James Kelly failed to refute a two-match ban for rough conduct against Brendon Goddard’s head, and Joel Selwood sums it all up with a tweet: ‘Sad day… The bump is dead!’. This underpins a huge debacle.
However, is a funeral for the bump an overreaction?
AFL is widely known to be an aggressive, adrenalin-fuelled sport complemented by skill and talent. And we can grant that the ‘bump’ is a conceived tactic of these two renowned aspects of the Aussie sport.
It should be recognised however, that there is a viable reason for the Match Review Panel (MRP) to perform a concentrated analysis on any actions within a match that endangers a player’s wellbeing and safety.
Within the aggressive nature of defending possession through bumps and tackles, a careful and meticulous point system is followed by the MRP in order to assess each situation of incorrect conduct methodically.
It is the MRP’s most important job and with an immense duty of care, they need to deliberate each punishment with precision.
Although the MRP’s idea of ‘rough conduct’ engages in a concept to enhance safety throughout AFL, there’s a very clear demise in the basic dynamic contact that has once consistently occurred during matches throughout the past 150 years.
It’s easy to criticise the MRP and furthermore the AFL as a whole, but it’s also easier forget the rationale that reinforces the MRP’s decisions.
Rough conduct recognises the level of hazard seen in game-play and this encompasses all coarse actions utilised to achieve possession, irrelevant of the prevalence of injuries within cases.
Ultimately, Australian Football employs a durable contest of tackles, shepherding and even the battle for contested marks. And no one, including the MRP can ignore that the main tactics of a successful match are peppered with forceful contact.
Keeping in mind the safety of the players, the traditions of AFL style, the AFL/MRP responsibilities, there’s one question that should be asked of everyone within the AFL community, is the nature of the game evolving in an unwanted direction?
Alysia Thomas-Sam
Roar Rookie
Obviously it's not inconclusive to the MRP. But this article and comments say it is. Ok you can think it's mad TomC but it's basics. The footage is inconclusive because we disagree, relying solely on footage is ignorant of the other information available. Goddard's initial statement means something even if you don't think it does.
Macca
Guest
It is dead if the players don't perform it any more, under the rules the drop kick (and I think the place kick) are still legal but I would describe them as dead
josh
Roar Rookie
It's only dead if it is outlawed in the laws of the game. As it stands the laws of the game allow it. How you perform it is where the risk is.
Macca
Guest
Jimbo - The point with Betts head clash was that Thomas did the same thing a got nothing. As I have said I am not saying Bett's should of got off but surely there is a step between 0 and 5 weeks for essentially same act.
Macca
Guest
I played 250 games Tom and got all kinds of knocks (I got cleaned up pretty well by Mark Yeates once) but never got a knock I couldn't remember that was worth a 2 week suspension.
Macca
Guest
David - I agree on the wieghting of intent - in the Bett;s case becasue the impact was rated severe it accounted for 4 of the 8 activation points, the high contact (which is either high or not) was 2 so even if they appealed and got the intent down graded to negligent he still would of had 7 activation points.
Macca
Guest
The levels are negligent, reckless & intentional. Reckless isn't accidental, Thomas' was deemed accidental and therefore no charge was laid, even if they wanted to lay achrge and thought it accidental surely "negligent is the best option.
TomC
Roar Guru
The footage is not inconclusive! Urgh, this is mad.
Alysia Thomas-Sam
Roar Rookie
I understand that everyone else can see the footage,I guess I just have an opposing opinion to 'everyone'. The fundamentals of Aussie Rules is entirely 'rough', tackling is the main tactic to achieve possession and it's the roughest way to do so. If Goddard couldn't even recall contact to his face then that's saying something, literally. And yes, I understand there's footage. But, I'm sure anyone can recall the amount of times we've heard the footage is 'inconclusive' when a goal was referred to the vision at hand. I know the suspension has been passed, but I still think it's interesting to notice that 'rough' conduct occurs throughout every match and doesn't result in injury (i.e high contact within a tackle results in a free kick) yet this bump, that was not even felt at the time it was committed, warrants a punishment?
