6 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Honestly bumps like this and Maynard's are why there should be a send off rule. 

Because if you were an immoral piece of feces you could do this a few times in a GF or to the opposition's best player, win a flag and who cares about the suspension. Even in a home and away game it gives you an advantage as the opposition have to use their sub to replace someone they might not have wanted to replace at a time they don't get to choose.

I'm not saying use a red card willy nilly but in cases like today's... 

and, just as importantly, if a player/s is sin binned, you can't use yr sub to replace them

5 minutes ago, whatwhat say what said:

and, just as importantly, if a player/s is sin binned, you can't use yr sub to replace them

Yeah I was just thinking if I'd go with 17 or 18 on the field still. I think I'd go with 18 but that person can no longer take part and cannot be subbed out. So they can use the sub but on someone else and are down to 3 on the bench instead of 4. Mind you,  country footy they go down to 17 players... so I wouldn't be unhappy with that either cos, well, don't do stupid things and get sent off

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by biggestred

5 hours ago, alpha33 said:

That was worse than Powell-Pepper’s hit. He should get a minimum of 5 weeks 

 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

I don’t think that’s the question but i’ll answer anyway -

it’s been a part of the game for 150 years. It is an exciting, brutal, unique part of our sport. Think back your favourite Matty Whelan bump. If you ban it completely how to players brace if high speed contact is inevitable? head to head front on contact? last comment tongue in cheek somewhat

I think when it’s the result of an unpremeditated collision it’s ok. When it’s used instead of a tackle or to iron a player out it’s gone.

2 hours ago, DubDee said:

I don’t think that’s the question but i’ll answer anyway -

it’s been a part of the game for 150 years. It is an exciting, brutal, unique part of our sport. Think back your favourite Matty Whelan bump. If you ban it completely how to players brace if high speed contact is inevitable? head to head front on contact? last comment tongue in cheek somewhat

Exactly. A bump is a theoretically safe way to diffuse all that kinetic energy. You can't tackle someone while running at full pace in the opposite direction. A bump, executed correctly is sometimes the only option to avoid injurious contact.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by Chook

2 hours ago, GCDee said:

Anyone who has anything to do with Collingwood should be shutting their mouths. After the incident in last years final and the way Collingwood and their supporters conducted them selves the moment of and after the incident they should be ashamed of themselves. 

 

Agree - its like the pot calling the kettle black. I cannot stand this dope. Nothing sensible comes out of his mouth.

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

IMO it’s worse than SPP who got 4, but King suggesting 10 is over the top and I think it will land at 6.

Late, left the ground, hip and arm into the head, totally unnecessary and if he wanted to bump, could have done so into his side and shoulder, still possibly illegal, but far less so.

Hope none of our players do anything similar.

PS: Given the current climate he could get a bit more. This could be the message penalty.

Agree he should get 6 for the head high, leaving the ground bump but I would add another 2 for stupidity. The Coaches must be beside themselves that one of their players would be so reckless after all that has happened in recent years on this very subject. 

3 hours ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

The AFL will act only when the $100,000,000 (minimum) law suit lands.

And that would bankrupt the AFL.   

The quantum is not actually all that far fetched.  Only 20 x 5 million settlements which when you think of the numbers of chronically concussed players over the decades isn’t all that many. 
 

Back to topic - I just finished the Kayo mini of Saints v Norf : hard to believe what an undisciplined rabble are the Saints.  Ross must be at his wits’ end. 

4 hours ago, binman said:

Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

i've given  this some thought.

biggest problem i can come up with is the difficulty of actually defining a "bump". it's not so easy, and we don't want to end up with a lot of unforeseen consequences. defining rules well is not an afl strong point.

bump to head or front of body or rear of body- yes, ban, 

but surely the shepherd-bump is ok or the shoulder to shoulder or a self protection bump.

Edited March 3, 20241 yr by daisycutter

I was going to bump this thread, but thought I'd better not risk it at the moment.

13 hours ago, biggestred said:

Yeah I was just thinking if I'd go with 17 or 18 on the field still. I think I'd go with 18 but that person can no longer take part and cannot be subbed out. So they can use the sub but on someone else and are down to 3 on the bench instead of 4. Mind you,  country footy they go down to 17 players... so I wouldn't be unhappy with that either cos, well, don't do stupid things and get sent off

IMHO that takes away a lot of the penalties impact.

If we do go down the path of sin binning, then the infringing player's team need to be a player down on the field for the duration of penalty.

16 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Jeez Mason, did you forget what happened last September?

Mc is a ....ryhmes with flosser.

Ps admin.....this is not unsubstantiated.

 

12 hours ago, Demonstone said:

I was going to bump this thread, but thought I'd better not risk it at the moment.

If you're lucky, this will go right over most peoples' heads.

15 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Agree he should get 6 for the head high, leaving the ground bump but I would add another 2 for stupidity. The Coaches must be beside themselves that one of their players would be so reckless after all that has happened in recent years on this very subject. 

Not necessarily.

If anything the Afls response to Maynard was practically a signal for open season.