Is there a place in footy for the bump?

Columnist

By Michael DiFabrizio, 30 Aug 2009 Michael DiFabrizio is a Roar Expert

Tagged:: AFL, AFL Tribunal, Ben Cousins, bump, Lance Franklin

Related coverage

Richmond's Ben Cousins lies injured on the ground during the AFL Round 21 match between the Richmond Tigers and the Hawthorn Hawks at the MCG.

A couple of Hawthorn fans stood outside AFL House the other night, just before Lance Franklin was set to face the tribunal. They held up a banner carrying a message of support. “Fight the good fight,” it read.

Their message expressed a sentiment that many football fans – Hawthorn and non-Hawthorn followers alike – would’ve felt.

Buddy’s hit on Richmond’s Ben Cousins had more implications than just the Hawks’ chances of beating Essendon this weekend. It opened up the can of worms that is the bump, and whether or not it has a place in the game.

Cries of “they’re killing off the bump” have been familiar this week.

“They’re taking physicality out of the game” has had a decent run, too.

“They’re turning the game into netball” – no matter how old it’s getting – was trotted out as well.

The latter two are exaggerations, of course. Toughness, strength, physicality and all sorts of similar traits have been a feature of footy since the game began. They aren’t the kind of characteristics that can simply be killed off, and the bump is only one of the on-field actions that embodies them.

It’s the former comment, more specifically, that rings true.

If the rules as they are presently set up continue, then yes, by all means – the AFL are killing off the bump. That much can’t be disputed.

Under these conditions, any player with any sort of height about them cannot possibly justify the risk involved with bumping an opponent. If they get them the slightest bit too high, they will get rubbed out.

Interestingly, in previous years what happened with Franklin and Cousins probably wouldn’t have resulted in a suspension.

Indeed, Nick Maxwell’s jaw-breaking bump on West Coast’s Patrick McGinnity in this year’s NAB Cup was the catalyst for a change in rules. Maxwell was facing a four-week ban, before Collingwood had it successfully overturned. That forced the AFL to act.

Now, if the bump is to have any hope of surviving, it is up the rules committee.

The committee makes all of its crucial decisions in the off-season, and each year there tends to be an issue that really goes under the microscope. Last year it was rushed behinds. This year, in all likeliness, the bump – and whether or not it deserves to be saved – will be at the top of the agenda.

Franklin was caught in an unfortunate situation, and he’s paying a hefty price for it.

Whilst there certainly was the opportunity for him to tackle, the circumstances were against him. According to the Hawks’ tribunal defence, he had 0.4 seconds to react to the situation – a situation that was complicated by Cousins and his fumbling of the ball.

Perhaps his biggest mistake was simply not responding quick enough and being caught out. Understandably, a lot of people don’t see much of a crime in that.

For the rules committee, however, there will be other factors at play.

Is the bump a loophole in the push to protect players’ heads? Are the current rules too restrictive? What’s the risk of a player ending up with more than a broken jaw?

How these questions are answered will decide the fate of the bump.

Follow Michael on twitter @mdifabrizio

Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.

The Crowd Says (39) | Page 1 of Comments

Pippinu said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment

I don’t understand the hysteria surrounding this issue.

Isn’t it simply a case of not being allowed to touch a players head in the action of a hip and shoulder?

So for mine: stay out of a players back, stay away from his head – and you can bump the night away.

Reply
- BigAl said | August 30th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
  
  Pip – but it’s very very hard to keep away from the head !
  
  With the speed at which the players approach, and the ability(intentional & unintentional) of the player with the ball to change the position of the head far quicker than someone charging in, loaded with momentum, can change the direction & position of his centre of gravity, it’s so easy to be hit in the head with a ‘bump’.
  
  IIMO the only way to avoid this is to have a rule that if you are running at a player you MUST have your arms out in front of you – i.e. approach with the intention to TACKLE !
  
  Reply
  - Dave said | August 30th 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
    
    No you shouldn’t have to have your arms out because then it would turn into rugby.
    
    Also, it doesn’t matter what the intentions of the tackler is, they can still be reckless or careless, it matters what they do.
    
    rugby league has it right you can’t shoulder charge someone in the head. Either get it right or don’t attempt it or pay the consequences if you get it wrong.
    
