction a full 180 degrees in a single step.

Correct, not sure what it has to do with this situation though.

Paddy Ryder never stepped into Will Day's path. Day changed direction after kicking the ball, resulting in him colliding with Ryder.

Day took one step into Ryder's path and Ryder took several steps into Day's path

• Day had his head down as he kicked the ball (as you do) and then looked up to see where his kick went (as you do)
• Ryder was sizing up Day the whole way.... and came in from in front & to the left of Will Day (angle: at about 10 or 11 o'clock)

....but but but Day nEeDs tO sHoW mORe aWaReNEsS

Watch it again mate. There are two pretty good angles shown here which illustrate the point.
Don't just focus on Day taking one step into Ryder's path. Watch how Ryder accelerates into Day's path from 10 metres away.

 

[westie]

Leigh Montagna played a lot of football. He's a Saints man, too. He said Paddy Ryder "absolutely deserved a suspension" (1 match) because he elected to bump Day, got him late and caused a concussion. He laughed at his fellow panelists Daisy Thomas and Wayne Carey for using the "but but but Paddy was stationary and Day ran into him" excuse.

Point being: opinion was divided. Everyone agreed Ryder pulled up and he didn't run through Day.
If he had done so, the AFL would've thrown the book at him. Six weeks minimum.

So it was on the low end of the scale of reportable offences.

But for people to claim it was somehow Day's fault is just a joke. He was in the act of kicking the ball when Ryder ran forwards about 15m to bump him and initiated the collision. Day had literally just kicked the ball and had taken ONE step when he collided with the point of Ryder's shoulder.

Just because Ryder stopped running a split-second before impact doesn't exonerate him.

Ryder actually leaned into the bump.. He leveraged his 110kg frame into knocking Day on his feet. He didn't have to do that. He could've wrapped Day in up in a tackle. He could've turned side on to bump, but then pulled back and not leaned into it as heavily as he did and not caused any damage.



Bottom line: As we've all been told 1000 times, if a player elects to bump, then they are 100% responsible for any head injuries which occur as a result of their actions. Which goes to show just how thick-headed many AFL footballers are that the message just doesn't appear to sink in. They are stuck in the past.

Probably the most succinctly put comment in this topic. Well done!

 

[staffonly]

What do you want him to do? Fly away like a bird? Or wave his magic wand and make Ryder disappear?

You can't blame Day for lacking awareness. He was in the act of kicking the ball. Like anyone in that circumstance, he leaves himself wide open when his focus is on spotting up his teammate 25m away. He is not expecting to be bumped after he has disposed of the ball. Maybe 10, 20 years ago he would expect it. But footballers today are playing by different rules than the old school footballers played under.

He had literally taken one step after kicking the footy



Another thing is... People have a tendency to base their opinion of these incidents on watching the same edited, slowed down footage which gets replayed over and over. That's why you hear nuffies saying Day "changed direction" and that Ryder "was stationary" and Day "ran into him".

This is all warped opinion from watching a slow-mo snippet of what occurred. Technically correct, if you only view the edited slowed-down version, but it is not reflecting the totality of what occurred.

If you watch the entire incident from different angles at normal speed, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Ryder bumped Day. It's silly for people to even debate this obvious fact.

If a guy is running along and you step into his path, plant your feet, brace for impact and knock him off his feet, then that is a BUMP.

That's what they expected Ryder to do fly away or dissapear

 

[HairyO]

But if that's your line in the sand, then you have to ban knees in marking contests too.

It is completely devoid of logic to be so concerned about concussions that key elements of the game are banned - but then still allow other really dangerous s**t to be legal.

Umpires do sometimes ping players who lead with their knees in the marking contest. It comes down to intent. If your only goal is to take a mark and there is accidental contact then that is a part of the game. It is incredibly rare for a player to be injured by an accidental knee in a marking contest. We see many examples each year where players are injured from bumps.

You can drive 110kmph on a freeway but only 40kmph in a school zone because one is far more dangerous than the other.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Umpires do sometimes ping players who lead with their knees in the marking contest. It comes down to intent. If your only goal is to take a mark and there is accidental contact then that is a part of the game. It is incredibly rare for a player to be injured by an accidental knee in a marking contest. We see many examples each year where players are injured from bumps.

You can drive 110kmph on a freeway but only 40kmph in a school zone because one is far more dangerous than the other.

But your point was very clear cut - choose between concussions and suicides, or collisions.

If that's the line, and we're really concerned about stopping head injuries then you must ban anything that has the chance of causing it.

