Rules of the Game

[Maggie5]

I didn't suggest the change to speed the game, quite the opposite. Interchange is what allows players to run to exhaustion then rest and recover for another go. No interchange stops some of this. The suggestion of multiple replacements being available is to counter the injury concern. Any player injured is replaced, but cannot come back on.

I know you didn’t say that

I am saying leave interchange as is as the game has sped too much already due to rule changes.

 

[good4footy]

Common sense prevails from the AFL........


Hocking: Burton suspension would have meant bump was banned
By Peter Ryan
24 April 2018 — 11:38am

Suspending Hawthorn's Ryan Burton for the bump he laid on North Melbourne's Shaun Higgins would have spelled the end of the bump as part of the game according to AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking.

Hocking said he would not appeal the decision, having played a part in the decision by the match review officer Michael Christian to clear Burton.

He viewed the bump as perfectly executed with the impact not being above the threshold that would constitute a reportable offence.

"There is a still a place in the laws of the game for the bump and in our view Burton has executed the bump correctly," Hocking said.

"There is a secondary motion that happens, which is the incidental contact."

Higgins went to hospital as a result of the clash of heads that occurred when he was bumped and needed plastic surgery to repair his lip however the AFL viewed that as incidental.

"If we suspend him for that we are throwing the bump out of the game and I'm not sure we should be doing that," Hocking said.

The AFL did not believe there was a high level of force in the bump itself with the concussion caused by the back of Burton's head clashing with Higgins' head.

The decision has caused an outcry with coaches and spectators confused given the AFL's decision in recent seasons to suspend players who concussed opponents as a result of the bump.

Hocking told a media briefing he accepted the debate but argued that the game wants the bump retained.

However he conceded the rules would be reviewed at the end of the season to take into account the circumstances arising from the Burton bump

Sorry mate totally disagree with him on this. There have been some amazing fair bumps this year. Danger and Hartlett, Josh Thomas and a Crows player. Fair, to the body and going for the ball. Tough, eyes on the ball. What our game is about.

Suspending Burton doesn't stop these examples, so actually it doesn't get rid of the bump. In fact it helps keep the bump in the game.

What Burton did goes totally against what we should be doing to ensure we protect the head. Running for 15m away to pick someone off who already has the ball is not courageous nor what we need in the game. It takes more courage to tackle than to bump. I would have jumped out of my seat with excitement if he nailed him with a huge tackle and got a free kick for his team. His bump just made me think he was scared to tackle.

Hocking's presser has provided the family of the first bloke who suicides as per the gridion players, exhibit 'A'.

I recommend watching the movie Concussion. The NFL and its supporters reacted the same way to any suggestions to make the game safer. It will make the game soft, the game will never be the same etc etc. Once players and their families started suing as a results of brain damage that lead to violence and suicide- backed up with medical evidence the world now knows about- things changed. Not only rules in the game but also the way players train.

We know too much from a health persoective to let bumps like Burtons continue. There are enough amazing fair bumps that happen when contesting the ball that it wouldn't end the bump if you had to tackle rather than bump people with the ball anyway.

 

[CFC2010]

Sorry mate totally disagree with him on this. There have been some amazing fair bumps this year. Danger and Hartlett, Josh Thomas and a Crows player. Fair, to the body and going for the ball. Tough, eyes on the ball. What our game is about.

Suspending Burton doesn't stop these examples, so actually it doesn't get rid of the bump. In fact it helps keep the bump in the game.

What Burton did goes totally against what we should be doing to ensure we protect the head. Running for 15m away to pick someone off who already has the ball is not courageous nor what we need in the game. It takes more courage to tackle than to bump. I would have jumped out of my seat with excitement if he nailed him with a huge tackle and got a free kick for his team. His bump just made me think he was scared to tackle.

Hocking's presser has provided the family of the first bloke who suicides as per the gridion players, exhibit 'A'.

