The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Relax, relax, the AFL bump isn’t dead

Roar Rookie
18th September, 2013
Advertisement
Roar Rookie
18th September, 2013
11

“Here Ye, Here Ye, The Bump is Dead!” is the call of pretty much every town crier and commentator in the AFL universe at the moment.

This hysteria follows two separate incidents – one involving Buddy Franklin and the other involving Paul Chapman. Two separate bumps, with both players suspended after their bump hit their target’s head.

Despite differences in the bumps, in the aftermath of their suspensions the reaction was almost identical.

But let’s take an objective look at the “bump rule” and compare these two instances against legal bumps throughout the season. Let’s find out whether the bump is truly dead, and what commentators mean when they say that the bump is dead.

Since the introduction and the subsequent changes to the rule ‘banning’ the bump, the AFL has sought to do one thing – to protect players from head, neck, brain and spinal injuries.

The rule has been clarified several times, yet it hasn’t stopped commentators from mourning the loss of the bump. Forceful bumps to the head are not sustainable, in the same way that the 1970s footballing culture of clotheslining or coat-hanging someone wasn’t sustainable.

The amount of footballers sustained had head or brain injuries as a result of incidents on the football field was simply unacceptable, and the AFL has rightly taken a stand against situations in which players are hit above the shoulders.

In the last few weeks a few incidents have stood out among the angry mob that has formed on this issue.

Advertisement

Firstly, the Chapman bump against Port Adelaide in the first semi-final. Chapman has stated that he thinks the AFL has gone soft on bumps after his suspension, but what Chapman has to remember is that he jumped.

Players that jump increase the risk of causing contact with the head, which happened in the case of Chapman’s bump. While the player wasn’t injured, the incident was reckless, stupid and unnecessary.

In the Franklin case in Round 23 against the Swans, he was unfortunate that his bump made contact with Malceski’s head. He was subsequently banned for two weeks, reduced to one with an early plea.

Those defending Franklin have pointed to his height as being the cause of why his bump went high. In reality, Franklin did not get low enough to ensure that his bump would not have made contact with Malceski.

Both players elected to go for the bump – both hit high.

We can now move past the histrionics of the rabid members of the AFL community and take a look at other recent examples.

Sydney’s Ted Richards was initially handed down a suspension, which was reduced to a reprimand with an early plea. In the bump, Richards did not leave the ground, and while he made high contact, it wasn’t deemed forceful enough to warrant a suspension.

Advertisement

While these cases have been highly publicised, many other examples of the bump has gone unnoticed by the hysterical crowd that comment on the AFL’s protection of the head.

Take a look at Tom Bell’s hit on Trent Cotchin in Round 21 – it was a perfectly legal shepherd that got Cotchin out of the play.

The reality is that the AFL is not banning the bumps. They are merely protecting the head and spinal cord of players, which the league has a responsibility to do.

So quiet down, relax and enjoy the rest of the season. The bump is not dead, but high contact is.

close