MRP / Trib. Sam Durham bump on Cerra - how many weeks?

[Vindicater]

I think you'll find he is included in one of the terms I used to describe many AFL media members.

Buckley also saying the same thing now.

Durham went hard and low and correctly at the ball. Cerra didn't.

in the end Durham will cop his whack and that is fine.

 

[Toump Ass]

AFL looking after it's big Vic clubs again.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Where has this been reported?

I can't find it anymore, I think it may have been a typo in the articles that reported that he woke on Monday morning and didn't report delay concussion symptoms.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Durham went hard and low and correctly at the ball. Cerra didn't.

If he was correctly making a play at the ball, then he wouldn't have been suspended. Like Viney previously.

Or the massive collisions between David McKay and Jack Steele a few years ago.

Instead he has his arms tucked in and chooses to bump. And thats why he has a two week ban.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Buckley also saying the same thing now.

Durham went hard and low and correctly at the ball. Cerra didn't.

in the end Durham will cop his whack and that is fine.

Durham clearly intentionally went the bump and anybody who says otherwise is disingenuous or a delusional fool. Including Michael Christian.

He should have been sent straight to the tribunal because of the potential catastrophic consequences of an intentional bump like that. It was a split second decision, he hardly needs to be tarred and feathered, but a stronger message needed to be sent.

But arguing this with somebody with a red and black flag next to their name is a pointless exercise, so I will leave you with the final word.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Harford spot on



There is only one way to stop it and that is to stop players leading with their head.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

It’s so ridiculously simple.

If you don’t want head contact then just take the head out of the equation. It shouldn’t have been anywhere near the collision area.

 

[Sixpence]

This is the Hodge/Murphy incident all over again. Carlton player leads with his head, other bloke turns his body to protect his head (like he's been taught to). Carlton player comes off worse. Hodge correctly got off, Durham should have too.

If Durham lead with his head as well, they'd still collide and both end up in Destination ****ed. These blokes need to learn to protect themselves better.

 

[unitedhawk2]

To those who are criticising Cerra for leading with his head, I have a question - or a few questions, to be more accurate:
Had Cerra turned himself side-on to attack the ball, as the AFL apparently recommends, what happens if another opposition player is coming in to tackle him from that direction at the same time? That other player would have been doing the right thing in approaching Cerra side-on before he turned to avoid Durham. Is Cerra meant to have the peripheral vision to know there's another player approaching him and, if so, what is he meant to do? Turn himself left instead of right? What if there's a third oppositon player - or even one from his own team - with forward momentum at that angle?

I don't know what the solution is but, fwiw, I don't think there's any safe way a bump can be executed when the ball is on the ground. Perhaps we need a rule that says no bumping if you need to lower yourself to go below hip level in order to execute the bump.

Anyway, here's something I posted on the Hawks board earlier today. Thought I'd replicate it here as the link to Healy's article hasn't made an appearance on this thread yet:

Healy: Two weeks, what a farce

"It was the most dangerous act I’ve seen on a football field for 10 years."

www.sen.com.au

I don’t usually find myself in agreement with Gerard Healy but he’s absolutely spot-on in this instance.

This, to my mind, is a consequence of the AFL’s ludicrous policy to punish the outcome rather than the act. Lawyers - and I think we have some on BF - are welcome to correct me but it’s akin to having a law that penalises an unlucky accident more harshly than an attempted murder that doesn’t eventuate due to a stroke of luck. Another analogy would be having a law that punishes a drunk driver only if he causes an accident, as opposed to the common-sense law we actually have that penalises the driver just for being drunk at the wheel before he causes any harm.

The AFL’s hare-brained outcome-based policy is allowing players to indulge in risky on-field behaviour that they would, in all probability, eschew if the act itself was punishable.

Even where there supposedly are rules, they aren’t enforced. I’m pretty sure there’s one which says that if a player in possession of the ball burrows head-first into an oncoming tackler, the tackler should receive a free-kick. When was the last time that was paid?

Wake up, AFL!

 

[Blues_Man]

2 weeks seems reasonable. Was a bump to the head after all.
But I do agree with Hird that two players attacking the ball side on prevents this occurring.

