Axis of Bob said:

They were both contesting the ball. The rule states that if you elect to bump and hit someone in the head then it's reportable if you had an option to either a) tackle the player or, B) contest the football.

Rance and Selwood were both contesting the football therefore their actions were perfectly legal.

I don't have a problem with the rule. It's simple - if you elect to bump then don't hit them in the head.

Thats fine except now we have an untenable situation where a rule has been introduced that discriminates against the taller player in the contest. Surely all players must have the option to bump fairly, but now the taller player has to think twice about it.

Dork club song lyric amendment..."Laying the bumps with Chagrin at Hawthorn"

Very harsh penalty by the Tribunal.

  Its_A_Nightmare said:

Very harsh penalty by the Tribunal.

Probably fair application of a ridiculous rule which let's face it is essentially a de facto prohibition on bumping.

'Chose to bump when you could have tackled'. My head nearly exploded when I first heard this explanation. In the vast majority of instances you CAN tackle when you bump, but you bump to assert a physical presence and/or keep yourself in the play. Just another example of these strict liability head-high rules where perfectly good football plays are considered unacceptable because of the aftermath. The minute you take variables out of the question you are always going to have head-scratching decisions.

I just hope once we're knocking on the door of the Finals that we don't lose a player like this.

  Axis of Bob said:

Because, as the rule says, Cousins would not have hit him in the head. They only would have talked about why Cousins didn't tackle Buddy but rather tried to be a hero by bumping him.

And saying Cousins is hard to tackle is no reason to say why someone shouldn't tackle him. It is a horrible argument. Just appalling. A better way to stop Cousins other than tackling him would be shoot him repeatedly in the testicles with a spear gun and then sever both his legs with a chainsaw, but it doesn't mean that you're allowed to do it!

Buddy didn't try to bump to be a hero this is modern football.... have a look all over the ground a player who gives off a handpass is usually bumped or retarded in some fashion to stop them getting into the next contest.... the old one two....

When buddy saw he was getting the ball off he went to bump him to knock him down and put himout of the play not to take his head off

loges:

  Quote

a rule has been introduced that discriminates against the taller player

If Aaron Sandilands throws his arms forward to tackle an opponent then he is likely to tackle him around the neck. He will have a free kick paid against him because you can't tackle someone around the head.

If Brent Harvey does the same thing then he is likely to tackle him around the chest. He has performed a legal tackle.

Sandilands needs to lower his body so that he will tackle his opponent legally, just as Buddy should have lowered his body to bump him legally.

Does the law of getting a mark when your catch a kick on the full discriminate against smaller players? Surely the law means that it's harder for a small player to mark on the full because the taller players will get to it first. What about around the neck? Doesn't that discriminate against tall people? Does making a kick the only way to score a goal discriminate against amputees?

pitmaster:

  Quote

it's taking something from the game that's always been there

Ahhhhhhh, change! Horrible horrible change!

Some other things that used to be different - women not having the vote, aborigines being classified in our constitution as 'fauna', no free kick for kicking the ball out on the full, no centre square, no club songs, 'leg theory' during Bodyline, lobotomy, burning witches at the stake, feudalism etc.

Things change. Discuss the merits of what is, rather than simply say it's bad because it wasn't like that in the past.

dandeeman: The definition of 'reckless' is "having no regard for danger or consequences". He was reckless because he didn't think about the consequences of his bump. He didn't think that his actions, a bump on a smaller player in Cousins, would have resulted in him hitting Cousins in the head illegally. They may not have been intentional, but by bumping him in the head when he had the choice to tackle he showed no regard for the consequences of his action, ie he was reckless.

Wolfmother: Bumping a player when after he has handballed is fine and perfectly legal ....... provided that you don't hit him in the head!!!

It's easy, don't bump someone in the head and the law will protect you. Bump them in the head and you're stuffed.

some ludicrous standpooints here. Even the tribunal rules it was a reasonable bump...and that ought to be it..leave it there. But tehn this head thing comes into play. There was no intention to strike the head. it was in the act of a REASONABLE ( again,not my finding..the tribunals ) bump. To suggst he ought to have tackled is to < i think show no understanding of the nature or dynamics to say nothing of the speed of the game. SInce when ISNT a legitiate hip and shoulder part of the game ? The head contact was purely accidental if unfortunate...ffs its a contact game. Its not like Beny was at half height etc. IN the context and speed of the incident I reckon Buddy did bloody well to minimise the hit.

