To bump or not to bump? That is the question for Geelong coach Chris Scott as he struggles to understand how to avoid head-high hits in the whatever-it-takes mentality of the AFL.
Scott will lose onballer Taylor Hunt for Saturday night’s blockbuster against Collingwood after he accepted a one-week penalty for contact to the head of Brisbane’s Daniel Rich.
It’s a fate that Fremantle’s Nathan Fyfe has also fallen foul of in round two.
Brownlow fancy Fyfe will miss a shot at the coveted medal after he accepted a two-week ban for a head knock on Gold Coast’s Michael Rischitelli.
Scott said he’d be seeking advice on how to best help his players avoid head-high hits and the punishment that now follows.
He said Hunt was being “punished for bad luck” but the Cats had no alternative but to accept it and get better at avoiding suspensions.
“This one falls into the category of us accepting the penalty because the odds are stacked against you,” Scott said on Tuesday.
“The way it’s interpreted now is if you go to block an opposition player, even if you have no alternative, you’re liable for any head coach.
“It’s a tough one to coach.”
The 2011 premiership coach said the awful case of NRL player Alex McKinnon’s broken neck was a “sobering reminder” of life being bigger than sport.
“The reality is the risk is inherent in all of our contact sports,” he said.
“We support the lawmakers in working as hard as they possibly can to reduce the likelihood of these things.”
McKinnon remains in hospital with a serious spinal injury after a three-way tackle gone wrong.
But Scott dismissed suggestions it could lead to the end of the bump — at least at Geelong.
“When your teammate has the ball and is being chased by an opposition player within five metres, you have an obligation to get in the way,” he said.
“We think Taylor did absolutely everything he could to avoid breaking the rules.”
Fremantle coach Ross Lyon is also counting the cost of a key player’s suspension.
Fyfe bumped Rischitelli, resulting in an accidental clash of heads and both players were forced from the field with gashes.
The match review panel deemed Fyfe responsible because he chose to bump instead of tackle.
“There wasn’t any real intention with Nathan. But the reality is there’s a rule, and there’s an action that he’s done,” Lyon said.
Zac Dawson will also miss Fremantle’s trip back to the MCG for the grand final re-match after he accepted a tripping charge and a one-match suspension.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
The helmets were actually contributing to the problem as players were using their heads as battering rams.
Cat
Roar Guru
Every sporting administrator would also be closely watching the NFL's preliminary concussion settlement of $765mil USD that was rejected as not enough by a US Judge. While the laws vary from country to country its still a worry for any contact sport, especially since this is the NFL who do wear helmets compared to other codes who do not protect the head.
vocans
Guest
I think the fear is that you can lose the kids because parents won't want them to play a dangerous game. NRL has that issue right now, and the 'lifting tackle's' days are numbered. I thought it already ended with the 'spear tackle'. Interesting euphemism: 'lifting' as opposed to 'spear'! Bit of spin going on there. The spear/lifting tackle should be outlawed and is certainly never necessary in AFL let alone NRL.
Mad Dog Mickans
Guest
Sad when a bloke gets 2 games for a bump ,players staging for free kicks and acting more hurt than they are is a blight on the game. Make the time fit the crime . If everyone walks away ,let it go. The bump was fair and there was a clash of heads , accidents happen. It is a contact sport after all. Like Jack Ziebell from North now changing his whole game style and the instinct that made him such a great player is gone. He now hesitates and has to rethink every move , a sad time in footy.
Axle an the guru
Guest
It is absolute bullsh#t that footballers can be suspended for someone accidently getting hit in the head. Fyfe may have had a choice to tackle, but he certainly didnt have time to think about it, and if something like that costs a bloke a brownlow, then that just shows how stupid this has become. No one in todays football wants to deliberately hurt someone around the head. Where has the commonsence all gone. Anyone who has played the game knows that these things happen in a hundredth of a second, and you just carnt stop. A lot of these peanuts that make rules an issue suspensions have played the game an should know what the situation is like.
Dalgety Carrington
Guest
It's a reactionary (to the Thomas/Reid incident) adjustment to the law, which I would argue does not have any real preventative effect on brain trauma. Did the two incidents on the weekend result in any concussions? No. How many incidents over the past ten years has a clash of heads resulted in concussion? Certainly nowhere near as many as heads crashing into the turf. So it seems on the face of it the law really just penalises the unlucky and does little to prevent concussions and brain trauma in any significant way. It is also another shot in the war on the bump.
Lewis Stewart
Roar Rookie
I guess they're expecting him to have a sheep dog out there. Bloody nonsense rule.
vocans
Guest
There is a real question here: How much responsibility does a player have to protect his own head? Players are taught, or should be, how to approach a contest for the ball while protecting their body and head. When you go to pick up the ball from the ground in a contest you turn your body to the opposition. More often than not this results in a clash of hips and shoulders, or backsides, and the player who gets the ball is not his in the head. This cannot happen if players go in head first no matter what. They choose not to protect their head. The player who does ends up hitting their head with his body, hip and shoulder, for instance. The current rule pings him, and can even report him, yet the one hit was not protecting himself. If he had been they would have had a safe contest. Of course, players have to avoid contact to the head, but they should also approach the footy by using their body to gain advantage over it, and to protect themselves. I don't have a solution for this, but the current rule actually encourages players to go headfirst, thinking they'll be not only protected by the rule (the other player will pull out) and the ump, but also might get a free out of it. It encourages reckless play. It's a bit like ducking in the tackle, and diving at the ball.
Cat
Roar Guru
So much publicity for Fyfe's bump but he had a choice to tackle or bum. T Hunt's incident, which is barely getting mentioned, there was no option to tackle, he was sheparding a player without the ball, if he tackled it would clearly be a free against. How exactly does a player shepard without bumping?
Cat
Roar Guru
yes it is rather ridiculous isn't?
Michael huston
Guest
On the topic of Fyfe, anyone else noticed how obsessed Damian Barrett is with him? Considering he's supposed to be one of the leading footy journalists, his flat out favouritism of Fyfe is simply unprofessional. Calling him the best player in the comp? He's one of the best, but there is no way he can be considered the best above consistent skilled class acts and team leaders such as Watson, Pendlebury, Ablett or Mitchell. Barrett needs to keep his man crushes to himself and get on with doing proper reporting rather than fangirling.