Dangerous umpiring decision

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

I have attempted to attach footage of what I consider to be a reprehensible umpiring error in the Bullgogs v Adelaide game.

Dunkley clearly dives at the Adelaide player’s legs to milk a free. This type of behaviour should be vehemently discouraged…..not by awarding a free to, but by paying a free against , for a low tackle.

It reminds me of the tragic Sachse/O’Keefe incident resulting in a broken neck.  If umpires reward players for this type of play, another broken neck will surely occur eventually, with disastrous consequences, not just for the player, but for the game of Australian Football.
 

 

 

[monoccular 17,427]

Thanks JJC

This is one of my real bugbears, not just in terms of fairness but also re player safety.

All too often we witness players driving their heads, with neck flexed, into to midriff of an opponent.   There WILL be a broken neck at some stage, and the poor guy who was in effect head butted, will be made to feel guilty.

Really easy to stop this - a free AGAINST the headbutter every time.  
 

But I guess the AFL in their infinite wisdom will not shut the gate until the horse has bolted  

 

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

Call me cynical, but this exactly where my mind went when Lachie Hunter said he needs time off on mental health grounds.

He's one of the worst in the game for this and it will eventually take its toll, if it hasn't already.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

I’m surprised at the lack of interest in this by other Demonlanders.

I think it’s a crucial point in the future of our game.

[Redleg 40,905]

25 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I’m surprised at the lack of interest in this by other Demonlanders.

I think it’s a crucial point in the future of our game.

Yes it's important, but these days the free is usually paid against the player doing what Dunkley did.

This is done to protect against the serious risk of major leg damage to the player running in. 

[monoccular 17,427]

4 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes it's important, but these days the free is usually paid against the player doing what Dunkley did.

This is done to protect against the serious risk of major leg damage to the player running in. 

Redleg - yes, I think there is (or should be) little doubt re the dive into the legs: my concern is also the head into the guts or butt of an opponent, often hoping to draw a free. 
Repeat - there will be a broken neck and some innocent will be made to carry guilt for the rest of his days.

 

[demon3165 2,718]

4 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I have attempted to attach footage of what I consider to be a reprehensible umpiring error in the Bullgogs v Adelaide game.

Dunkley clearly dives at the Adelaide player’s legs to milk a free. This type of behaviour should be vehemently discouraged…..not by awarding a free to, but by paying a free against , for a low tackle.

It reminds me of the tragic Sachse/O’Keefe incident resulting in a broken neck.  If umpires reward players for this type of play, another broken neck will surely occur eventually, with disastrous consequences, not just for the player, but for the game of Australian Football.
 

 

0324D99E-74A2-4E39-BFA0-56CEB46832A0.MOV 26.33 MB · 18 downloads  

 

Kozzie also has a habit of doing this...

[The heart beats true 18,123]

Yeah that’s ugly (excellent home video work by you by the way). I can’t see the umpires letting that happen again. Surely they’ll be shown that footage and told that’s an issue.

The way he takes himself off the ground and drives with his head is super dangerous. 

[monoccular 17,427]

14 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

Yeah that’s ugly (excellent home video work by you by the way). I can’t see the umpires letting that happen again. Surely they’ll be shown that footage and told that’s an issue.

The way he takes himself off the ground and drives with his head is super dangerous. 

Not sure if I remember (or even care) which player, but some Bulldog Mongrel drove his head into one of our guys early in the 2021 GF and "drew a free".  

If Gillon and the Scott Bros. don't penalise this every time there will be a (avoidable) tragic outcome sometime. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by monoccular

[Guest]

While we're here at this umpiring venting forum about stuff that isn't the very very contentious 50 for dissent rule, when I was a young French girl growing up watching the football in South Australia a player in front of the mark who shaped a handball was deemed to have played on. Why shouldn't that be introduced alongside the 'stand' rule, instead of these silly 50s paid for con-jobs and a wee step off the line? 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Skuit

[Redleg 40,905]

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

Redleg - yes, I think there is (or should be) little doubt re the dive into the legs: my concern is also the head into the guts or butt of an opponent, often hoping to draw a free. 
Repeat - there will be a broken neck and some innocent will be made to carry guilt for the rest of his days.

 

Yes that should be discouraged.  
I agree it is a dangerous practice.

PS. Excuse the levity, but we have enough heads up butts in the AFL already.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

I thought what Dunkley did - by deliberately leading with his head - was already in the "illegal" category. I would have thought paying a free kick against him was what the current rules require. Having said that, I don't wish to blame the umpire. In real time, it might be hard to recognise this action for what it was.

And if I'm mistaken, what Dunkley did absolutely should be made illegal for the very reason you have explained.

Side note: Did the Adelaide player on the mark give away a 50 metre penalty for shaking his head as a sign of "dissent"? I hope not.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

No there was no 50m.

I thought he showed admirable restraint.    …..   very much the way Gawn does when mysterious frees are paid.   (Except for “ that’s ruck craft, big boy”)!

 

 

[Go the Biff 3,418]

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I thought what Dunkley did - by deliberately leading with his head - was already in the "illegal" category. I would have thought paying a free kick against him was what the current rules require. Having said that, I don't wish to blame the umpire. In real time, it might be hard to recognise this action for what it was.

And if I'm mistaken, what Dunkley did absolutely should be made illegal for the very reason you have explained.

Side note: Did the Adelaide player on the mark give away a 50 metre penalty for shaking his head as a sign of "dissent"? I hope not.

I don't think it is unless you take the legs of the tackler. Then the old Jimmy Edmonds/Peter Foster rule comes into play. Ducking usually gets called as play on rather than a high tackle.