    Reply
    - BigAl said | August 30th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
      
      But the whole issue to be addressed here is not the style and flow of the game ( a la changing rules re. rushed behinds etc.) it’s about eliminating potentially life effecting head injuries !
      
      Also . . . ‘…pay the consequeces if you get it wrong.” – who exactly are you talking of here ?
      
      the ‘bumper’ or the guy who suffers the head injury ?
      
      Reply
      - Dave said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:23pm | Report comment
        
        The bumper.
        
        Reply
  - Pippinu said | August 30th 2009 @ 8:37pm | Report comment
    
    Big Al
    lots of things are hard – players have to adapt – they’ve already adapted to a game that is lightning fast, this is just something extra.
    
    In the Bullies v Pies game this evening, someone managed to shirt front someone fair and square – I can’t remember who it was, but there was no contact to the head. the pie player was winded, but otherwise all is well.
    
    It was hard on Lloyd as well the other day, he’s coming at the player and ball on the same line, the other is lower than his body – he has to make a split decision as to what he’s going to do – and clearly he can’t jump out of the way because that’s not the game – we’re all taught to run straight at the ball and cop whatever there is to cop along the way – but he just has to try and do something that involves not hitting the head, e.g. getting lower, swivelling and tackling him round the torso on the way through – yes, it’s all hard and requires a split second decisoin – but that’s the nature of our game – pretty much everything requires split second decision making.
    
    Reply
    - Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
      
      I think it was Dale Thomas who was the shirt frontee.
      
      Reply
    - BigAl said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:49am | Report comment
      
      I have NEVER seen a player in a Franklin/Lloyd type situation able to change their approach on the opponent/ball !
      
      I would say the only way body mechanics could remotely make it possible would be for the ‘bumper’ to somehow throw themselves uncontrollably out of the way/contest – and this would most likely lead to instant ‘draging’.
      
      Reply
blinq said | August 30th 2009 @ 10:06am | Report comment

I couldn’t said it better, no need to fuzz on this.

Reply
Michael C said | August 30th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment

I always figured a bump was either
A. a poor substitute for a decent tackle,

and/or

B. an excuse to try to hurt someone,

- – - so, it wouldn’t bother me for the ‘bump’ as some people see it – to be ‘out’ of the game. Reality is – - if you knock a guy out because you just ran straight through him – - then expect consequences. That’s not too hard to grasp.

The thing though is this – - if you want guys to make going in low at the ball their objective – then don’t keep pinging them for holding the ruddy ball and permitting 2 or 3 guys to fall into their back and call it a legal tackle!!!!

Reply
- Freud of Football said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
  
  How wrong you are.
  
  The bump is excellent for shepherding, probably the most important thing a player can do without the ball. Added to that it gives an intimidation factor which should not be underestimated, it’s not a tool for players who can’t tackle and it’s certainly not an excuse to try and hurt someone, today’s generation of AFL Players are not the same blood thirsty animals as Brereton and Rhys-Jones were.
  
  Sure, there have been incidents over the years where players did intend harm and they should be punished, but to more-or-less remove it from the game is wrong.
  
  The AFL might think they are doing it for the good of the game and that they have a business to run is understandable, that they want to attract kids to the game and not deter families through violence is also commendable. Taking fighting out of the game is one thing, but when will they stop? A good old hip-and-shoulder is part and parcel of the game.
  
  I’ve dished out plenty and copped my fair share too, it’s what truly seperates AFL from other sports, the contact from all angles aspect. The AFL need to get more input from the players as I’m sure they too wouldn’t want it removed from the game, including those who have been on the receiving end of what the traditionalist enjoy and the administrators loathe.
  
  Reply
  - Michael C said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:51am | Report comment
    
    Different bump in my mind – - although that get’s back to the Kosi incident.
    
    A shepherd is to me, a different act – the bump is not designed to hurt, but – it part of the process of blocking a team mate – - however, the ‘spirit’ of the shepherd is that intrinsic taking a blow for your team mate – - -not laying out an opponent. Some players get confused and believe a shepherd is a licence to maim an opponent effectively off the ball.
    
    The intimidation factor is quite correct. And it’s how players go about it.
    