I recommend watching the movie Concussion. The NFL and its supporters reacted the same way to any suggestions to make the game safer. It will make the game soft, the game will never be the same etc etc. Once players and their families started suing as a results of brain damage that lead to violence and suicide- backed up with medical evidence the world now knows about- things changed. Not only rules in the game but also the way players train.

We know too much from a health persoective to let bumps like Burtons continue. There are enough amazing fair bumps that happen when contesting the ball that it wouldn't end the bump if you had to tackle rather than bump people with the ball anyway.

What you're suggesting IMO goes against the fibre of what you learn from a young child playing this game.

We are taught to go hard.......we are taught to tackle hard.......we are taught to bump hard.

You're now asking players to pick and choose......in a split second decide whether they "should tackle" or bump.
They don't take the "blue" pill and become the Matrix all of a sudden when they walk onto the field..

On game day I disagreed with left at home over that incident. In my eyes it was accident.....so what if he didn't tackle he didn't him give him a "Glasgow Kiss" on purpose. s**t Happens sometimes.

How far do they then take it......if Jeremy Howe goes for an unrealistic marking attempt (free kick) and his boots land on someone's head knocking them out, should he be reported also for that act???

You went on a bit of a tangent mate about suicide and concussion but the only solution is to reprogram our kids and in turn our footballers and GET RID OF THE BUMP.

 

[left at home]

What you're suggesting IMO goes against the fibre of what you learn from a young child playing this game.

We are taught to go hard.......we are taught to tackle hard.......we are taught to bump hard.

You're now asking players to pick and choose......in a split second decide whether they "should tackle" or bump.
They don't take the "blue" pill and become the Matrix all of a sudden when they walk onto the field..

On game day I disagreed with left at home over that incident. In my eyes it was accident.....so what if he didn't tackle he didn't him give him a "Glasgow Kiss" on purpose. s**t Happens sometimes.

How far do they then take it......if Jeremy Howe goes for an unrealistic marking attempt (free kick) and his boots land on someone's head knocking them out, should he be reported also for that act???

You went on a bit of a tangent mate about suicide and concussion but the only solution is to reprogram our kids and in turn our footballers and GET RID OF THE BUMP.

There has been a slight shift this year about the bump. It was fair, with an as you say a clash of heads. I was wrong at the time about where contact was made. But if it was last year he would have been rub out cause he had another choice. Glad the bump is alive, but for how long not sure.
To get rid of the confusion about it. Probably needs to go.

 

[good4footy]

What you're suggesting IMO goes against the fibre of what you learn from a young child playing this game.

We are taught to go hard.......we are taught to tackle hard.......we are taught to bump hard.

You're now asking players to pick and choose......in a split second decide whether they "should tackle" or bump.
They don't take the "blue" pill and become the Matrix all of a sudden when they walk onto the field..

On game day I disagreed with left at home over that incident. In my eyes it was accident.....so what if he didn't tackle he didn't him give him a "Glasgow Kiss" on purpose. s**t Happens sometimes.

How far do they then take it......if Jeremy Howe goes for an unrealistic marking attempt (free kick) and his boots land on someone's head knocking them out, should he be reported also for that act???

You went on a bit of a tangent mate about suicide and concussion but the only solution is to reprogram our kids and in turn our footballers and GET RID OF THE BUMP.

No its not a tangent it's the main thing...brian injury.

It is not in a split second when you run 20m to bump someone. It is actually a decision to do that. Personally i was aways told to tackle people with the ball so wouldn't be a reprogram for me.

As to the bump disappearing, as i said it wont. There are enough collisions in our game that make it exciting and hard and neeing courage to play. You have to know when you take off from a distance to bump someone that there will be damage, it is not an accident. An accident is Dangerfield and Hartlett both with eyes on the ball colliding. Those bumps will always be in the game. We cant get rid of them.

Anyway it is an argument between health of players and how they leave the game versus what some conside a key plank of the game. There is validity to both arguments, hence the debate in the football world. We are just on different sides of it. I just think the bump will still remain a key component even if get rid of what Burton did because of the nature of the game.

I recommend watching Concussion...not only is it a good film but also speaks to the issue at hand, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

Enjoy tomorrow mate.

