By Andrew Alekna
August 26th 2009 @ 1:54am
Loading ...Related coverage
Is Aussie Rules no longer a contact sport?
Unless you were hiding under a footy-free rock this weekend, you would have had a glimpse of Buddy Franklin’s bump on Ben Cousins. The impact, which was deemed fair by the on field umpires, left Cousins so dazed he reportedly wandered mistakenly to the Hawthorn bench once he had been escorted off the field.
The AFL Match Review panel assessed the incident as “negligent conduct (one point), medium impact (two points) and high contact (two points).”
However, the question remains: why are players being punished for their intensity at the footy?
Franklin’s intent was to make a contest out of the play, not to hurt Cousins. His hit was deemed legal by the on-field umpires and replays shown on the night could not show conclusively that any contact was made with Cousins’ head.
The Match Review panel, however, offered Franklin a two match ban, which could be down graded to a one match ban with an early plea.
The handling of the incident begs the question: “how long will AFL remain a contact sport?”
The bump or hip and shoulder has been a hard part of the game since its beginning and has set AFL apart from almost any other sport. However, if Franklin faces a ban for a regulation hip and shoulder, where the recipient ducked his head into the oncoming impact, how long before the bump is deemed illegal?
One could propose (tongue in cheek, of course) that perhaps tackling should be removed and the players can wear velcro tags, where removal of the tag constitutes holding the ball.
The tribunal’s decision will be a landmark one that may continue the traditional style of play or send the game down a path of more changes, more frustration from fans and players, and ultimately a less exciting game.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(87)
Ben Somerford said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:27am | Report comment
Well, for one, he obviously hit Cousins in the head, hence Cousins’ concussion. For seconds, it’s all about decision making in these situations and Franklin decided to go for the player not the footy. That’s what the AFL want to stamp out and suspensions like this will make players make different decisions. Buddy should have done the team thing and tackled Cousins. Instead he misses their most important game/s. Yeah you can argue, but it’s a contact sport, radda radda rah, but this is the 21st century and nobody really likes seeing blokes getting knocked out. It’s the way it is and people, and players, have got to get used to it.
Also, I think Hawthorn made a HUGE error challenging the MRP’s decision. There was no grounds for it. It seemed like a desperate decision by the Hawks which wasn’t thought thru.
Kurt said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:21am | Report comment
Went for the player not the footy? He had the bloody footy!
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Yeah but he should have tackled Cousins.
Redb
Kurt said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
Why? The bump is a legal tactic! It’s not as if he got him with a Chuck Norris-style round house kick.
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
It’s not legal if there is head high contact – Cousins was knocked out!.
Redb
Kurt said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Says the Essendon supporter.
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
No I wanted Franklin to play so we dont have to put with 52,000 Hawks members whinging and making excuses about why they missed the finals.
The irony is the Dons could still lose anyway with our injuries – that’s our excuse.
Redb
Michael C said | August 26th 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
The main thing I’d reckon the umpires on the spot figured was that Cousins effectively initiated the contact via his changing direction – - Franklin was suddenly run into and he more braced for contact than deliberately ran through Cousins.
However, that said, he (Frankiln) still had the option to tackle Cousins -, and also, even though he’s 6′6″ and Cousins is 5′10″, Franklin does have to come in low to tackle around the waist – - that’s the fair tackle zone – - and at no point does it look like Franklin is preparing to crouch to go low and tackle.
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Franklin could have tackled – which is contact, he instead chose to shoulder charge with enough impact to Cousin’s head to knock him out. It was a 50:50 call, but i think the protection of head pushed it to a 1 week ban.
Franklin was trying to charge blokes all day rather than get the ball, he got two Tigers fair and square but really lined up Cousins who had the ball.
Redb
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:23am | Report comment
The head has to be protected.
If you look at the clip carefully, the Budster was only able to line up Cuz because while he was showing the ball, it bobbled out a bit from his hand, that took his focus away from what was going on around him, and in that split second, the Budster ran through him.
In the modern game – it only takes a split second.