    I’ve never thought too highly of the old ‘shirt-front’ – especially those players who thought they could just run past the ball and take out whomever the wished. As Pip says though – - it’s avoiding the head that is key – - there’s still a fair amount of possible contact.
    
    The irony is that it’s not the umpires being attacked here – it’s the match review panel and the inflexibility of the tribunal system once it’s in play.
    
    What it really odd – is that precedence is not permitted – and yet a supposed black and white water tight system is employed. Which should ensure that precedence would hold with prescribed penalties etc from case to case (other than concessions).
    
    The system, by not permitting precedence – seems an acknowledgement of being a crap system.
    
    Reply
- Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
  
  MC
  Freud makes some pretty good points, but I am starting to wonder whether people are throwing around the word “bump” quite loosely, not just here on the Roar, but right across the media.
  
  When you read the headline: the bump is dead – that’s clearly inaccurate on many levels.
  
  If you have two player coming at a 50/50 ball from opposite sides, they are going to naturally bump each other side on in trying to win the ball – in fact, that goes for anyone winning the ball in congestion.
  
  Now if we’re talking solely about a good ol’ hip and shoulder, in particualr, a shirtfront, that is starting to get tricker – but note – it’s not illegal per se – it’s only contact to the head that is actually illegal – people appear to be missing this crucial aspect.
  
  Reply
Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:00am | Report comment

Unable to make comment due to Lloyd’s possible MRP citing and penalty tonight.

There is a fine line between intent and accidental forceful head high contact.

I dont think the AFL has got the rule quite right it seems too black and white at this stage and requires more consideration and feedback from a wider source of people than just Adrian Anderson of the AFL.

Redb

Reply
- Dave said | August 31st 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
  
  Accidental can still be careless or reckless.
  
  Reply
Midfielder said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrxtIXMe7o

Reply
- Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:44am | Report comment
  
  Touche!
  
  I made an indirect reference to this particular 70s dance craze the other day when I suggested that as long as your hip and shoulder doesn’t touch a head – you can bump the night away.
  
  Reply
Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment

I find it amusing that Hawthorn fans were bemoaning the death of the bump all week after Buddy’s suspension and subsequent appeal failure, literally declaring it dead at 8.18pm Thurs 27 August, 2009 – when oops one of their players gets cleaned up by a bump!

We then have Campbell Brown running around crying foul about Lloyd being a ‘sniper’ when he forgets the original ‘line in the sand’ game 5 years ago where he got 4 weeks for hitting an injured Essendon player half his size.

never trust a bloke with two surnames for a name.

Redb

Reply
- Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
  
  What chance Essendon v Hawthorn next season in rivalry round?
  
  Reply
  - Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
    
    Pip,
    
    100% chance. This was a great game to attend – loved it. The energy in the crowd had to be experienced and it had little to do wtih the Lloyd-Sewell and subsequent melee although it just reinforces these two teams hate each other.
    
    I dont hate Hawthorn as much as Carlton but their working on it.
    
    Redb
    
    Reply
Brian said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment

Lloyd should get 4, but more importantly with rotations the AFL should do something now about the impact of taking out a player in the way Lloyd did to affect the reulst of the game. Imagine Geelong lead St Kilda by 3 goals have 20 players left and Gardiner decides to bump Ablett in the head. Geelong lose their best Midfielder and lose the game.

I am not too upset Hawthorn didnt make it this year because we were not good enough over 22 rounds, but the way we lost on Saturday with Sewell being taken out of the game left a slightly a bitter taste. In any event with Adelaide coming 5th I know we wouldn’t have lasted long but it would be a horrible way for a GF to be decided

Reply
- Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
  
  Brian,
  
  If the AFL is consistent Lloyd will get between 2 and 4 weeks. It doesnt mean the bump rule is correctly framed it needs more work, but it is about 85% right.
  
  I’ve mentioned this elsewhere but I’ve watched Lloyd attack the ball many times full on, he and Judd almost knocked each other out last year in a similiar circumstance. If Lloyd was really sniping it would have been a far greater extension of his forearm or elbow as Sewell was a sitting duck (well running duck), it was Lloyd’s shoulder which did the damage.
  
  Redb
  
  Reply
Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment

I don’t think Lloyd should get as much as 4 weeks – but one thing is for sure – Lloyd will not be seeing any finals action this season, no matter which way you dice it up.