Concussion isn't just caused by guys getting knocked out. Any contact with the head can, and often does cause it.

Damien Hardwick literally instructs Tom Lynch to crash into packs with knees and forearms. He lauded him at a press conference after cannoning into a vulnerable player and sending him off the ground to get stitches in his head. It was utterly extraordinary that we have these conversations, then a senior coach makes these comments. And even worse, it wasn't even a free kick - it was considered a legal and fair act! WTF??

McCartin has copped almost all of his concussions from accidental and incidental contact - most being marking contests. Sean Dempster retired due to concussions caused by marking contestd. Not from bumps.


My point is that we can't have it both ways. If we really care, then attacking marking contests with knees and forearms must be outlawed too.

But if we're actually pragmatic about the risks of playing footy, then some bump type collisions need to be considered legal.

You can't have it both ways IMO.

 

[HairyO]

But your point was very clear cut - choose between concussions and suicides, or collisions.

If that's the line, and we're really concerned about stopping head injuries then you must ban anything that has the chance of causing it.

No. My point is anything that is clearly dangerous should be stamped out, particularly since it has nothing to do with winning the ball and there are plenty of other options.

Youre being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I know youre smarter than this.

 

[Back One Out]

That's what they expected Ryder to do fly away or dissapear

Nah, just don't bump people in the head

Tackle, or get low and bump them in the ribs

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No. My point is anything that is clearly dangerous should be stamped out, particularly since it has nothing to do with winning the ball and there are plenty of other options.

Youre being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I know youre smarter than this.

I'm not being difficult at all.

Marking contests are clearly dangerous!

I simply don't understand the logic where people are so concerned about concussions and players get head knocks, to the point where they support a fundamental aspect of the sport being outlawed - yet there are guys getting concussed regularly from marking contests. Guys are retiring from the sport prematurely from getting smashed regularly in marking contests.

And it's legal!! As I said earlier, players are instructed, and applauded by their coaches and peers for 'crashing into packs' recklessly. The tribunal literally just cleared Rioli for bumping someone......because it was in a marking contest!!??? WTF?? It wasn't even a free kick!


I mean seriously, how bizarre is this:

Hardwick on Wednesday wished “good luck” to anyone who tried to take Lynch’s space, following a hard contest in which a St Kilda opponent was injured when the Tigers forward crashed into his back.

There has been some criticism around Lynch’s physicality, but Hinkley had no issue with it.


“That’s what key forwards do. Dimma’s (Hardwick’s) right,” the Port coach said.


“We’ve got Charlie (Dixon) at the other end that’s not dissimilar and Tom Jonas will stand in the way of anything, any of our defenders will, as the Richmond players will.


“We expect key players to play that way as Dimma would too.”


When asked if he expected Dixon to take a leaf out of Lynch’s book, Hinkley was frank.


“I want him to play his game, which is a similar vein,” he said.


“He crashes packs, he hits things and he likes it.”


Further comments by Hardwick...

“There was a massive contest where young (Ben) Paton got his head split. That’s what Tom brings. He brings aggression and if someone wants to take his space, good luck.”

St Kilda’s Ben Paton had 12 staples and eight stitches after Lynch crunched him in a marking contest last week.

According to Hardwick, the clash was an example of Lynch paying his teammates back for an earlier 50m penalty.

“It’s just a part of his game,” Hardwick said before the Tigers trained.


I mean, fair dinkum. The head is sacrosanct?? Come off it.


McCartin has been concussed about 100 times, almost all from marking contests. Sean Dempster retired from standing under packs and having key forwards crashing into him. Matt Maguire from Brisbane another. James Hird had his face smashed from a marking contest, Sam Newman and Tom Lonergan lost kidkeys FFS!!

Don't get me wrong, head high bumps are dangerous. But to get up on the high horse about protecting players and talk about the head being sacrosanct, and not demand the banning of dangerous attacks in marking contests (which would be pretty much all of them) is just completely ludicrous. It's devoid of logic and total hypocrisy.



So my view is, there must be a line where players are taking responsibility themselves. If you really are fair dinkum about protecting them, then you must ban jumping into marking contests with fists, elbows, knees and hips. You just must.

But of course we know that this would wreck the game, and this is the only reason it hasn't been done. Not because it isn't considered dangerous.

So there is a line. It isn't all about protecting players. The head isn't sacrosanct. There is a line when the game is more important than the players health. This is a fact.


So now that we've concluded this, there is no issue with applying that same line to collisions all over the ground. They've already done it to an extent by clearing the Crows player for nearly killing the St Kilda player last year. So the notion that head high hits just happen, isn't new. The AFL are already doing it. They've already set the precedent really.