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
This is the clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O3h_E80vXw
Ghost said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:33am | Report comment
I think the overall question in the title needs to be asked to new Roar columnist Dipper. Compared to the awesome hard game that he and his team-mates used to play, today’s AFL is a pale insipid affair.
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Just a suburban game what do you care?
Redb
BigAl said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Yeah ! pale – insipid . . . Ghost like…
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Dip would understand that the modern game has moved on in 20 years (as it does every 20 years, since it was first played in 1858).
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Dip would also acknowledge the act of taking Bereton out in the opening minutes of the 89 Grand Final whilst great for the glory years has no place in modern football.
The game is about the ball not the man.
Redb
Jack said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:13am | Report comment
If you take a close look at the footage there are a number of points to take note of. Just prior to contact Franklin’s body is slightly lowered and legs bent to anticipate the direction to which Cousins may move, and he remains front on. As impact becomes imminent Franklin braces for the contact by bringing his arms up in front of his chest. There is no turning of the body side on which is what all players know is the natural position to make deliberate and forceful contact, as you use your shoulder not your chest. It must also be remembered that the force involved is the sum total of two players colliding, not just that of Franklin. Further if Franklin had dropped his shoulder and made a legal front on tackle then perhaps Cousins may well have ended up in a much worse state. By the way, I am NOT a Hawthorn or Franklin supporter, but it is getting to the stage where administrators are attempting to manipulate the game in such a way that does not equate to the realities of onfield play. No you cant make front on contact Franklin style, but count the number of times a pack forms and the third and fourth player just barrels into the group. Or the player trying to mark under the fall of the ball who is “legitimately” crashed from behind by the player with knees up in the “act of spoiling”, which is deemed legal. And finally the tackling style where the player has both arms pinned and is rotated and dumped into the turf “legitimately”. If Franklins actions are deemed to be not in the best interests of the game then these areas also warrant attention. Just where is the game headed?
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
This is why I think its a 50:50 call and could have gone either way, except the AFL is trying to protect the head of a player in contact situations and no-one can deny head contact was made.
Going for mark…. as long as you keep your eye on the ball your Ok, I’ve seen Fevola clean up quite a few blokes including Slattery last year who nearly was nearly knocked out.
Franklin went the man not the ball, its a close call and has certainly divided opinion. If the AFL had done nothing there would have been calls the other way for not protecting the head.
Redb
simonjzw said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:50am | Report comment
It’s disappointing to see Lance Franklin suspended for that. I understand the need to protect the head but there’s a vast difference between the situation where a player is bent over at the waist, head over over the ball and is met head first with the body of another player and the situation where two players meet head on in a more or less upright position and contact is made to the head and body at much the same time. In the first situation spinal injuries are a distinct possibility and we need rules to protect our players. The second situation has been part and parcel of the game since it began. I say relax the rules in the second situation – the umpire should pay a free kick if high contact occurs in a legitmate bumping action, report the bumping player if he raises the elbow or aims at the head deliberately (eg. by jumping into the bump) and only go to the Match Review Panel if the Umpire doesn’t have a clear view of the incident. I just think the AFL has been a little over zealous in trying to elminate all head contact and the current rules actually encourage the player being bumped to put himself in harms way to get maximum protection form the umpire – Joel Selwood is a special at it.
AndyRoo said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Well I think it’s a great shame he wont be playing it does raise some issues with the bump.
The contact with the head was accidental but the resulting injury to an opponent seems a huge advantage in AFL. With unlimited interchanges (around 100) a match the potential for an injury to greatly effect a teams freshness (everyone on the Tigers teams would have got less time out) means a couple of bumps (much more likely to hurt an opponent than a tackle) could potentially end a game within the first 5 mins.
If it was a final there would be alot of pressure for Cousins to get back into the game.
Greggles said | August 28th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
I have to agree with andyroo and the writer of this article! is AFL headed in the same pittiful direction as rugby league (as much as i despise that code), where there are so many rules on rediculous things that a srum is completely useless, no one wants to see AFL turn into another version of netball! i remember the add “full body contact no armour”. Stop being so soft! it is something that comes with every sport no matter what! the tribunal got it wrong! it’s not the first time. Stop letting your love of a player rule your decision about the greatness of a game!
