In my experience when you bump another player either side on or front on with correct and fair technique the following happens.

Firstly your shoulder/upper arm connects with there shoulder or chest(2players roughly equal height) Then because you are pushing them in another direction with force there head or face will generally either hit the top of your shoulder, your head(unlikely)as well as hitting the ground if it was a big bump. I'm not sure how head contact of some degree is avoided. In Kennedy's case, although he appeared to hit Sylvia late he had a good and fair position and you will probably find Sylvia's jaw was broken when his head tilted toward Kennedy at impact and hit the bony part on the top of the shoulder.I for one think the AFL may well have just saved the bump for the good of the game. It's the next few decisions that really matter. You all cry out for some kind of perfect consistency in decision making. It's not humanly possible. The game is evolving and interpretations need to be adjusted each year to ensure some kind of balance is found. I think it was a little late and thus should have been a free kick to Sylvia.

Edited March 20, 201015 yr by Roost It

I agree with that.

What starts off the conspiracy theories though, is that the AFL is refusing to show the vision of the actual contact. If it was just a good bump with accidental injury why won't the AFL show everyone, so the issue can be laid to rest. One might be led to think by that action that the powers that be feel the Review Panel made a mistake and they don't want it exposed publicly.

IMO the AFL aren't showing the bump becausthat would just generate more disagreements over it. I think the AFL want to get this out of the headlines.

I agree with that.

What starts off the conspiracy theories though, is that the AFL is refusing to show the vision of the actual contact. If it was just a good bump with accidental injury why won't the AFL show everyone, so the issue can be laid to rest. One might be led to think by that action that the powers that be feel the Review Panel made a mistake and they don't want it exposed publicly.

i agree with that too.

i would rather the afl allow the Review Panel to judge incident on precedent: i.e. this bump was deemed fair and is similar so bump x is fair. and bump y got 3 weeks and was worse than bump z, so bump z gets 2 weeks.

it would be the easiest way to get consistency.

Now that the AFL has declared it a legal bump however, if the footage comes out, the AFL will have to stand by that. They would have been better off saying 'its nothing to do with us, its a review panel decision; which it is.

I believe the mfc have footage of the bump. It would be good if they leaked it.

All I, and I'm sure everyone else, care about is consistency.

That is why I'm perplexed as to how Kennedy did not get suspended. I'm not saying that's what he deserved, or what bumps in general deserve. But given the Franklin and Maxwell cases from 2009, and the rule change which seems to say 'If you elect to bump, then the onus is on you to avoid contact to the head', I have no idea how Kennedy did not get suspended.

Without having seen the footage, I'd be willing to say that Franklin's bump was less severe (i.e. less forceful, more of a legitimate hip and shoulder) than Kennedy's, yet Franklin's the one who misses football.

i agree with that too.

I believe the mfc have footage of the bump. It would be good if they leaked it.

I don't want to be too agreeable, but i agree with that as well.

The MFC doesn't need to comment and can get on with the season, but it would be nice if we all saw exactly what happened. Then any further comment by the footy public on the topic of head high bumps has some foundation.

I don't want to be too agreeable, but i agree with that as well.

The MFC doesn't need to comment and can get on with the season, but it would be nice if we all saw exactly what happened. Then any further comment by the footy public on the topic of head high bumps has some foundation.

If the AFL has purposely not released the footage, then I can hardly see MFC going and releasing it of their own accord.

It would hardly endear us to them, would do little to really benefit the club and I still believe we're in a position where we are struggling to keep the AFL onside (as they play nice until they feel like screwing us occasionally).

If the AFL has purposely not released the footage, then I can hardly see MFC going and releasing it of their own accord.

It would hardly endear us to them, would do little to really benefit the club and I still believe we're in a position where we are struggling to keep the AFL onside (as they play nice until they feel like screwing us occasionally).

Sadly i agree, we are not in a position at present to go behind the AFL's back.

Geelong or Collingwood maybe but not us yet..... Revenge is best served cold as they say!!!

Having given the matter some thought and realising that next Saturday Buddy Franklin will be sitting in the stand watching his team playing Melbourne and wondering why he's sitting there and why Kennedy is free to play that round against Brisbane, I've decided that the system isn't all that bad!

Having given the matter some thought and realising that next Saturday Buddy Franklin will be sitting in the stand watching his team playing Melbourne and wondering why he's sitting there and why Kennedy is free to play that round against Brisbane, I've decided that the system isn't all that bad!

especially if Col makes it back for round 1

I don't want to be too agreeable, but i agree with that as well.

The MFC doesn't need to comment and can get on with the season, but it would be nice if we all saw exactly what happened. Then any further comment by the footy public on the topic of head high bumps has some foundation.

if we have footage, the afl have footage. and whoever filmed has footage (i.e tv channel). unless the afl ordered us not to show anyone else the footage straight away other people may have access to it.

if it was leaked, you couldn't exactly pin point who/where could you?

if it was leaked, you couldn't exactly pin point who/where could you?

