Time to make the Hip and Shoulder truly fair.

[Peter P]

I posted this on the "Geelong went for the man.." thread, but thought it worth a discussion in its own right.

The game itself needs a rule change. Some will say this is radical and making the game "soft". But it is essential if we're to prevent players getting paralysed, brain damaged or killed.

In Gaelic football - which I played a season of last summer - the rule on bumps is it must be "SHOULDER TO SHOULDER". This means if a player is bending over to get the ball he is well protected. To bump him you must get down with him and go for the ball too - then you can bump shoulder to shoulder.

Furthermore players involved in a bump must have at least one foot on the ground. ie Darren Milburn would not fly through the air to take out Steve Silvagni.

Bumps can still be very hard - but it is shoulder to shoulder and consequently hip to hip too. The bumps in the Irish code - and in the International Rules Tests - are consequently FAIRER than as it currently stands in our code.

Not hip to head - as per Silvagni, Porter and many others across the land.

Sure such a rule change would alter the culture of our game. But I think it is a misguided culture that has persisted for too long - that thinks if an elbow is tucked in you can do anything with your sacrosanct "hip and shoulder". Rhys-Jones clearly believed so as he showed the nation his bruised hip on the Footy Show. As though Adam Grills' eye socket can distinguish between a hip and an elbow!

A medical study in 2000 showed 9 players had died of head and neck related injuries in Victoria over 4 decades. I would go as far to say that if the rule were altered in line with the Irish code and the onus was fair and square on the shoulders of the player laying the bump - some of those guys would be alive to still enjoy the game today.

I realise risk can't be fully eliminated. The Rugby codes and American football have a worse record for head and neck trauma, and there's some research implicating long term heading or head clash related concussion in soccer with memory problems. Indeed a Russian premier league player died after a clash of heads last month. But clarifying bumps so they'd be FAIR HIP N SHOULDER to HIP N SHOULDER would be a great change - Silvagni and others going for the "hospital ball" could brace for an expected side on bump - not worry about decapitation!!

 

[gPhonque]

Good post. Don't know what to think about it yet, as it's not actually something i've put much thought into to tell you the truth.

The only thing is - i would have thought that what you are proposing is actually what a current legal bump should be anyway?

A hip 'n shoulder to the head is hardly a "legal" action. Silvagni was taken out in an unfair way. (hip to the head.) Hence, Milburn's innevetable suspension.

Just a thought.

 

[Frodo]

I agree. The current rule is barbaric to say the least and gives credence to the notion of 'taking a player out' ie maming him for the game, season or career.

ps.. I feel the same about the legality of taking a mark by placing the knee in the back of an opponent. Spectacular but someday we will see a paraplegic resulting.

 

[CJH]

In principle, I agree Peter.

Not that this would have helped Silvagni any. See, what Milburn did was illegal as far as the law stands currently. I don't think he would be too concerned if he broke a slightly different law.

 

[RacerX]

Great post Peter.

Though I'm not sure whether I'd support such a change. Such changes could seriously alter the game of AFL, eg players could not hit the packs in the fashion they do now.

In the junior ranks, however, I think the rules changes would be great.

 

[BrisGirl]

Was Milburn reported on the spot?

If he wasn't, why wasn't he?

 

[Peter P]

CJH - the rule change would alter the culture of the game. And I for one think this is essential. Milburn in a future game in a similar scenario would pull out of the contest - in fact he wouldn't even approach the contest in the same fashion.

To alter the rule in line with what it is in the Irish v Australia Tests would mean a clear cut rule. ie no arguing what the player's intent was, whether the bump was "unreasonable in effort" etc etc - as currently stands now.

Simple - you bump an opponent in contention for the ball when you can be sure it is shoulder to shoulder from the side. You can do this as hard as you like as long as your feet stay grounded.

What that means is:

less reckless charging into packs.

Milburn, Burgoyne and others would not hit opponents in that airborne fashion that nearly killed SOS. Saw the news again -Looks like he was fitting for a few seconds after the hit.

In all those junior, amateur and country leagues - where medicos, ambulances and expensive rehab programs are virtually non-existent - there'd be more protection.

And in these sort of matches, where there aren't 10 cameras and 8 highly trained umpires [including reserve umpire], or a high professionalism amongst the players - the psychopathic thug who delights in taking out the talented young kid - can't hide his deed behind the "twas a fair bump - didn't use the elbow!" argument.

In the long term I think nothing less than the future of the game is at stake - parents will [and not a few already are] take their kids to play other sports.

The strict policing of the high tackle rule has generally consigned the coathanger - that paralysed Neil Sasche of Fitzroy - to the past. Note how players these days approach even the ducking opponent - desperate to avoid a high tackle. ie the culture of the game changed - and for the better. It didn't use to be like that and there's a few old guys in wheel chairs or their graves. Still happens in Rugby League though - and look at their faces, or their brain scans - who was it who recently had to give the NRL away with visible brain damage on the MRI scan?

 

[Catman]

How would that rule stand up in a Porter/Kilpatrick situation? Where the player drops down in front of the on-coming player.

 

[Peter P]

The culture of the game changes with a rule revision such as this. Kilpatrick approaches the ball - observes Porter heading down in front of him - and checks his angle and speed of attack. He knows he can't head in hip first - so he doesnt wham Porter with his backside as he did. There'd perhaps be a collision but it may be Kilpatrick putting out his hands in a stopping motion towards Porter's shoulders - more controlled. He also may have had more chance of getting the ball and keeping his feet. And Porter wouldn't be concussed.

All this said - sure there is going to be concussions occasionally if the rule was altered. but there'd be a lot less - and especially less king hits disguised as "fair bumps" in the amateur leagues.