By Adrian Musolino
September 1st 2009 @ 2:08am
Related coverage
Is mandatory helmet use inevitable in AFL?
Byron Schammer of Fremantle is bumped from the ball by Mark Lecras of West Coast during the AFL Round 18 match between the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers at the Subiaco Oval. Slattery Images
As witnessed by the Buddy Franklin saga, the AFL is doing its best to eradicate the bump from the game. Its justification is the protection of players from neck and head injuries. But how far will they go to do so?
As Andrew Demetriou told radio station 3AW: “The fact of the matter is that the rule was considered two years ago and it was on the basis of medical experts and we’ve made absolutely no apologies for protecting the head because we don’t want head injuries.”
The league has an obligation to set an example for the junior ranks playing the game to ensure the bump, and subsequent head and neck injuries, are eradicated.
The problem is that such head high collisions can often be incidental in a game played at such a brutal pace, at head height and on the ground, with such a huge variation in player size.
So how can it possibly be eradicated, especially with so many incidental collisions?
It can’t, as head high contacts will continue, despite the bump rule, as they are an inevitable part of the game.
If the bump rule is to be applied so harshly, the controversy over such incidents will only multiply with each weekend of football and such outcry will damage the codes reputation, particularly when you consider how important physicality is to the very nature of Aussie Rules.
So is the use of a helmet, as used by the likes of Nathan Burke, Shaun Hart and an increasing number of Rugby players an inevitability considering the AFL wants to protect its players from injuries which can be prevented by the device and also improve how the game is perceived by parents with children in the junior ranks?
There is a stigma attached to the use of the helmet in the machismo world of AFL, a game that prides itself on its rough and tumble play as a point of differentiation from other codes.
It is seen as inherently un-Australian, a counter to everything the AFL stands for.
Former Collingwood, Bulldogs and Power player Josh Mahoney was forced to use a helmet for a period and states that by wearing one, “you are perceived in the football world as soft.”
But could the helmet be the thing that saves the bump in the long-term, allowing the AFL to retain its physicality?
Either way, the AFL, with the bump rule, has set upon a path that will fundamentally alter how the game is played.
The helmet might be seen as an extreme measure, but will its use really significantly alter Aussie Rules for the worse, or is it just the negative perceptions of it that have meant it has been rarely mentioned in this bump debate?
These negative perceptions would need to be changed.
As Mahoney states: “Rather than calling blokes who are wearing helmets names we should be admiring them for their courage. I’m sure nobody thinks that Nathan Burke and Shaun Hart were ‘soft’ players.
“Helmet wearers are willing to put up with ridicule and attacks at their character to do what they love, play football.”
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...
(19)
Kurt said | September 1st 2009 @ 3:53am | Report comment
No. Next question?
Freud of Football said | September 1st 2009 @ 4:04am | Report comment
It was mandatory for juniors at the club I played for to wear helmets, I was in my last year of U16’s when they bought the rule in and boy did we cop it from the other teams and to be perfectly honest, I don’t think it helped much.
One of my teammates had his head over the ball and got an accidental knee to the forehead, just below the helmet, cracked his skull and eyesocket so there was little use in him wearing it.
Helmets simply aren’t the answer, the game has been played for long enough without them, the answer is to let the players get on with the game. I was astounded after being overseas for just two years how soft the game had gotten in such a short time period, no doubt due to the AFL’s constant tinkering with the rules in the hope they’ll “improve their product”.
They seem to forget, it’s not “their product”, the game is the people’s and the AFL needs to stop screwing around with it.
Michael C said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:28am | Report comment
If only every game could be umpired like they let the Grand Final each year be umpired.
Alas, they (whomever ‘they’ are) don’t do it that way.
simonjzw said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Adrian, there has been considerable research in both Rugby Union and Rugby League that shows helmets do not prevent concussion. The helmets do protect the ears and help prevent head lacerations but these injuries aren’t as prevalent in the AFL.
Therefore there is no medical case for them to be made compulsory.
In a body contact game occasionally a head injury through collision is going to happen, get over it.
Redb said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
The only thing that is mandatory in AFL footy is courage to put your head over the ball.