This is another instance of how the lunatics have taken over the asylum. If the nancy boys get their way it will be sanitised beyond all recognition and wil end up a running kick to kick with lotteries used to decide who goes for an uncontested mark.

Buddy's penalty is nothng short of bullsh!t !!

Again.. teh hit was a legitimate tactic in the play of the game, it was deemed reasonable. The contact was accidental. Thats all there should be about it.

Forget all of the legalities and technicalities, it is a joke.

  Axis of Bob said:

Ahhhhhhh, change! Horrible horrible change!

Some other things that used to be different - women not having the vote, aborigines being classified in our constitution as 'fauna', no free kick for kicking the ball out on the full, no centre square, no club songs, 'leg theory' during Bodyline, lobotomy, burning witches at the stake, feudalism etc.

No one is denying that changes happen, or that they are often good. However, the constant picking at the rules engaged in by the current administration is nothing short of ridiculous. How many rule changes in the last 15 years have actually improved the game? Compare that to the number which have had an adverse effect and you might begin to understand why everyone is so upset. This attempt to outlaw the hip and shoulder is yet another example of Vlad and co. pushing their own agenda to the detriment of the game.

As for your points regarding Sandilands and high tackles, perhaps the rule-change department should take a look at how the NRL adjudicate high contact. There is no penalty for touching an opponent above the shoulder, only if it is done with force. Imagine how much better the game would be if players like Selwood (the Geelong one) weren't making a career out of ducking the head and lifting an arm to force a tackle to slide upwards.

I find it interesting that so many people are saying that according to the rule he had to go. As has been repeatedly said, the rule states that If the player had the option to tackle and decided to bump instead then they can be in trouble. I would be disputing the claim that he could have legitimately tackled. The write-ups I have seen of the game have suggested that Cousins fumbled the ball and did not in fact have possession at the time. As such a tackle could not be legally applied and the bump was the only option.

  Axis of Bob said:

loges:

Ahhhhhhh, change! Horrible horrible change!

Good rule, good decision. Don't hit the head with reckless contact!

Love the knee-jerk reaction "it's like girls netball!" from the neanderthals. In case you're not paying attention it's as physically demanding out there as I've ever seen it - including the days when the so called "hard men" roamed the suburban mudheaps punching out the teeth of ball players with cowardly king hits.

The Kick-it-long! brigade is out in force.

A blemish on a fantastic AFL season. What a disgrace. How can they illegalise the bump???

  RalphiusMaximus said:

This attempt to outlaw the hip and shoulder is yet another example of Vlad and co. pushing their own agenda to the detriment of the game.

RM - I'm not sure it's about outlawing the bump, it's about where the bump lands. And that shouldn't be recklessly on the head.

As for the rule changes - there have been a lot of good ones, I reckon. Chopping arms, hands in back, Kevin Bartlett style throwing ball out in front of him when about to be tackled (an oldie, but goodie!, as too is out of bounds on the full). The conceded behinds change seems to be having a good effect, even though no-one seems to know how it works.

Most of the complaints on these come from the retired coaches, full backs etc who have exploited the absence of these rules in the past. How often do you hear on a telecast something along the lines of "that's harsh on player X - what else could he do but chop the blokes arms/push the opponent under the ball/head for the boundary line?" The answer is - well don't (insert relevant infraction of rules that has just been adjudicated upon).

  Tim said:

RM - I'm not sure it's about outlawing the bump, it's about where the bump lands. And that shouldn't be recklessly on the head.

As for the rule changes - there have been a lot of good ones, I reckon. Chopping arms, hands in back, Kevin Bartlett style throwing ball out in front of him when about to be tackled (an oldie, but goodie!, as too is out of bounds on the full). The conceded behinds change seems to be having a good effect, even though no-one seems to know how it works.

Most of the complaints on these come from the retired coaches, full backs etc who have exploited the absence of these rules in the past. How often do you hear on a telecast something along the lines of "that's harsh on player X - what else could he do but chop the blokes arms/push the opponent under the ball/head for the boundary line?" The answer is - well don't (insert relevant infraction of rules that has just been adjudicated upon).

