A couple of weeks ago, the Lance Franklin apologists and media doomsayers proclaimed the ‘end of the bump’ after Franklin was outed for two weeks for cleaning up Ben Cousins.
Thankfully, the bump returned at the MCG on Sunday afternoon and illustrated perfectly that reports of its demise were premature.
Brendon Goddard delivered the perfect bump, hip and shoulder if you wish, on Magpie Dale Thomas. Contact was entirely to the body and Thomas was shaken and forced to the bench. It was text book bumping.
We also saw the perfect example of two players 100% focussed on the ball in a way that only Australian football delivers when Heath Shaw and Kosi collided shortly after.
That both players were up and about should not confuse anyone as to the toughness illustrated.
The game sure as heck ain’t soft.
BigAl
Guest
Now you're starting to hit a few targets . . . Riewoldt; Pendlebury 'taken out'; Del Santo hitting 2007 form... If Colllingwood had gotten up in this game, those same 'hard old men' would've said Thomas's being hit - and then recovering to get back on the field was what turned it for the pies !
Michael C
Roar Guru
Okay, Riewoldt getting on top of Presti played a fair part too - - including his accurate long range kicking........he looked every inch the inspiring captain on Sunday. Collingwood did though, buckle under the tackling pressure, and the loss of Pendlebury from the midfield, as he's perhaps their best equipped midfielder to stand up to that and deliver well from within the corridor.
Redb
Roar Guru
Ok your a girl. :-) Goddard's bump was fine and well executed. Note: BigAl is never to be commisisoned onto the "Laws of the Game Committee" forthwith. Redb
BigAl
Guest
Call me an 'old softie' or even worse . . . 'a girl' - but I'm not a keen fan of any tactic designed to 'take someone out" - where's the sporting skill in that ??!! - unless you're talking Boxing. Long ago the AFL banned the tactic of during a tackle, lifting someone and slamming him into the ground - a la 'Monster John' Ironmonger of Fitzroy. So why permit the bump/shirtfront ? BTW ! - only 'old hard men' could believe that the Saints/Pies game 'turned' on the Thomas shirtfront - utter rubbish !
Michael C
Roar Guru
A lot of the grey area is when the ball is there and one guy goes the ball and the other goes the man - and it's all deemed legal because of the within 5 metres statute. That almost free reign within 5 metres has been exploited so much, including in marking contests to seemingly allow all sorts of pushing etc. A good number of the tightened up rules of late have been good (in the main). And on the weekend, there were some nice examples of players behind, using formarms/elbows to hold position and 'push off' and avoided hands in the back. It looks so much better. That's always the thing come the finals, as we get down to the last 6 and 4 then 2 - ideally, we all get to focus on how the game should be played and umpires as the best at their craft are out there at the same time for all to see.
simonjzw
Roar Pro
Michael, don't forget the shepeherd put on by Nick Maxwell in the goal square, another very well executed hip and shoulder (although personally I don't think you should be able to take out a guy on the mark so soon after a play on). I loved all 3 physical clashes and I would be very disappointed if the bump vanished from the game. I'm all for protecting the head but as I've said elsewhere on The Roar there is 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 body and head 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. Also the law in it's present wording stops a player turning side on to protect himself when he arrives at a contest fractionally late. If all he can do in that situation is tackle we'll see more head clashes. I say relax the rules in the second situation - the umpire should pay a free kick if any 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. Leave the bump alone please.
Matt
Guest
I enjoyed Maxwell's bump on McQualter. Good to see no head injuries either!
Michael C
Roar Guru
BigAl - perhaps that's the knife edge for the bump. However, Goddard did execute very well - - thus, the luck flows more freely. Thomas was a bit winded - - and could easily come out with busted ribs. As an 'individaual action' this was critical for the Saints in starting to really exert 'front on' pressure as they call it. It shook up Thomas, but, rattled Collingwood. Their forward entries went to pot - they lost precision, lost the capacity to run the ball forward and started bombing to a Pagan's paddock style set up (sans Carey!!). The Pies battled on and the Saints still weren't able to deliver the knock out blow until the last 10 mins.
BigAl
Guest
. . . 'glorius' if it works - tragic if it doesn't ! Over the last few weeks we've all become aware of 3 famous ...'bumps' ! 2 have led to serious head injury and one was ... 'gloriously successful' On these figures that works out to 66% risk of serious head injury ! - for mine thats just not acceptable in this day and age. I know my calcs. are base on selective data, but Michael C, what do you consider to be an acceptable percentage ?
BigAl
Guest
I saw the 'bump' ! Goddard was lucky - Thomas was very lucky
Michael C
Roar Guru
Luc - generally I agree with you, and the whole feet off the ground with guys trying to get hips into the head region and all that - certainly great that's been outlawed - - but, did you see the Goddard bump on Thomas - - that was glorious. Thomas was back on the ground later on. It's that element of 'edge' to a contest that gives meaning to putting your body on the line for the team. (although, these days, the amazing thing is how many bumps/tackles on unsuspecting players come from the direction of the interchange gates.)
Luc
Guest
The bump will go and I won't miss it. Having a way to legal way to take out a player is just a loophole that should have been removed years ago
Michael C
Roar Guru
Ah yeah - there's risk and responsibility and good technique. True - if Thomas had perhaps fumbled the ball and dropped his head at the last second then Goddard might have worn a penalty.... ....but, in reality, the same applies with throwing an arm out to tackle....such as poor Lindsay Gilbee coped twice in a minute. That he got whacked around the neck and not clocked in the face perhaps saved the tacklers from further sanction. Risk and responsibility - Buddy showed poor technique. Lloyd showed a lack of responsibility. Goddard got it 100% right.
Tiger Town
Guest
No that isn't proof that the bump will survive at all. What everyone was saying is that the risk is too great to use the bump. Goddard got it right, but he could have just as easily got it wrong. Regail in the bump while you can, but you are watching its demise.
Redb
Roar Guru
MC, Watched the reply of that game last night it sure shook Dale Thomas to the bone. Great bump. This is the edge I think St kilda will have over most teams except perhaps Geelong, they are an older playing group with hardened bodies. Redb