You don't have to stamp everything out. We have to accept that players will get hurt, and players will get their lives ruined by concussion. There can, and have been some mitigating controls implemented against that, but there is still, and always will be residual risk.

Even basketball players get concussed sometimes.

 

[staffonly]

Nah, just don't bump people in the head

Tackle, or get low and bump them in the ribs

Rubbish.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

That's what they expected Ryder to do fly away or dissapear

Difference is that Ryder had time to grow wings.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Difference is that Ryder had time to grow wings.

No he didn't. Not after Day changes direction.

If Day doesn't change direction, then Ryder would have pulled up enough to avoid hitting him. The fact that Day changes direction towards Ryder makes it impossible for Ryder to get out of the way.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

No he didn't. Not after Day changes direction.

If Day doesn't change direction, then Ryder would have pulled up enough to avoid hitting him. The fact that Day changes direction towards Ryder makes it impossible for Ryder to get out of the way.

Dude, he lined him up from a fair way back.
Ryder was going to bump him regardless of one step in a slightly different direction.

 

[PJays]

This thread is still going?

Whether or not Day technically "changed direction" slightly is irrelevant.

Ryder had other options.

A footy player- a great ruckman actually, who constantly makes split second decisions with precision, couldn't take another course of action in that moment? Of course he could! That argument badly fails the pub test.

He turned and put his shoulder in front of a guy who was running, with the ball, full speed towards him. Day may have changed directly slightly on a slowmo replay, but so what? He's allowed to keep running for one step forwards without being collected by a shoulder.

Day should expect that he can kick the ball without receiving a shoulder to his upper body/head within one step in front of him after kicking. Especially when running at near full speed.

It's not complicated and, it's been fleshed out in great detail earlier in the thread.

Those who fail to accept Ryder's responsibility here are just failing to move with the times. This isn't the 1980's.

You can't do what Ryder did. If you do, you're running the risk that your opponent gets concussed and you get suspended. Both occured sadly, and both were avoidable.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This thread is still going?

Whether or not Day technically "changed direction" slightly is irrelevant.

Ryder had other options.

A footy player- a great ruckman actually, who constantly makes split second decisions with precision, couldn't take another course of action in that moment? Of course he could! That argument badly fails the pub test.

He turned and put his shoulder in front of a guy who was running, with the ball, full speed towards him. Day may have changed directly slightly on a slowmo replay, but so what? He's allowed to keep running for one step forwards without being collected by a shoulder.

Day should expect that he can kick the ball without receiving a shoulder to his upper body/head within one step in front of him after kicking. Especially when running at near full speed.

It's not complicated and, it's been fleshed out in great detail earlier in the thread.

Those who fail to accept Ryder's responsibility here are just failing to move with the times. This isn't the 1980's.

You can't do what Ryder did. If you do, you're running the risk that your opponent gets concussed and you get suspended. Both occured sadly, and both were avoidable.

Agree, except for this bit...

"Day should expect that he can kick the ball without receiving a shoulder to his upper body/head within one step in front of him after..."

Ryder is allowed to bump him in the upper body. And Day should expect it.

Just not the head.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

No. My point is anything that is clearly dangerous should be stamped out, particularly since it has nothing to do with winning the ball and there are plenty of other options.

Youre being difficult for the sake of being difficult. I know youre smarter than this.

This weekend alone, we've seen Ward and May concussed from marking contests, and just saw Henry poleaxed to the head with not even a Free Kick paid.

 

[HairyO]

This weekend alone, we've seen Ward and May concussed from marking contests, and just saw Henry poleaxed to the head with not even a Free Kick paid.

How many marking concussions this year?

What % of all marks?

What % of bumps hitting the head concuss the player?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

How many marking concussions this year?

What % of all marks?

What % of bumps hitting the head concuss the player?

I don't see the relevance.

The head is sacrosanct, remember.

 

[HairyO]

I don't see the relevance.

The head is sacrosanct, remember.

Who has said that?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Who has said that?

The AFL.



"But I think there's an acceptance that we need to make the head is sacrosanct and in that if you choose to bump, and you make contact with the head, you're in trouble.

"As problematic as that might be, we've prioritised the head and I don't think anything talked about yesterday will change that."

- Gillon McLachlin



"Tackling is alive and well but you know what is not alive and well – head high injuries, neck injuries, the head’s sacrosanct, we make no apologies for it."

- Andrew Demetriou