Dave said | August 29th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
He was hip in shouldered in the head and knocked out. If you shoulder charged someone in league in the head you would be in big trouble.
Sonny Bill Williams used to shoulder chargers without hitting people in the head.
Brian said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Its hard to understand how something that isnt deemed a free kick by 3 umpires can become an offence worthy of suspension. The bump has become a very grey area with the AFL not wanitng anyone to get hit in the head nor officially taking the bump out of the game. Or maybe the prospect of 95,000 filling the MCG for Carlton v Essendon in the first week of the finals is too much mulah for the AFL to worry about fair rules or Buddy Franklin
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:34am | Report comment
I agree it is a grey area and inconsistent that the umpires did not award a free kick.
However, to rob the Essendon v Hawthorn game of one of its bigger stars is far worse than worrying about whether Carlton will face Essendon in the first week of finals given it is not certain that Carlton will finish 5th. That is just illogical. The Ess v Hawks had all the hallmarks of a blockbuster with 80,000 plus.
Redb
Tom said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Frankly I think it was a clear free kick.
Not paying it was a bad decision.
Mary Percy said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:41am | Report comment
Memo: all players 6′6″ and above.
It is now mandatory that you kneel before either tackling or bumping a shorter player.
Dave said | August 29th 2009 @ 4:23pm | Report comment
Memo: all players 6′6″ and above.
It is now mandatory that you dont hit shorte players in the head and knock them out.
Michael C said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:56am | Report comment
What I really can’t understand is why Montagna got nothing for his attempted trip……..Dustbin FLetcher has been rubbed out for those clumsy throwing of the arms and legs to one side for years, and reality is, as soon as the leg goes, it’s an attempted trip by foot/leg. (we don’t tackle by foot in our game!!).
Tom said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
Yeah I completely agree.
Brian said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:13am | Report comment
The problem is the memos. Maybe there’s too many people needing to justify a wage at AFL house but are the rules changed every year. Test cricket, tennis and soccer for example nearly never change their rules yet the AFL bring in different interpretations almost weekly. why not just let the players play?
Ignore for a second whether Buddy should have been suspended under current rules, he has played his whole life with the bump being a part of the game, surely he shouldnt have to weekly read the latest umpire memos.
Red B – fair point and I’ll happily concede although they will still get 80,000 this week. I guess I’m just a frustrated supporter given we’ll be kicking it long to Beau Dowler this week, who? exactly
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:33am | Report comment
If your a Hawks man your gunna be pissed. I wanted Franklin to play.
I’ll be there on Sat, weather looks shite though, I reckon a few Hawks fans might not show up given their chances have taken a hit especially in a pretty poor year for the club all up. More like about 65-70K.
Redb
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Are there 52,000 Hawk members?? Bloody bandwagon jumpers!!
AndyRoo said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Not just hawks fans, neutrals too.
Adds a bit of spice to the finals to have the premiers in there as a dark horse
Brian said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
much better than bombers who willl go out week 1 for sure.
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
You wish,. if Ryder is fit and we make it past it the Hawks, Carlton will know “we’re coming”
Geez I hope we get the chance. Beaten the Blues twice this year. They really fancied themselves both times, but we find something against Carlton, always do.
Go Dons!
Redb
Brian said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
oops actually I wanted to have a go at Pip for his bandwagom remark but I got mixed up on who’s the Essendon supporter. I do think Essendon won’t go far if they make Sept but only cause they’re a young list. They’ve been impressive this year and their footspeed turnaround from a few years back is amazing.
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:05pm | Report comment
Brian
you don’t need to have a go at me – I’ve been hurtin’ deep, deep down for decades now.