Redb
CraigB said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Since American football introduced the hard shell helmet, originally for protection, concussion have continued to rise. This is in part because coaches now saw them as a weapon and made players use their heads to stop the oppn. Also the false sense of protection lead to sloppy techniques in tackling and blocking meaning more problems.
megatron said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:18am | Report comment
No doubt it would decrease concussions etc but I can’t see it happening. There will be real resistance from players and fans. At one point I thought it inevitable that the AFL would go down that path in the long term but they don’t seem to be interested
AndyRoo said | September 1st 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
If there consistent witht he rule, touch the head and youa re gone then players will either stop bumping or much more likely will develop techniques/change their game so that the bump makes contact much lower and is done in a more controlled manor.
When rugby league brought in the head high tackle rule there were teething problems and people complaining in a very similar manner to what is happening now in AFL, but no doubt the game is better for it now.
The amount of times we hear “oh come on that was off the shoulder” and “you cant help that”, but palyers adapted and it turns out you can play football without hitting someones head.
Pauly Walnuts said | September 1st 2009 @ 7:07pm | Report comment
Do you mean “over the shoulder”? Otherwise can you tell me what you mean by “off” the shoulder as I aint hearing that when I watch the footy?
sbb said | February 25th 2010 @ 11:19pm (4 weeks ago) | Report comment
PW
I think AR means that initial contact was made at the shoulder…
Redb said | September 1st 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
I tell you one thing it would be a nightmare for commentators and fans trying to pick out the players and umps would be buggered with their Brownlow votes unable to sight the blondy or ranga who dashes off half back.
Redb
Brett McKay said | September 1st 2009 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
maybe Redb the players should wear unique numbers to identify them…
Michael C said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:31am | Report comment
dripping with sacrasm,….however, on the WA SoO example, wear a small number on their chest as well.
Pauly Walnuts said | September 1st 2009 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
I think it is a worthwhile discussion. It’s very unlikely to ever go ahead, but you raise the fact that through the administration of the game Demetriou et al has led us down the track of considering/ discussing such matters. My issue is that plenty of players have taken a knock to the head during the game, and free kicks have been awarded but no action at the tribunal. It almost seems that the AFL are looking at the degree of a players injuries and imposing a sanction to the player causing the damage. If Sewell had gotten up from the hit, wiped off some blood etc and played out the rest of the game, would Lloyd have copped weeks? (I’m certainly not a Lloyd fan by the way). The AFL have seen the injury caused and imposed a penalty reflecting the nature of the injury. So to be fair, little knocks to the head when you go to tackle a player and they duck, so the tackle goes high, should result in penalties also. They aren’t necessarily intentional high tackles, but if high contact is made shouldn’t a penalty be imposed by the tribunal???
Brett McKay said | September 1st 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
(apologies if this post turns up twice, my network demons seem to be back)
Adrian, back in June I wrote an article suggesting Wallaby Captain Stirling Mortlock should move to fullback, so as to take him out of the front line defence, and to help reduce the risk of head knocks which he’s had over his career.
Naturally the discussion turned to headgear, and their ability if any to reduce the impact of concussion. One of the final posters was a doctor who also talked about what he called “punch-drunk syndrome”, and on the topic of headgear he added that “As far as we can tell, headgear helps, but only marginally.”
The Doc and several other Roarers included links to studies, and if you can overlook a little self-promotion, you can see them all at http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/06/04/a-switch-for-the-wallaby-captain-for-his-own-safety/
Midfielder said | September 2nd 2009 @ 8:24am | Report comment
You can never take the accident out of a games natural movenment … this is a tackle in a Football match watch from about the 26 second mark … BTW not for the squeamish … the second link shows the extent of the break …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSaRmAuQtAk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmarinators.net%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D4113.0&feature=player_embedded
No idea if this player ever recovered but we still tackle in football…
http://i32.tinypic.com/1zq7fi8.jpg
Pauly Walnuts said | September 2nd 2009 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
That’s disgusting! A fairway off topic though.
Midfielder said | September 2nd 2009 @ 11:30pm | Report comment
How so the bump is not wanted because it may cause an injury … but people will still play and accidential and on puropse bumps will be made… just as a studes up tackle in football is outside the laws of football does not mean it won’t happen…. as in the youtube clip…
Sometimes things just happen … my example is exterme … but tackleing is still allowed…
Pippinu said | September 2nd 2009 @ 11:47pm | Report comment
I think I know which clip this is without even looking, I’ve seen it a few times on TV – it’s pretty ordinary all right – I’m not curious enough to check if I’m right – I don’t really want to see it again!!