I would say that most of these acts were already covered by the rules. It was already illegal to push an opponent int he back, to take out their arm in a marking contest and to put the ball out deliberately. The new rules in these cases have not done anything to help the game but rather have taken away any discretion the umpires had to decide if the contact influenced the contest. While before a free was payed if a player was pushed forwards (ie push in the back) now even a light touch of a hand to the back is payed as a free regardless of the impact. Before the umpire could decide whether contact to the arm was incidental or a deliberate attempt to remove the limb from the vicinity of the ball, while now any contact to the arm is illegal. Do you know how hard it is to spoil a mark without touching the arm of your opponent at all?

Of course, for me the worst of the great rule innovations of recent times have been in the ruck. Change the rules once to make players run directly at one another. Result? A rash of severe knee injuries in the ruck. Do they admit their error and get rid of the rule? Hell no, they just add another one. Now the rucks are not allowed to take a run up before they jump at each other. Result? Agile jumping rucks such as Jeff White find their career in tatters overnight and lumbering giants have a golden run. Idiocy.

I do agree that there have been a few good moves made by the rules nutters, but they are far outweighed by the bad. I would much prefer to see the rulebook as it was written in 1990 or thereabout. There was plenty of scope for protecting players from unduly rough play, but they had the freedom to engage in physical contests and not worry about being suspended for random bad luck.

i havent seen it so it is hard to comment on it directly, however:

  High Tower said:

His elbow was tucked in, as 45h said, he's guilty of being too tall for Cousins.

he was apparently guitly of making contact with cousins head (which from the reports i have heard knocked him out and prevented him taking further part in the game).

My biggest gripe with the rule is that previously, a bump that was not fair and legal, was a free kick. now ANY bump which breaks any rules is apparently reportable and you can be suspended. You can punch/strike players, you can push to the face you can do all sorts of other things but if you bump its either legal or reportable.

why can the umpires not say 'bump was high, free kick'. and that be the end of it? if the player is knocked out, if the bump is malicious, if there is an elbow etc then maybe the report is required, but if its simply a sloppily executed bump why cant we have a free kick and move on?

I really wonder how many have actually played footy. Its a CONTACT sport. An element of the game is a well exectued bump/hit . Most often a hip /shoulder is done side/semi side on in oder to knock theopponent off the ball..or if within 5 completely out the way. its legitimate and a good one is something to behold, to enjoy and invariable not to be on the end of !! lol.

Sometimes the game can conspire that the opponents are not side on most likely as a result of one or both players change of line. Football , especially at theh highest levels is played at break neck ( npi ) speed. The times available for decisions or changes of them are split seconds. Its a hard game.. Yes people might get hurt or injured. Its a risk inbedded in the game.

Every effort ought to be made to rub out the INTENTIONAL head injury. There are times in the game where such things are preventable. And then there's accidental injuries in legitimate collisions. You can get hurt returning to earth after a specky, you can get hurt rucking, you can get hurt smothering a kick, tackling... hell you can even do personal damage trying to relocate a goalpost !! Just where do you draw the line ?

Common sense suggests you do it at the point where decisions one way or the other can be had. And then you lay down the rules in an unambiguous manner and you need to ajudicate in a consistent manner.

Where a player is seen to be guilty of head contact in a determined and nonaccident and avoidable manner then there ought to be penalties invoked . Where its purely an unfortunate by product of an otherwise 'reasonable " and legitimate play then thats all it is. Leave it there.

  belzebub59 said:

I really wonder how many have actually played footy. Its a CONTACT sport. An element of the game is a well exectued bump/hit . Most often a hip /shoulder is done side/semi side on in oder to knock theopponent off the ball..or if within 5 completely out the way. its legitimate and a good one is something to behold, to enjoy and invariable not to be on the end of !! lol.

Sometimes the game can conspire that the opponents are not side on most likely as a result of one or both players change of line. Football , especially at theh highest levels is played at break neck ( npi ) speed. The times available for decisions or changes of them are split seconds. Its a hard game.. Yes people might get hurt or injured. Its a risk inbedded in the game.

Every effort ought to be made to rub out the INTENTIONAL head injury. There are times in the game where such things are preventable. And then there's accidental injuries in legitimate collisions. You can get hurt returning to earth after a specky, you can get hurt rucking, you can get hurt smothering a kick, tackling... hell you can even do personal damage trying to relocate a goalpost !! Just where do you draw the line ?