Peter said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
It’s time Andrew Demetriou and his fat cat self-indulgent cronies at the AFL got their collective heads out of their backsides. For too long the AFL Administration has had an ongoing controlling focus with the underlying agenda of being continued to be visible to the public and the media as ’seen to be doing something’ – even where it is clearly to the detriment of the game. This latest Match Review Panel decision to uphold a ban on a player for engaging fairly and reasonably in an attempt to dispossess (……funnily enough one of the core underlying objectives of the game) is farcical and highlights the Administration’s inadequacies in over technichalising the game. The Umpires clearly don’t understand and are either too scared to rule in game time, or probably closer to the mark are handcuffed and gagged by the AFL so that post game the Administration have an opportunity to puff their chest out and justify their own existence through the ‘jobs for the boys’ Match Review Panel. Mr. Demetriou might as well be a war era Dictator and the players the robots of the Chinese army under a rule and conduct regime that allows no character, personality or expression and is fast leading to a game that can be likened to nothing other than school yard keepings off – it will be boring and as predictable as watching stock cars doing laps of circular track. The Administration needs to get out from under the covers of self-pleasure and redeem itself with a complete overhaul of an over regulated rule system that no-one understands or likes – it is the peoples game, make it appealing again before it’s too late……NRL might have its problems, but at least it still has a personality. For a long term player, supporter and loyalist of the Australian Rules game it’s disappointing to see it loosing its appeal because of an Administration that wants to be bigger than the game – what’s even more disappointing as a result, is being in NSW having only really the alternative of the NRL, which at least is still human.
Tom said | August 26th 2009 @ 12:43pm | Report comment
It hurts my eyes trying to read that rubbish.
Is it really so hard to put in some line breaks?
CraigB said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
Hits him in the head = illegal = 2 weeks = enough said
Peter said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
That’s why there’s the over the shoulder rule which is free kickable – how much (and significantly more reckless than in this instance) over the shoulder contact is there across all games every weekend that is free-kicked but neither reported in game time or scrutinised after the fact by the Match Review Panel? At the end of the day there is no consistency and certainly no parity in enforcement and interpretation of a rule system laced with ridiculous complexity.
Chop said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
Outlawing hits like that is the reason that the AFL will NEVER over take the NRL in Qld and NSW. After watching it a couple of times I couldn’t see that he absolutely made contact with Cousin’s head plus Cousin’s was already on the way down.
Even with the modifications to the game outlawing lots of formerly legal hits in the name of political correctness and for fear of bad publicity Rugby League will always have the more physical contests, bigger hits that get the adrenalin pumping.
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
I think there are other reasons more cultural that protect RL from AFL in NSW/WQLD and AFL from RL in VIC/SA/WA.
The physiciality of tackling is the main feature of rugby league, I’d argue the AFL has never held tackling as its main element.
Thus if you liked a good dose of physical attack in your sport, RL would have always appealed more no matter what rules the AFL had.
The AFL sits between soccer where there is no physical hits and the rugby codes.
I reckon the way Essendon play with their fast running attacking football gets the adrenalin pumping but thats just me.
Redb
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Also, the rules surrounding tackling have always been a bit stricter, e.g. under the shoulder, above the knees, out of the back, etc. – rules that have been there since early days.
The game has always been about, and remains about, winning the ball and using it.
Peter said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Correct. And a legimate way of winning the ball or dispossessing an opposing player is from contact including a bump…
Redb said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Let’s not confuse the ‘bump’ with an old fashioned shirt front or really it is a shoulder charge.
Bump is the wrong word, a bump used to be a side way bump from hip to shoulder by one player on another to bump them off balance or get them out of the way as two players competed for the ball.
Franklin charged through Cousins with no attempt at getting the ball or even tackling it was just a charge.
Redb
Peter said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
To be a charge by definition, Lance Franklin would have needed to be in motion. The footage quite clearly shows Lance Franklin actually planted stationary and brace for the contact – it is Ben Cousins change of direction in trying to evade Lance Franklin and obviously get onto his preferred side of the body that brings about the contact. Had Ben Cousins stayed heading left on his non-preferred side then given Lance Franklin’s stance it’s highly likely that a tackle would have been laid (effective / ineffective – whatever), the Umpires got it right ‘play-on’.