Hird was shocked to be sitting there

 

[Blues_Man]

To those who are criticising Cerra for leading with his head, I have a question - or a few questions, to be more accurate:
Had Cerra turned himself side-on to attack the ball, as the AFL apparently recommends, what happens if another opposition player is coming in to tackle him from that direction at the same time? That other player would have been doing the right thing in approaching Cerra side-on before he turned to avoid Durham. Is Cerra meant to have the peripheral vision to know there's another player approaching him and, if so, what is he meant to do? Turn himself left instead of right? What if there's a third oppositon player - or even one from his own team - with forward momentum at that angle?

I don't know what the solution is but, fwiw, I don't think there's any safe way a bump can be executed when the ball is on the ground. Perhaps we need a rule that says no bumping if you need to lower yourself to go below hip level in order to execute the bump.

Anyway, here's something I posted on the Hawks board earlier today. Thought I'd replicate it here as the link to Healy's article hasn't made an appearance on this thread yet:

Healy: Two weeks, what a farce

"It was the most dangerous act I’ve seen on a football field for 10 years."

www.sen.com.au

I don’t usually find myself in agreement with Gerard Healy but he’s absolutely spot-on in this instance.

This, to my mind, is a consequence of the AFL’s ludicrous policy to punish the outcome rather than the act. Lawyers - and I think we have some on BF - are welcome to correct me but it’s akin to having a law that penalises an unlucky accident more harshly than an attempted murder that doesn’t eventuate due to a stroke of luck. Another analogy would be having a law that punishes a drunk driver only if he causes an accident, as opposed to the common-sense law we actually have that penalises the driver just for being drunk at the wheel before he causes any harm.

The AFL’s hare-brained outcome-based policy is allowing players to indulge in risky on-field behaviour that they would, in all probability, eschew if the act itself was punishable.

Even where there supposedly are rules, they aren’t enforced. I’m pretty sure there’s one which says that if a player in possession of the ball burrows head-first into an oncoming tackler, the tackler should receive a free-kick. When was the last time that was paid?

Wake up, AFL!

This incident was nothing like that, it reminded me of Byron picket, player head down over the ball, the other crashing into him with his body. Dog act

 

[HairyO]

To those who are criticising Cerra for leading with his head, I have a question - or a few questions, to be more accurate:
Had Cerra turned himself side-on to attack the ball, as the AFL apparently recommends, what happens if another opposition player is coming in to tackle him from that direction at the same time? That other player would have been doing the right thing in approaching Cerra side-on before he turned to avoid Durham. Is Cerra meant to have the peripheral vision to know there's another player approaching him and, if so, what is he meant to do? Turn himself left instead of right? What if there's a third oppositon player - or even one from his own team - with forward momentum at that angle?

The force of the impact would be halved. That is what would happen.

And if Cerra had turned sideways, and another opposition player charged in and collected him, then the opposition player should be penalised for a dangerous action. Unless they had also turned their body. In which case its a very rare accidental injury from a football action.

 

[The Dodger]

No potential to cause injury? So what happened to Cerra is the worst than can come of that action?

 

[LOLchie Schultz]

No potential to cause injury? So what happened to Cerra is the worst than can come of that action?

Reids elbow had no potential to cause injury...

 

[Yoda_]

Bump

Brayden Fiorini

8

Brayden Fiorini

Age

28

Ht

187cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.9

5star

K

13.9

5star

HB

9.1

5star

M

4.7

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.9

4star

D

16.3

4star

K

11.0

4star

HB

5.3

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.7

3star

CL

0.7

3star

D

21.2

5star

K

10.2

4star

HB

11.0

5star

M

4.6

5star

T

4.2

5star

CL

3.2

5star

should be 2 weeks in a near identical incident to that of our boy Sammy Durham

 

[The Kings Ransom]

I don't profess to know how the MRP works but the incidents look a bit different. One with arm tucked in bumping motion and one hand near the ball. The other guy has 2 hands on the ball before any head contact occurs.

 

[wilsonmatic]

Bump

Brayden Fiorini should be 2 weeks in a near identical incident to that of our boy Sammy Durham

If you can't spot the difference you're a special idiot.

 

[Yoda_]

If you can't spot the difference you're a special idiot.

admitting a mistake has been made