 

[Robroy22]

Don't know if its been posted already but Neil Sachse (in today's HS) made some interesting comments regarding the weekend's bumps. His take was that both Lindsay Thomas and Ryan Burton shouldn't have been cited and that ACCIDENTS shouldn't change the way the rules are set.

 

[anshell]

I think Clarkson is spot on with his comments,even if they maybe were a bit self serving.Holding the ball and incorrect disposal have almost been umpired out of the game today.How many times do you see a player caught red handed with the ball,then drop it,and still there is no free kick.The umpires seem to wait for the ball to come out of the pack,rather than pay a free kick,but with the congestion around the ball,the ball hardly ever comes out anyway.This leads to more ball ups and even more congestion around the ball.If more free kicks were paid for holding the ball,then there would be far less congestion in the game,and it wouldn't be the issue we're seeing in today's football.

 

[Black_White]

Back to the opening post, even though I have enjoyed the discussion that has been generated. Both sides of the bump argument have valid views.
But Clarkson has recognised that his current team no longer has the skill level that made them invincible in days gone by.
He has though recognised that his players are particularly good at the tackle. They can’t win the ball one on one, but they can win the ball via tackle. If only those damn umpires would see every tackle to his teams advantage.
Taking #freekickhawthorn to the next level.

 

[CFC2010]

No its not a tangent it's the main thing...brian injury.

It is not in a split second when you run 20m to bump someone. It is actually a decision to do that. Personally i was aways told to tackle people with the ball so wouldn't be a reprogram for me.

As to the bump disappearing, as i said it wont. There are enough collisions in our game that make it exciting and hard and neeing courage to play. You have to know when you take off from a distance to bump someone that there will be damage, it is not an accident. An accident is Dangerfield and Hartlett both with eyes on the ball colliding. Those bumps will always be in the game. We cant get rid of them.

Anyway it is an argument between health of players and how they leave the game versus what some conside a key plank of the game. There is validity to both arguments, hence the debate in the football world. We are just on different sides of it. I just think the bump will still remain a key component even if get rid of what Burton did because of the nature of the game.

I recommend watching Concussion...not only is it a good film but also speaks to the issue at hand, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

Enjoy tomorrow mate.

I am really nervous and looking forward to tomorrow that’s for sure.

I am not discounting concussion by the way.......just trying not to change the best game in the world too much.

Darren Millane was one of my favourite players and his bumps would make his teammates walk taller. I know the game has changed since then......but he always hit hard and fair.

I just think the sooner they get rid of it the better......too much grey area.

I will definitely check out the movie concussion.....cheers mate.

 

[oswood]

I actually don't think players or coaches really take time to understand the rules properly. Whether you agree with them or not, I thin it is essential all players and coaches do weekly training on understanding the rules.

The deliberate rushed behind is the perfect example. It's comical to see players on the last line so hesitant to rush it over even when under extreme pressure. Sides should be training that scenario, so players are aware instinctively when they can and cant rush the behind. Realistically, if there's pressure and you are close enough to goal, then rushing a behind should be an automatic decision, but players still panic.

The other one is incorrect disposal. There is still this assumption that only when a player has prior opportunity will they be pinned for holding the ball. That is not the case. If there is no prior opportunity, you still need to make an attempt. However, under current interpretations, you basically you can let the ball spill free if you are tackled immediately...you don't have to dispose it correctly.

The Bulldogs basically won a Grand Final by simply forcing the ball forward at all costs. I remember after that game that Alistair Clarkson commented that his team would have to learn the rules as he thought that was incorrect disposal. I actually think Hawthorn is one of the worst sides in the competition at throwing the football when tackled. They get away with a lot of incorrect disposal. But again, credit to them for knowing the rules and knowing how to manipulate it.

Spot on, Clarkson is brilliant at exploiting every opportunity to advantage, including all shades of grey in the rules. Those brilliant but questionable taps from rioli et al that sometime border on throws... sometimes I wish Buckley had the same cunningness in his coaching but I come back to wanting to see some good honest football

 

[CFC2010]

No its not a tangent it's the main thing...brian injury.