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Yes – along as you don’t touch the head.
Peter said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:12pm | Report comment
….again see how many players every week fall or change direction into tackles resulting in high contact, that in most (certainly not all) cases simply result in a free kick.
Big Al is spot on – interpretation of intent is a job for the medically qualified in the specialised field not for umpires and not for a Match Review Panel. The ball being within 5m has always and still is the measuring stick rule.
oikee said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
I watched the replay, the sucker took a dive.
BigAl said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Concussion / head injuries is the skeleton in the cupboard for ALL contact sports !
An ongoing study in the US involving ex NFL players is revealing an alarming link between concussion and Altzhiemers in later life.
This has the potential to leave sporting bodies open to huge legal/financial liabilities in the future.
To counter this threat these same bodies will have to change the rules of their games so that it will be ‘legally impossible’ to be concussed if the rules of their competion are obeyed – difficult I know, and accidents will always happen – but thats just how it is with all the big money now involved – and an increased public concern for health and safety.
As Mark Williams has suggested, the ‘bump’ will soon go out of footy.
I don’t think this will be a bad thing – at the same time they should examine the ‘in the back’ rule, basically doing away with it, as long as the tackler has actually got hold of the opposition who has the ball.
Lets face it, with the speed of play these days its very hard to tell what is or isn’t ‘in the back’ – general momentum always carries everyone forward.
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 2:39pm | Report comment
Yes – once upon a time you couldn’t fall in a player’s back after tackling him – but the umps have become a bit slack on that lately – I think it just needs a bit of tweaking in terms of interpretation – I think players who clumsily fall into the back of another player should result in a free to the opponent.
BigAl said | August 26th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
”Interpretation” – is the cause of a whole range of infringement problems. !
Therefore get rid of interpretaion and make it clear cut – if a player has the ball and he’s GRABBED end of story.
This ‘interpretation’ of a players ‘intent’ when a ball is forced thru for a behind or out of bounds is also RIDICULOUS !
Is the ump supposed to be a mind reader ? – is being devious now a required skill for an AFL player ??
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:26pm | Report comment
I would have to admit, though, that the intentional out of bounds has settled down over the years into a fairly consistent interpretation.
The ump will give it if the player is obviously looking for the line, sometimes it’s a harsh call, other times a player gets away with a bit of slight of hand – but otherwise, it’s worked out ok that rule, I reckon.
Michael C said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
HOw long until the ‘header’ get’s ruled OUT of soccer??
BigAl said | August 27th 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
There is a study monitoring this.
Part of this study involves players taking IQ tests over a period of time – interestingly, Frank Lampard of Chelsea returned a score higher than the Professor running the study !!!
tifosi said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Being a Hawthorn fan the conspiracist within me thinks someone wants the bombers in the finals rather than the hawks………
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
you’re starting to sound worse than me talking about the Victory!!
\
by the way, I’ve just found out that the Hawks’ membership is even bigger that that of the Dons these days, (52,000), so it wouldn’t make sense to exclude them!!
tifosi said | August 26th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
Doesnt really matter though as both teams will fail to pass the first round !!!
oikee said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
Look, i will be honest here, the sucker took a dive. League has no head high tackles allowed, if you do this the biff is on, but i might add over the last 2 weeks we have seen 5 players knocked rotten. They are now getting knocked rotten by head clashes. Perfectly legal, not pretty, nobody wants to see this, maybe helmets might be the go. Anyone for NFL.
Michael C said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Oikee -
and re head clashes you touch on part of the problem here in the AFL too – - dating back over the last couple of years, Kosischitzke (gawd, I can’t spell it without looking it up) got cleaned up in a ‘fair’ shepherd that resulted in an accidental head clash – - – seemingly now, the shepherder is responsible, even if traditionally the fellow running and chasing really should be aware that he might be shepherded and have a tad more peripheral awareness!!!
So, it comes to this. Loopholes for other sorts of incidents see attempts at black and white ‘rules’ simply become inflexible.