TomC
Roar Guru
Is it really, though? We can all see the vision. We don't have to rely on Goddard's word. It's pretty clear that the contact was pretty rough, and that it was high. I don't see why you're going with Goddard's word over what everyone can see with their eyes.
TomC
Roar Guru
Out of curiosity, Macca, have you ever played football? You pick up all kinds of knocks that you can't remember later on.
David Lazzaro
Roar Pro
I feel that the MRP points system needs adjusting so that far more weight goes on to the intent of the action rather than the outcome. If 2 players throw haymakers and one breaks an opponents jaw but the other has glancing contact, the penalties will be vastly different. One player ends up better off due to dumb luck. I also think that it should be noted that Kelly only got 2 weeks due to his carry over points from last year. Without them, he would have received 1 week, a fair penalty under the current rules as he made contact with the head. The real discrepancy was in the Lindsay Thomas decision, which was a clear error given the obvious contact to Ben Reid's head. By letting that one through, the MRP have further confused an issue that didn't need to get any more confusing!
Nathan of Perth
Guest
"but I would have been happy for the MRP to mark this one as accidental." It did, was graded reckless rather than intentional.
Macca
Guest
That is the issue with the MRP, the fact he got a broken jaw leads to a rating of "severe" impact which is 4 points no matter whether it was accidental or intentional. Bett's got treated the the same as if he had of thrown an elbow.
Jimbo
Guest
I actually agree with the AFL on the sliding rule, however some umpires interpretations are clearly off the mark, sliding in with boots coming first is extremely dangerous and Goodes had/has a habit of it. Macca head to head is not a bump, and clearly not a bump you want to see repeated, Wright broke his jaw from Eddies bump. Let me ask you this, is a bloke more courageous for running blindly with the flight of the ball, and eyes on the ball, or the bloke lining him up and knocking him into next week.
Stavros
Guest
I think Betts was very unlucky. At the time I thought it was great by both players. There was no malice and he was unlucky that the St. Kilda player received a broken jaw. I guess once we found out he had a broken jaw, then he was in trouble, but I would have been happy for the MRP to mark this one as accidental.
Macca
Guest
Jimbo - I would hardly call what bett's did a shirt front, it was hip to hip, shoulder to shoulder and head to head, 5 weeks, Thomas was similar and got 0 weeks. There have been plenty of other "hip & shoulders" that have resulted in suspensions often due to either the recipient not paying enough attention to their surroundings (like Goddard) or bumps being mere centimetres off perfect which has resulted in head clashes or ohter injuries. I can accept the AFL getting rid of some of the filth from the 80's and early 90's but they seem to be intent on making the game injury free (see the sliding rule) which is going beyond "community standards" and playing to the mythical "soccer moms". Oh and I have been on the receiving end of more than one shirt front and big hits (one from Mark Yeates) and I would hate to see them go, I realise that in playing football you have to put your body at risk.
Macca
Guest
Richard - I am confused - the bump isn't dead but it's too risky to perform? which one is it?
Richard
Guest
The bump is certainly not dead, it's just that your timing needs to be spot on. Probably too risky to do nowadays. In saying that, I personally think the MRP has made some 'funny' decisions starting with lindsay Thomas. I think people just want consistency and clarity.
Macca
Guest
It's in decline because the AFL have made a concerted effort to get rid of it, it started when Byron Pickett was running around for North taking blokes out with the perfect shirt front. And how do you not accept the "accidental" arguments? Do you think players deliberately clashed heads? And how is it that in the MRP's own words Thomas' head clash concussing Reid was "accidental" when he deliberately bumped but Bett's head clash wasn't accidental? And if Bett's had of done exactly the same thing but their heads hadn't clashed he would of got 0 weeks, not 5! And you admit the bump is in decline but yet you argue against it's death? If it isn't dead it is dying! And you say "What's so hard?" but yet you admit "the MRP being vague and inconsistent about what’s tolerable and what’s not." What's so hard is that the MRP are vague and inconsistent.