deanox

This is the problem. He didn't murder anyone. He didn't mean to maim his face and knock his teeth out. He didn't mean to cause permanent damage. It was all an accident. He just meant to hit him, too take his frustration out a bit and to incapacitate him long enough to run off. And he is a good bloke, and this is out of character. Never before in 20 years of sport. He has such a good track record. BUT This action could have killed someone. Maybe not on a football field, but on a footpath. Or in different circumstances. And in that case we would be crowing "coward punch" and "thug". If the action has that sort of potential for harm, it shouldn't be acceptable and should be called out. Worse is that it is on tv, in front of an audience as a role model for kids (whether we like that or not). The outcry is justified as is the punishment. Because society needs to see this view of behavior as unacceptable, whether the victim stands up and walks away or doesn't.

He is currently 5th on the AFL coaches association champion player of the year award leaderboard. The top 4 are Mitchell, Gawn, Cripps, Oliver. He is definitely that good and would easily be one of our top 5 players, albeit he will start to decline in three next few years.

I think it helps that we're entering premiership mode and could also very much use an outside gutrunner with good skills.

Good points. I suppose I draw the line on "football act". Cameron's elbow was horrible and brutal but he was within the rules to attempt to mark or spoil (and contract associated with those acts is consensual), and despite how clumsy, negligent, reckless etc. he was, I think anyone would be hard pressed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to elbow him like that. Gaff threw a punch. Off the ball. Punches are never part of the game (unless an attempted spoil, which this wasn't). A push may be consensual in this case given the players were jostling to make position (and that "may" is enough to ensure charges couldn't be laid for that act) but the punch was deliberate. He looked at him and swung with a closed first. He may not have deliberately hit him that hard, or deliberately hit him in the head, but the decision to punch was intentional. The punch was against the rules and not part of expected play, which imo would make it non-consensual. Does that explain my position?

Great point about Victoria v WA! But the legal contact associated with football is consensual, punching isn't: "In Western Australia, an assault may occur by, for example, striking, touching, moving, or applying force of any kind to another person, either directly or indirectly, without the person’s consent."

Agreed RE what warrants and what doesn't warrant. The issue is it will be used for accidents, that won't warrant. Also if the poster red carded can't be replaced it will be 21 v 21, including the interchange, but 17 v 18 on the field. Statistically, you are better off giving away a red card to save a certain goal than letting the goal get scored, as long as it isn't in the first 15 minutes (or something close to that). I don't think this is manageable in AFL. Our game doesn't allow us to play one less forward and count attack, because there is no offside rule. (I can't think of an international sport with a send off rule where there aren't some form of player positional/movement restrictions). How would this play out if they enforced minimum players in the zone at stoppages?

Exactly. This isn't a crude spoiling attempt or a mistimed bump executed at 30km per hour. We're aren't talking body on body bumping or pushing. We are talking about deliberate strikes, irrespective of to the body or head, that are designed to hurt, intimidate, incapacitate and have no other relation to the game. Hawkins on Fritsch. Rance on Watts. Steele on Oliver. None of these acts were football related and if they are accepted, it isn't surprising that occasionally one of these goes horribly wrong. These guys are peak physical specimens, taught to play on instinct and aggression, making split second decisions rather than pausing to assess consequences. It is a fine line between a pec bruise and a broken jaw. The problem is the act not the outcome. And the act should be punished regardless of how bad the impact is.

I think getting out of WC and starting fresh is probably good for him. But maybe not into the Melbourne media fishbowl. Personally I'd have him at Melbourne still. But I'd want to seriously consider his mental health in the fall out of this incident.

I'll defend Bugg here. He doesn't have a bad record. As far as I am aware, last year is the only time he has ever been suspended. I can't find any info about any other suspensions. Only fines (for making contact with an injured Nick Reiwoldt, and for "saluting" the richmond cheer squad). A lot of players have been suspended for hitting him though. He gets a bad go from the media. He might be annoying but he has never over stepped the aggression line on the field before, and he wasn't looking at Mills when he hit him in retaliation to bring hit from behind. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/an-extensive-rap-sheet-from-gws-giant-agitator-to-melbourne-enforcer/news-story/4bb65be2b05db80227ef6907c5bf4d95

Out of interest, what was the context of these words? Can you provide a link?

I'm not sure I agree because he was facing him. I don't believe you don't understand the difference between this and a jumper punch. When the two players are both actively involved in the tussel, the minor, low impact events dont require external attention. When someone is unexpectedly struck to the face off the ball doing damage that requires hospital and surgery, that can be looked at without damaging football. The rules of victoria apply on the football field and outside a night club. The rules of Saudi Arabia do not apply. A tackle is legal, it went bad. A punch is not legal anywhere. Not vicious???

That's ridiculous. Intentionally assaulting someone 50 m away from the ball is not "the nature of contact sport". An overly aggressive hip and shoulder while contesting the game falls in that category.

Worse than Buggs effort.

Yeah, like Jones!

Ok so now you want the time to say "you can't block or bump after disposal unless the player is involved in the play"? Isnt that what is says? "You can't make prohibited contact to a player after they dispose of the football." I don't understand your confusion. This isn't a new rule!

@daisycutter are you saying the quoted rule is not a real rule? As written you can bump a player after he kicked it. I promise you that 5m rule has been in place for at least 20 years (I can't confirm before hand but pretty sure 5m had been the Aussie rules standard forever). What has been added is the "not involved in the play" and "unexpected" or "unreasonable" force type clauses, which are intended to stop sniping. "Late" in your description may refer to "the ball was disposed of, the player is now no longer in the contest and therefore not reasonably expecting contact" ie he was expecting it but you were late to the contest and now it is unexpected. To clarify further, a kick is a method of disposal. It may go 50 m or it may be a dinky dribble kick so that a player can run on and collect it. There aren't different contact rules for both cases. If the ball is within 5 m and the player is still in the play they should expect to be bumped off their line by an opposition player.

@daisycutter, did you check the rules before saying that? To be a free kick the contact must be "prohibited contact", which means more than 5m away, overly rough or unexpected. "Lateness" has nothing to do with anything, and never has. Once the ball has been disposed of, the player is now like any other on the field, who is subject to contact.

I actually think we spent big on a guy who covered our biggest hole. The hole was not personnel but strategic positional. We want to defend up the ground and play the backline as a zone. We know that means defenders will be caught out with fast out the back ball coming at them. We spent the equivalent of pick 5 on the best reader of the play, zone defender and intercept marker in the competition who was also only 21.

When I first saw the footage on the weekend, I was actually very surprised at how Curnow left himself open, which I feel contributed to the issue. He should have braced protected himself from contact, instead it looks like he didn't even realise May was there...

Thanks DeeSpencer, looks like my description was a pretty good lay explanation of those detailed rules!

This is fantastic news. This was always the rule of Australian football and had been overlooked in recent years. In this case Iagree, because May's bump was designed to stop Curnow being involved in the next part of the play (ie a handball 1-2). The "late" rule applies to a kick where the ball has cleared the area and a) is no longer within 5m or b) because the player is now far enough away from the contest that he couldn't reasonably have expected contact. Long live the bump.

Even if wet get another home game in Melbourne they'll find away to make us play an extra interstate away game to even it up!

Got it. Ihad problems with Howe the image displayed on mobile so it looked cropped I could only see the NE corner.

In the OP out says the article states northeastern corner, but the image shown in the next post is the northwestern corner... Can someone clarify?

Still one of the most dangerous and most dirty acts i have seen on the field in recent times. Should have been 6 weeks, elbowing a bloke in the back of the head while he lies on the ground in a disgrace and a dog act.