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
oikee
I’ve been noticing a lot more head clashes in League lately. They are rare in both comps, but when they happen, they certainly leave you with a pretty sick feeling in your stomach.
I can offer one reason why it’s happening more and more in League, and that’s increasing fitness and stamina means the intensity is lasting the whole 80 minutes – more intensity, means more players running at each other at top speed – so once upon a time, you’d have a bit of a head ache as two tired lumps ran into each other – now you have two ultra fit, strong titans hitting each other – and it’s more than just a headache they’re going to get.
Michael C said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
From the AFL perspective, the focus on protecting the head seems to have encouraged some players to go in head first a tad bit more often. Which is why it’s super important that players who are just plain clumsy, careless/reckless or deliberately putting their heads in danger DON’T get overly protected – - cos it just encourages them. How do we pull back Joel Selwood??
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
MC
is there still the rule that if you duck, you don’t get immediate protection?
If it’s there, the umpires have definitely slackened off the intepretation of it.
Michael C said | August 27th 2009 @ 1:19pm | Report comment
Ideally they still do call play on if a player ducks, but, the tribunal doesn’t always care if the umpire calls play on at the time…..after all, that’s what this Buddy incident is all about.
The 1 and Only Master said | August 26th 2009 @ 4:36pm | Report comment
Pip
Alot of those hawk members are 3 game Tassie members
On topic, Cousins fumbled. Deserved to be cleaned up
Kurt said | August 27th 2009 @ 2:06am | Report comment
About 6000 are three game Tassie members, which still leaves us with a pretty impressive membership.
Midfielder said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
Interesting posts to date … and may I bring in a little international rules as well … combine the two and the AFL is starting to approach a reasonable game…
11 players per side, rectangular field, round ball, goals, net for Football goals, a goalkeeper and in a different shirt to the other players… now add no tackling, no bumps, no head shots, …. then add talk about how to best use the midfield players, and how to play the backs….
It’s getting closer but not quite there yet…
Redb said | August 27th 2009 @ 6:26am | Report comment
well its not helping soccer to get a domestic foothold?
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:36pm | Report comment
yeh – but would Hawthorn still have 52,000 members playing this game you’re talking about??
Sean C said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:51pm | Report comment
Question: When was Aussie rules EVER a contact sport??
Answer: NEVER!!!!
Pippinu said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Sheer ignorance.
Redb said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:13am | Report comment
dumb arse comment.
Midfielder said | August 26th 2009 @ 11:00pm | Report comment
Maybe 252, 000 , prehaps 352, 000 … you never know … it could be like a day in the life of Pip…. sorry Pip cannot hekp myself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiFYOn1AFms … The best IMO of many … and shows well John & Paul working together … (this must seem sad ) but listen at about 2:50 as John sings and Paul comes over top with the ARRRRRRRRRRrrrrr…
It’s a real pity the Beatle clip has been taken down … but someone has a youtube out of it anyway… But to the song … A Day in the Life
captain nemo said | August 27th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Would AFL fans prefer or not more rugby league type tackling in the game??
Pippinu said | August 27th 2009 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Capt Nemo
with all due respect it’s a silly question from someone who clearly doesn’t know too much about the game.
It would be almost as silly as asking: wouldn’t League fans prefer to see handballing rather than throwing? or would League fans prefer to see one pass forward allowed in every six (and while we’re at it, change the descrtptor of five eighth to quarterback)
captain nemo said | August 27th 2009 @ 10:00am | Report comment
respectfully I will disagree with you. Its a very simple question. There is already tackling in the game, would fans want to see it intensified/modified……Nothing sinister or derogative im my question pip!!! regarding the later part of your post, I haven’t had my morning coffee yet so I’ll leave that alone.
Pippinu said | August 27th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
But what do you mean rugby league tackling??
1. The rules for tackling in aussie rules are much, much stricter: no over the shoulder, nothing below the knees, stay out of their back,etc So that immediately eliminates about half of all “rugby league tackling”.