Common sense suggests you do it at the point where decisions one way or the other can be had. And then you lay down the rules in an unambiguous manner and you need to ajudicate in a consistent manner.

Where a player is seen to be guilty of head contact in a determined and nonaccident and avoidable manner then there ought to be penalties invoked . Where its purely an unfortunate by product of an otherwise 'reasonable " and legitimate play then thats all it is. Leave it there.

Beautifully put!

Didn't deserve anything for it, was a fair bump that was extremely effective. You can't punish somebody for laying great bumps. It's un-Australian!

Appeal failed.

2 weeks for Buddy.

RIP Bump

BURN THE AFL DOWN!

EXILE VLAD AND ANDERSON

The game is becoming a joke really in so many areas and it makes me very very sad

  mousey said:

Appeal failed.

2 weeks for Buddy.

RIP Bump

BURN THE AFL DOWN!

EXILE VLAD AND ANDERSON

The game is becoming a joke really in so many areas and it makes me very very sad

You are Kidding, that just means all AFL players now have to be under 6 ft. or they are a liability,.

Look out Anderson, this is on your head pal.

Disgrace. Even Ben Cousins would be embarrased by that outcome.

Hall of Mirrors.....

Totally in agreement with the suspension. head-high contact is inexcusable and Franklin's hit was a cowardly action. and thank goodness the ugliness of vfl thuggery and 'contact sport' has, and is being gradually expunged from our game. dipper's lowly hit on robbie flower in the '87 prelim was a closer-to-home example of this form of manliness. i suspect the main supporters of this kind of assault wouldn't have to confront it in their own daily lives.

Totally agree with his suspension.

Maybe he's just plain dumb and doesn't know the rules (very likely imo) or incompetent at the basic skills of tackling (also likely).

He had a choice when going for Cousins and pulled the wrong rein.

Tough [censored] Buddy.

Fotoy's still the toughest sport going around and doesn't need poseurs like him playing to his own rules.

What you are kidding arent you guys?

It was head high contact cause buddy is that much taller than cuz!

He didnt have another option at the time from what i saw!

Its crap

  bush demon said:

dipper's lowly hit on robbie flower in the '87 prelim was a closer-to-home example of this form of manliness.

Don't want to ruin your colorful post with the facts but Dipper bumped Flower in the shoulder with his shoulder and Robbie's popped. Robbie and everyone who saw it will tell you it was absolutely legal. Robbie will also tell you that in his prime he would have avoided the bump and that he felt it was a sign to him that his best was over and he retired after that game.

  mousey said:

What you are kidding arent you guys?

It was head high contact cause buddy is that much taller than cuz!

He didnt have another option at the time from what i saw!

Its crap

Are you saying he couldn't have tackled??

Cos it definitely looked like he could to me

  bush demon said:

Totally in agreement with the suspension. head-high contact is inexcusable and Franklin's hit was a cowardly action. and thank goodness the ugliness of vfl thuggery and 'contact sport' has, and is being gradually expunged from our game. dipper's lowly hit on robbie flower in the '87 prelim was a closer-to-home example of this form of manliness. i suspect the main supporters of this kind of assault wouldn't have to confront it in their own daily lives.

Have to disagree with you Bush Demon about Dipper's bump on Robbie being lowly - it was perfectly fair and legal. I had a perfect view from where I was seated.

It was evidence to me that Robbie was past his prime - when he was at his best Dipper would have missed him by a mile.

(Edit) Just saw redleg's post - totally agree.

  Axis of Bob said:

The rules say he should have tackled. I agree that he should have tackled.

It looked spectacular but it was just an ego moment for Buddy. He had an option to tackle. Look at the video - he had his arms open to tackle and then decided that he would prefer to tuck his left side in to bump Cousins. He actually had to stop trying to tackle Cousins in order to bump him. It was harder to bump him than to tackle him!

People bump into each other on a dancefloor because they don't know they are there. They're distracted by other things! Buddy knew where he was, he knew where Cousins was, and his selfish act of testosterone fuelled ego has severely impacted on his teams chances of playing finals this year.

He should have tackled.

WAT A JOKE

"HE SHOULD OF TACKLED" so a player no longer can decide for himself if he wants to bump or tackle!

QUESTION for u BOB

cousins faked a handball if he DID handball which buddy prob thought he was going to do, and Buddy tackles him ITS a 50 m PENALTY or FREE KICK IS IT NOT?