I reckon both sides are potentially top four next year, with Hawks an edge in finals.

I think if Ryder gets a week we have little chance of winning without him, trying to secure a flight/ticket to the game regardless.

Redb

if Buddy had copped his suspension it would have only been 1 week. No I think it adds to the spice to make it Round 1 if for anything just to piss off Hawks fans even more.

On the other hand I’d rather have Buddy available, we will have Hille back in the ruck and Ryder free to roam around the ground – very damaging.

Redb

Hawthorn aint applying any double standards, Lloyd had at least double the time to line up Sewell than Buddy the week before. His forearm was much higher raised and certainly the umpire deemed the offence a free kick which did not happen the week before. I don’t know if Lloyd was sniping but certainly his act was the most crucial play of the game. The AFL needs to introduce either one-off subs, or match day penalties otherwise I guarantee this will eventually happen in a GF.

Not fair on us to rematch in Round 1 without Buddy again. Plus Lloyd wouldn’t play either (or certainly shouldnt)

BTW – interesting lead article in The Age today re. head injuries – I’d put a link up if I knew how

Set it in place now, Round 1 2010 Essendon v Hawthorn MCG, both sides fully fit ready to go – 90,000+ crowd.

Redb

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.

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’.

Double standards? – spot on Art. Unsociable football is Ok as long as it is not directed at them!

Redb

Anyone note Lloyd and other Bombers going up to Sewell after the game to shake his hand and pass on best wishes?

Redb

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.