2. Just as the slide tackle is a secondary skill in soccer, the tackle is a secondary skill in aussie rules. Good teams are better at tackling than poor teams, generally speaking, but the game isn’t won and lost on tackling alone – just as a soccer game isn’t won and lost on how good a team is at doing slide tackles.
3. The dynamics and circumstances of the two games are completely different. In aussie rules, a player can run in all directions to avoid getting tackled, and/or will give the ball off to avoid getting tackling and to retain possession. In League, you keep possession for six tackles, so it’s acceptable to run the ball up directly at your tackler and just hold onto the ball – that’s an entirely different mind set – its chalk and cheese.
4. In aussie rules, physical pressure can be put on the opposition without even having to do one single ball and all tackle – by dozens of means – as I said earlier – it’s just one part of the game, and even in a defensive aspect, it’s only one part of the armoury.
captain nemo said | August 27th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
I said rugby league”type” tackling.
Redb said | August 27th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
This has all the potential to turn into a football DNA argument so I’ll try my best to use neutral language.
Tackling is far more important to RL than AR. However, the tackle count has increased in number as the speed and fitness of players has increased by virtue of increased rotations off the interchange bench and the Sydney Swans style of putting 10 players around the ball.
A tackle in League is about stopping one of 5 runs where possesion will remain with one team (assuming clean possession) , a tackle in AFL will lead to a turnover or a ball up. That is, it creates a restart of the contest for the ball.
I would equate a tackle to next tackle in League to a player kicking to his team-mate who marks the ball in AFL . That is possession to next possession.
The whole point of tackling in AFL is about turning over posession, it is partly a grind, to wear the other team down, but as there are 18 players on the field it is a less successful strategy in weakening through attrition. The game is different.
Tackling is actually one of the more dour aspects of the appeal of Aussie Rules, fast running, kicking and marking is the game play.
In saying that a tackle is enjoyed by the Aussie Rules crowd who yells “balllll!” how it is executed is unimportant (needs to be legal) that your team gets the ball is.
When Karmicheal Hunt runs onto the field in hir first AFL game it will do him no good to tackle in a RL way, the field is much bigger, he will be chasing (no offside) more often than not and tackling from behind rather hitting up front.
Redb
Michael C said | August 27th 2009 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
Rugby League style tackling – - -
what do you mean by that?
They are generally front on, the line of tacklers is normally either mostly stationary or often on the back foot with the guy about to be tackled coming straight at them. THat scenario rarely, rarely is going to happen on an AFL field.
There’s a reason that it’s Rugby League style tackling – - because, it’s perculiar to the game with a 6 tackle rule, off-side, no forward passing (by hand).
AFL style tacking is more a predatory style tackle, the run down from behind by a speedy small forward on the indecisive defender. More similar to the chase down in RL when a guy actually breaks the line – - but, that’s the vast minority of RL tackles. A RL match tackle count of 200 odd tackles, vast majority are pretty straight forward within the defensive line.
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 9:56pm | Report comment
For sheer lack of imagination alone you deserve a rotten birthday!
Midfielder said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
Westy
For you .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Nz9B1XFio
Pippinu said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:10pm | Report comment
Mid
never short of a clip!
Robbos said | August 27th 2009 @ 7:59am | Report comment
Happy Birthday Westy. It was my Bithday yesterday.
Don’t worry about Pip, a football writer has upset him.
Everyone no matter what sport they follow or don’t follow, should never have a rotten birthday.
Redb said | August 27th 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
Surprised you’ve stooped this low Westy.
Midfielder said | August 26th 2009 @ 10:26pm | Report comment
Pip
If could see my play list … just love the net … don’t know who pays for all this stuff … I watch football and other sporting events from all over the world for nothing by streaming… I converted my play lists on the site playlist to a file on my PC and have over 1, 000 songs .. then burned those onto CD’s for the car and holidays… in my favorites I have a music file with over 600 youtube clips …
I have this site where I can watch any TV show ever made by streaming … again free … Just waiting for the day when someone shows me how to convert the streaming I receive to my TV …
But as I said who pays I am Fooked if I know… I pay Optus each month for unlimited downloads and with me and my faimly it’s a good deal…