There was some discussion of this in the MRO thread. FWIW, my two cents worth :

The AFL missed the boat on this a couple of years ago when they decided to call "play on" should a player deliberately duck and cause high contact to himself, rather than paying a free kick for high contact as was previously the case. What they should have done was made that a free kick against the player who ducked. In that way, there's a penalty against the team Players would soon have that action coached out of them. And if they don't, they don't get a game

[layzie 33,796]

The only thing I worry about is taking away an element of the game that people enjoy, desperation for the ball and diving on it to get it out to a teammate. 

It's a bad look but these calls must be hard to make. I guess if there's any contact whatsoever it needs to be paid. 

[monoccular 17,427]

56 minutes ago, layzie said:

The only thing I worry about is taking away an element of the game that people enjoy, desperation for the ball and diving on it to get it out to a teammate. 

It's a bad look but these calls must be hard to make. I guess if there's any contact whatsoever it needs to be paid. 

That’s the very point of this thread. 
Drawing frees by deliberately putting yourself in danger of serious, life changing even, injury is currently encouraged when it should be actively discouraged. 

Edited April 29, 2022 by monoccular

[layzie 33,796]

40 minutes ago, monoccular said:

That’s the very point of this thread. 
Drawing frees by deliberately putting yourself in danger of serious, life changing even, injury is currently encouraged when it should be actively discouraged. 

But why are these obvious ones slipping through the cracks Mon? Is this just another case of the game being too hard to umpire at the moment and hard to tell what might be a deliberate headbutt? 

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 hour ago, layzie said:

But why are these obvious ones slipping through the cracks Mon? Is this just another case of the game being too hard to umpire at the moment and hard to tell what might be a deliberate headbutt? 

the example video shown in this thread is pretty easy to adjudicate as deliberate ducking

and still the porcelain larva gave a free to the ducker! 

[58er 6,432]

On 4/28/2022 at 10:38 AM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

No there was no 50m.

I thought he showed admirable restraint.    …..   very much the way Gawn does when mysterious frees are paid.   (Except for “ that’s ruck craft, big boy”)!

 

 

Clearly the umpire has assessed this action and as Dunkley actually drove his head in to a virtually stationery Crows player's midriff/groin and although ducking is considered illegal he has not awarded a free to the Crows because it was not a dangerous action as it did not constitute taking out the legs in this case so no danger occurred either way.

In doing this I believe that he has correctly judged that in this case this is not a dangerous action by the Crow or Dunkley but the free should have gone to The Crow as it should have been deemed holding the ball as no dangerous action was involved. ( AFL speak until an injury occurs after incident happens later in the year) 

Setting a precedent has not been cast in stone as a result as we all know that if Dunkley had been injured a free would 95% have resulted. 

I disagree that this piece of play resembled the Schache incident as I recall He was bending down to pick up the ball and run into forcefully by O'Keefe who was moving swiftly and unable to stop. 

The AFL should however address this matter to the PLAYERS not the Umpires. 
Mitch Robinson was given a week when his action was deemed ( wrongly) as forceful and Willie Rioli was freed when he took his eye off the ball jumped in mid air and made contact! A far more dangerous action the fact was that Matt Rowell  is a chunky strong young man and somehow avoided any serious damage. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

Is head-butting still a reportable offence? Maybe actions such as occurred here should be considered as such.

[Rod Grinter Riot Squad 5,654]

I posted years ago that by the AFL declaring the head as sacrosanct it would lead to players leading with their heads, which has happened. 
 

The head should be protected, but players that do actions like this should be penalised for holding the ball 

[Stein9193 129]

On 4/29/2022 at 7:03 AM, daisycutter said:

the example video shown in this thread is pretty easy to adjudicate as deliberate ducking

and still the porcelain larva gave a free to the ducker! 

Its pretty frustrating

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,780]

On 4/29/2022 at 5:05 PM, 58er said:

Clearly the umpire has assessed this action and as Dunkley actually drove his head in to a virtually stationery Crows player's midriff/groin and although ducking is considered illegal he has not awarded a free to the Crows because it was not a dangerous action as it did not constitute taking out the legs in this case so no danger occurred either way.

In doing this I believe that he has correctly judged that in this case this is not a dangerous action by the Crow or Dunkley but the free should have gone to The Crow as it should have been deemed holding the ball as no dangerous action was involved. ( AFL speak until an injury occurs after incident happens later in the year) 

Setting a precedent has not been cast in stone as a result as we all know that if Dunkley had been injured a free would 95% have resulted. 

I disagree that this piece of play resembled the Schache incident as I recall He was bending down to pick up the ball and run into forcefully by O'Keefe who was moving swiftly and unable to stop. 

The AFL should however address this matter to the PLAYERS not the Umpires. 
Mitch Robinson was given a week when his action was deemed ( wrongly) as forceful and Willie Rioli was freed when he took his eye off the ball jumped in mid air and made contact! A far more dangerous action the fact was that Matt Rowell  is a chunky strong young man and somehow avoided any serious damage. 

I agree that I was drawing a bit of a long bow comparing it to the Schache incident, because you’re correct, O’Keefe came in at pace.  I used that instance to emphasise the danger of umpires encouraging players to duck their heads at on-coming tacklers to seek a free kick.( and they DO encourage ducking if they reward it with frees)

I’m amazed you think the umpire correctly adjudicated on this incident. As you say, the Crow player was stationery. What’s he supposed to do? Jump in the air so the ducker goes underneath? Jump sideways to let him through? Retreat to avoid contact?
This was a horrendous decision ,showing a complete lack of understanding of the game.( and it’s not an isolated incident)

I don’t think the AFL can avoid this dangerous situation by addressing the players, as you suggest.  Players are always going to go in hard and fearlessly, and if they can avoid a tackle, or get a free, they’ll drop their head.

Umpires with a poor understanding of the game should be better informed, or relegated from the AFL  firsts until they are.