It is not in a split second when you run 20m to bump someone. It is actually a decision to do that. Personally i was aways told to tackle people with the ball so wouldn't be a reprogram for me.

As to the bump disappearing, as i said it wont. There are enough collisions in our game that make it exciting and hard and neeing courage to play. You have to know when you take off from a distance to bump someone that there will be damage, it is not an accident. An accident is Dangerfield and Hartlett both with eyes on the ball colliding. Those bumps will always be in the game. We cant get rid of them.

Anyway it is an argument between health of players and how they leave the game versus what some conside a key plank of the game. There is validity to both arguments, hence the debate in the football world. We are just on different sides of it. I just think the bump will still remain a key component even if get rid of what Burton did because of the nature of the game.

I recommend watching Concussion...not only is it a good film but also speaks to the issue at hand, regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

Enjoy tomorrow mate.

First let me say thanks for suggesting the movie. Watched it this morning (I was going to watch the 1990 GF )

To me it just highlighted that we need to get rid of the bump. Our game is a lot different to the NFL but concussion is concussion all the same.

You can’t dismiss people like Platten, Diesel, Sinclair etc that say head knocks are a detrimental part of our game and have affected their standard of living.

I still don’t think anything was wrong with Burton’s bump.......but watching the movie the sooner they eliminate it the better.

We would never want to reach the stage of the NFL players who suffered and worse committed suicide from the head knocks.

RIP THE BUMP

Second Vodka down at the G

Go Pies

 

[good4footy]

First let me say thanks for suggesting the movie. Watched it this morning (I was going to watch the 1990 GF )

To me it just highlighted that we need to get rid of the bump. Our game is a lot different to the NFL but concussion is concussion all the same.

You can’t dismiss people like Platten, Diesel, Sinclair etc that say head knocks are a detrimental part of our game and have affected their standard of living.

I still don’t think anything was wrong with Burton’s bump.......but watching the movie the sooner they eliminate it the better.

We would never want to reach the stage of the NFL players who suffered and worse committed suicide from the head knocks.

RIP THE BUMP

Second Vodka down at the G

Go Pies

Hope the Vodkas went down well. Glad you enjoyed the movie. Very confronting to what i believed in about our game for a long time.

Considering our discussion so far and at the risk of being seen to now argue for the bump (lol) i don't think we need to ban the bump but just look at how to allow it. This is not a concrete suggestion but if we move to stop people with the ball being cleaned up by ensuring they can only be tackled, then it still allows those contesting the ball to bump fairly and also allows for accidents when contesting the ball.

We just need to stop people being picked off from a distance as even if done 'legally' like Burton, it will almost certainly lead to some brain damage whether a direct hit to the head or concusion from whiplash effect.

We both love the bump but we now know more about concussion, so need to at the very least have a robust discussion about how to create a safe working environment for the players whilst keeping the unique nature of our game in mind.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The rule that really kills me is the one for taking out the legs. A player should be rewarded for attacking the ball and putting their head over it but gets pinged. It's so contrary and anti-football.

Yep, it should be straightforward. Slide in legs first and you give away the free. Going headlong after the ball is permissible and unnecessary high contact should be paid.

The holding the ball is still the biggest issue. Most footy fans aren’t intelligent enough to understand it, and it’s not umpired consistently enough to reinforce the interpretation in the minds of the public anyway. How often do you see someone tackled immediately upon receiving the ball, then get swung 360 degrees while trying to shrug the tackle and it’s called a ball up. Idiots in the stand will say “well he had no prior”. Yes, but on being tackled you still need to make a genuine attempt to dispose of the thing.

Or they’ll run 15m with the ball, get tackled and drop it. “Ball jarred free in tackle”. Sure.

Or they run 15m with the ball, get tackled, and are still able to be slung 180 degrees and handball to the ground alongside them. Uh no, the opportunity they had was PRIOR to being tackled, you don’t get two opportunities.

Ugh.