That 'perfect bump' to Colin Sylvia

[Eth 4]

This really gets to me. So the AFL's gone and deemed Josh Kennedy's bump to Colin Sylvia 'perfect'. If it was so perfect, how come it broke his jaw?

Link

Coming from an annoyed Melbourne supporter

[Inner Demon 1]

It's ridiculous.

Put aside for the moment whether or not this was reportable, how could it possibly be defined as 'perfect' when he obviously made contact with the player above the shoulder and it is therefore a free kick??

[Eth 4]

Exactly. It's head-high contact, which should be an instant free kick. And the AFL still aren't releasing that footage. It's like they're waiting to see who can figure out how to bump perfectly without being told how to, which is plain stupid.

[flog 20]

It's ridiculous.

Put aside for the moment whether or not this was reportable, how could it possibly be defined as 'perfect' when he obviously made contact with the player above the shoulder and it is therefore a free kick??

The precedent has been set. As long as they are consistant I have no problem with it.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

The precedent has been set. As long as they are consistant I have no problem with it.

98% of the football world haven't seen it, so we'll refer to you as to whether or not they're consistent in the future.

And LOL @ being consistent, why would they start now?

[Eth 4]

The thing is, the AFL haven't been consistent. Look at a few silly suspensions from bumps last year. I think Josh Kennedy's bump was harder, and it caused an injury to the player because it was head-high.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,024]

The AFL are being 100% consistent. Screw Melbourne at every opportunity.

[Eth 4]

The AFL are being 100% consistent. Screw Melbourne at every opportunity.

True.

[flog 20]

98% of the football world haven't seen it, so we'll refer to you as to whether or not they're consistent in the future.

And LOL @ being consistent, why would they start now?

I Didn't say they were consistant.

If you ever need a reference, come knocking when ever you want

[Retrospective 104]

Compare the videos and tell me which you think is fair?

Video

Video

Edited March 18, 2010 by Retrospective

[Inner Demon 1]

Whoever called for The Footy Show to ask questions about the bump is getting their wish tonight.

Sylvia is being interviewed.

[Wolfmother 182]

Whoever called for The Footy Show to ask questions about the bump is getting their wish tonight.

Sylvia is being interviewed.

Damn missed it... what was said

[Jaded No More 68,867]

Damn missed it... what was said

You didn't miss it. Stay tuned.

[Wolfmother 182]

opps better get back out there

[Eth 4]

Compare the videos and tell me which you think is fair?

Video

Video

That first one was completely unnecessary from Kerr. Obviously I missed that. And that second one is just great.

Has Sylvia been on yet?

[Retrospective 104]

The Footy Show....deeply insightful reporting:

Col says he was surprised but hopes the bump stays in the game

Gary Lyon says he is confused about the tribunal's position on what constitutes a fair bump

J Brown says unrealistic to think you can bump without getting the head

B Hall says it should be simple if you've done something blatant you should get rubbed out (didn't say what he thought defined simple, maybe they should interview Staker next week)

In summary:

Surprised, confused, unrealistic and simple.........sounds like our forward set up

Edited March 18, 2010 by Retrospective

[Whispering_Jack 29,777]

Give me a break please.

Judging on that part of the vision which the AFL saw fit to release I would say that Josh Kennedy must be blessed not to have been cited. Well we might ask why the AFL hasn't been prepared to release the total package?

IMO we've gone back to before the time when Nick Maxwell put McGinnity out of business. The head is no longer sacrosanct!

[biggestred 5,015]

my feeling is that the difference is between choosing to bump instead of getting the ball - and not getting it 100% right, and shepherding another player, when they can be reasonably expected to be aware that as they are chasing they may get bumped.

does that make any sense??

ie protect the guy who is going for the ball...

[Eth 4]

ie protect the guy who is going for the ball...

...and in the process putting another player out for a month with a broken jaw. Hardly seems fair.

[DeeSpencer 25,463]

The latest 3 decisions have been Maxwell, Franklin and now Kennedy.

I thought the head was sacrosanct and if you got someone high regardless of the circumstance and you injure them you are looking at a spell. Ie. Maxwell

But it seems to have changed, my new interpretation of the rule is that:

If you bump someone with the ball and get them high then you are gone. Ie. Franklin

If you bump someone without the ball but they can reasonably be expecting contact, and get them high, but your technique is good and you didn't mean to hurt them, then you get off. Ie. Kennedy

I just hope Melbourne players are not dishing out or on the receiving end of the next bumps the test the rules.

[Retrospective 104]

The latest 3 decisions have been Maxwell, Franklin and now Kennedy.

I thought the head was sacrosanct and if you got someone high regardless of the circumstance and you injure them you are looking at a spell. Ie. Maxwell

But it seems to have changed, my new interpretation of the rule is that:

If you bump someone with the ball and get them high then you are gone. Ie. Franklin

If you bump someone without the ball but they can reasonably be expecting contact, and get them high, but your technique is good and you didn't mean to hurt them, then you get off. Ie. Kennedy

I just hope Melbourne players are not dishing out or on the receiving end of the next bumps the test the rules.

Nice post: Logical, succinct, easy to follow and understand.

Obviously never going to be any use in understanding the AFL Match Review Process

[rusty_kingswood 0]

Well the footy gods MAY be with us for once. Reported in The Age today that he MAY return as early as R1.

Jnr said that he may don a helmet and and play as long as the medicos give him the all clear.

That would be great news!

[Eth 4]

If you bump someone without the ball but they can reasonably be expecting contact, and get them high, but your technique is good and you didn't mean to hurt them, then you get off. Ie. Kennedy

It's a good point, but I think head-high contact was unnecessary as Sylvia wasn't expecting it, so be would've easily been pushed out of the contest by a simple bump to the body or shoulder.

Well the footy gods MAY be with us for once. Reported in The Age today that he MAY return as early as R1.

Jnr said that he may don a helmet and and play as long as the medicos give him the all clear.

That would be great news!

And that's really good to hear, because I think Sylvia is a vital part of the team. Hence why I was annoyed about him being injured.

[deanox 9,898]

i haven't seen the video, and didnt catch it while at casey so it is hard to comment exactly.

But what I hope this means, is that the AFL has decided that it is possible to have a bump that goes wrong (i.e. head high) where the appropriate response should be simply a free kick, not a suspension.

bumping is part of a physical game which involves an injury risk. if he didn't use his elbow, didnt jump off the ground to clean him up, didn't hit him excessively hard, and he was at least in the play somehow, then eprhaps the result should be 'fair bump that slipped high, free kick high contact'? i know sylvia broke his jar, but we cannot go around judging incidents on the injury to the player. some horrible malicious and dangerous bumps hve players jump back up, while other times (see moloney and bartel from memory) players get injured without any contact occuring and that is apparently enough to suspend them?

take the injury out of the situation, if it was an accidental part of an otherwise well executed bump it should have been a free kick, nothing more.

[Redleg 40,833]

take the injury out of the situation, if it was an accidental part of an otherwise well executed bump it should have been a free kick, nothing more.

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.