Depends how it was filmed, on tape it is more difficult to trace, but not impossable by a long shot, off a disk or a chip card it would be very easy to track down where it came from.

Maybe Brad Miller can go back to being his aggressive self without worrying too much about serving time for innocuous bumps.

If we have footage, that's great. Should one of our guys be cited, out comes the video tape!

Is this an event that occured in frond of a crowd of zero? Surely someone saw it and can say what it looked like to them.

Is this an event that occured in frond of a crowd of zero? Surely someone saw it and can say what it looked like to them.

Yeah, that's actually really surprising when you think about it. Seeing as this is a MFC forum, and it was a MFC game...

Yeah, that's actually really surprising when you think about it. Seeing as this is a MFC forum, and it was a MFC game...

I think it was such an inoccuous bump that nobody wouldve really noticed at the time.

It matters not, I'm happy to move on from this episode.

I was there but was up in the room behind the coaches box geting a tour of the facility and missed it! Saw David Rhys-Jones in our coaches box though. Has anyone heard what role he is playing?

Decent write up about the bump in The Australian:

"Yet on the Monday, the match review panel was able to precisely identify all these particulars in its published assessment of the incident: "West Coast player Chris Masten had the ball, and was being pursued by player Sylvia. Kennedy comes in to shepherd Sylvia, to assist Masten to break clear. The panel determined that Kennedy could not contest the ball and was not able to tackle the Melbourne player, as he did not have the ball. Sylvia was actively involved in the play, he would have reasonably been expected to influence the contest and the force of the bump was not excessive for that situation.

"Kennedy did not run far to apply the bump, an elbow was not part of the contact and Kennedy did not leave the ground to deliver the bump. Sylvia was not in a vulnerable position and could reasonably expect contact to be made. The contact was therefore deemed to not be unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken."

That seems an enormous amount of information to glean from a fuzzy, blurred inconclusive video. In fact, people who have seen vision of the collision that was forwarded to the AFL and reviewed by match review panel chairman Andrew McKay say it clearly shows Kennedy run flat out for 15-20 metres, past the ball carrier Masten and crash into Sylvia, making contact to his head and breaking his jaw. That is a reportable offence. Nothing black or white about it. Even West Coast officials were resigned to losing Kennedy for two to three weeks.

The cynical would say this is a cover-up.

The match review panel made a hideously bad decision at a time when the league demands the head be treated as sacrosanct, and all players have a duty of care not to crash into an opponent's skull and neck.

Whatever, the result has left our footballers with no idea about the bump rule, no idea about what is acceptable and what is not."

Decent write up about the bump in The Australian:

"Yet on the Monday, the match review panel was able to precisely identify all these particulars in its published assessment of the incident: "West Coast player Chris Masten had the ball, and was being pursued by player Sylvia. Kennedy comes in to shepherd Sylvia, to assist Masten to break clear. The panel determined that Kennedy could not contest the ball and was not able to tackle the Melbourne player, as he did not have the ball. Sylvia was actively involved in the play, he would have reasonably been expected to influence the contest and the force of the bump was not excessive for that situation.

"Kennedy did not run far to apply the bump, an elbow was not part of the contact and Kennedy did not leave the ground to deliver the bump. Sylvia was not in a vulnerable position and could reasonably expect contact to be made. The contact was therefore deemed to not be unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken."

That seems an enormous amount of information to glean from a fuzzy, blurred inconclusive video. In fact, people who have seen vision of the collision that was forwarded to the AFL and reviewed by match review panel chairman Andrew McKay say it clearly shows Kennedy run flat out for 15-20 metres, past the ball carrier Masten and crash into Sylvia, making contact to his head and breaking his jaw. That is a reportable offence. Nothing black or white about it. Even West Coast officials were resigned to losing Kennedy for two to three weeks.

The cynical would say this is a cover-up.

The match review panel made a hideously bad decision at a time when the league demands the head be treated as sacrosanct, and all players have a duty of care not to crash into an opponent's skull and neck.

Whatever, the result has left our footballers with no idea about the bump rule, no idea about what is acceptable and what is not."

We need to call "International Rescue" on this one-The Thunderbirds would know what to do!!

All I, and I'm sure everyone else, care about is consistency.

That is why I'm perplexed as to how Kennedy did not get suspended. I'm not saying that's what he deserved, or what bumps in general deserve. But given the Franklin and Maxwell cases from 2009, and the rule change which seems to say 'If you elect to bump, then the onus is on you to avoid contact to the head', I have no idea how Kennedy did not get suspended.

Without having seen the footage, I'd be willing to say that Franklin's bump was less severe (i.e. less forceful, more of a legitimate hip and shoulder) than Kennedy's, yet Franklin's the one who misses football.

Which would suggest that the AFL have adjusted their views on bumps. Maybe to keep it as part of the game. Only time will tell.