The Lloyd-Sewell incident does illustrate why the AFL is keen to cut out contact to the head.

I was at a game in 1975 when Neil Sachse broke his vertebrae in a head over the ball accident (simply running into O’Keefe’s leg – no malice in the slightest) – but in those days, the game was as slow as all buggery compared to the modern game.

These guys are hitting each other at very high speeds – so we really have no choice but to strongly discourage contact to the head – whatever it takes.

Reply
- BigAl said | August 31st 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
  
  Re. your laste sentence ? – does that mean you are agreeing with my line or what ?
  
  BTW – interesting lead article in The Age today re. head injuries – I’d put a link up if I knew how
  
  Reply
Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment

Here is a clip of the incident:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI7z6v93Wo0

1. It happens 4 seconds after the ball up to start the 2nd half – of what can happen in the modern game in a very short space of time.

2. It’s the sort of circumstance that arises at least 30 times every quarter – player running straight at the ball, head over it, through congestion.

3. It first glance, and in real time – it doesn’t look very bad (but the slo mo really does show it as a damaging incident, with a 2nd bomber involved in the tackle not helping matters much).

4. It does show what a difficult rule it is for the players – but I still think the AFL has very little choice but to try and reduce these sorts of incidents as much as is possible.

Reply
- Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:19am | Report comment
  
  Pip,
  
  What do you mean the 2nd Bomber? Are you referring to Ryder? He caught Sewell on the way down and had very little forceful impact on Sewell.
  
  Redb
  
  Reply
- Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
  
  You’re right, it’s all happening very quickly within a split second, but he half catches Sewell and then let’s him drop to the ground and his head hits the ground – but as the commentators say, he was already in la la land at that point – it was incidental to the main event – but I just said that it probably didn’t help Sewell none either.
  
  Reply
  - Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
    
    Just one of those things that doesn’t look good in hindsight, bear in mind the ball is still in play at this point.
    
    Anyone note Lloyd and other Bombers going up to Sewell after the game to shake his hand and pass on best wishes?
    
    Redb
    
    Reply
  - Pippinu said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:39am | Report comment
    
    That’s right – I wasn’t trying to make too big a deal about it – it’s all happening in the same instant.
    
    Reply
Art Sapphire said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:27am | Report comment

The breathtaking hypocrisy of the Hawthorn football club is something to behold.
Last week they were crusading against the dreaded AFL and their war on “bumps”.
On the weekend they cried foul with such infantile petluance, it belonged in a kindegarden sandbox.

Here is a team that introduced to the AFL the term “unsociable” footy with Campbell Brown as their leading exponent.

Round 11, 2004 Brown suspended for four matches for king-hitting Jason Winderlich in the dubbed ”line in the sand” match. Brown strikes “an already concussed” Winderlich as the pair leaves the ground due to the blood rule.Four Hawks are suspended for a total of 15 matches and the clubs were fined a record $70,700 for the melee.

Round 20, 2005 Brown accepts four-match suspension for striking Lloyd during a Hawthorn win.Brown is said to have swung at least four punches at Lloyd’s head.Hawks coach Alastair Clarkson applauds Brown for his aggressive approach, saying it set an example for the rest of his team.

This weekend they again brought the game of AFL into disrepute.

The AFL should strip Hawthorn of their premiership. They won it by cheating.
The AFL had to change the rules due to their unsportmanlike tactics in the GF.

We should not be worried about the bump. It is not going to go away.

We should be worried about a team who operates with biggest set of double standards in Australian sport.

Reply
- Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
  
  here here!
  
  Double standards? – spot on Art. Unsociable football is Ok as long as it is not directed at them!
  
  Redb
  
  Reply
  - Michael C said | August 31st 2009 @ 10:52am | Report comment
    
    I did love Paul Hamiltons presentation of the 4 points of concern that Essendon had.
    
    Reply
    - Redb said | August 31st 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
      
      No.4 with a bullet, no a mortar – Double Standards from Hawthorn!!
      
      Set it in place now, Round 1 2010 Essendon v Hawthorn MCG, both sides fully fit ready to go – 90,000+ crowd.
      
      Redb
      
      Reply