“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.
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.
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.
Edan Nissen
Roar Rookie
I completely forgot about that bump, it was a solid crunch from the big man and a perfect example of two things. 1. How to execute a bump 2. That height isn't necessarily a factor in hitting the player high.
Edan Nissen
Roar Rookie
That is like saying the tackle is going to die, because if it slips up then a free kick will be paid against a player, a tactic which several players have already used to their advantage. Unless you think that the high tackle rule should also be removed, it makes sense that they try to protect the head. It isn't going to stop players from laying a tackle. Still plenty of legal ways to bump, and there will continue to be several legal bumps in the seasons to come as the game continues to be a physical game. Fear mongers love to pick certain examples were players were suspended. However, to each one of those contentious bumps, there is about 10 other perfect bumps that are executed that they ignore.
Edan Nissen
Roar Rookie
Seriously? Do you not remember the what the system was before the MRP? It was a tribunal system, that was done on a case by case basis. That was more of a lottery. At least now you understand that everything is sorted by a category. You might not agree with the assessment, but at least they are clarifying the decisions. Previously, players just got suspended and weren't sure what was taken into account that lead to them getting the punishment.
vocans
Guest
Far as I know the shirtfront is still legal as long as you don't hit above the shirt. Probably shouldn't be allowed to hit below the shirt either. A gap in the rules?
me, I like football
Guest
The bumps dead. The MRP is a lotto. Not worth the risk. so be it.
hawker
Guest
In buddy's case the ball was well gone before he got there. Of course their intention is to hurt the other player, its a contact sport after all.
your wrong
Guest
Unless they change the ruling for next year then the bump will be dead. Purely because the risk of being suspened is to high. Hit 99% of the body and lightly touch the head and your gone, if the player hits their head on the ground your gone. A players best bet is to try and clash heads then at least you have a 50/50 chance of getting off. The system is ridiculous and needs to be exaimed or "Here Ye, Here Ye, The Bump is Dead!”
Footyfact
Guest
Totally agree, if I was Buddy or Chappy's coach, I'd be asking them why they did not attempt to smother the kick. A much more beneficial act for the team, rather than running in to a bloke who is off balance trying to kick. Clearly their intention was to hurt their opponent rather than benefit their team by smothering the kick
Dockersfan
Guest
Dare i say it, some journalists see it as a great page filler that appeals to the masses. I've seen a lot of great legal bumps this year and i remember a terrific one by Sandilands on Stevie J in Round 1 last year that was a great example of what is legal. maybe we should play that to Chappy to show him what a good bump is.
TomC
Roar Guru
Totally agree. It's okay to bump, just as long as you take on the risk of making contact with the opponent's head. That's how it's been enforced, and that's exactly as it should be.
Cat
Roar Guru
Author said, "Richards did not leave the ground, and while he made high contact, it wasn’t deemed forceful enough to warrant a suspension." That is factually incorrect, only reason Rchards was not suspended was because he pleaded guilty and got a 25% reduction, the act was deemed to be worthy of a suspension though.