Is it time to bump the bump?

The recent furore surrounding the suspension, and subsequent pardon, of Melbourne’s Jack Viney has raised debate as to whether the bump needs to be bumped off.

In recent years, several players have incurred the wrath of the AFL tribunal in relation to bumps delivered which have resulted in concussions.

The AFL have made it clear that the head is sacrosanct and no doubt hopes this revelation will protect it from law-suits down the track.

Even as I write there’s a part of me saying, “Good luck with that.”

The confusion for most followers of the game is that many of these suspensions have been handed out to players who would appear to have made the ball their object, with the subsequent head contact seemingly accidental.

In days of old, of course, picking off the chasing player to protect a teammate carrying the ball was considered an art form. Not to mention, mandatory and perfectly legal.

Then there was the player running with the flight of the ball who was considered fair game for anybody heading the other way. By way of illustration, I give you Stan Magro filleting Alex Jesaulenko many years ago.

It still amazes me today that Jezza ever got up after that. The Collingwood fans, of course, loved it. The Carlton fans were incensed. I am reminded of a heavy clash in the SANFL years ago involving Sturt and Port Adelaide.

The Port player was cleaned up and down for the count. As the trainer signalled to the bench that their man was in deep trouble, and it was time to remove him from the contest, the wife of a Sturt player was rumoured to have yelled out, “Never mind the stretcher – get a shovel.”

The bump panders to our most basic instincts – human nature laid bare.

In Adelaide, Steven Rowe (former South Fremantle, Norwood and Adelaide FC player) has led the charge on radio 5AA to stop suspending players for what he calls ‘football collisions’. In his day, and for that matter ‘my day’, none of these recent events would have resulted in suspensions.

None of them, or none that I can remember, resulted in a free kick being paid so, presumably, the umpires saw nothing untoward. Of course, at the moment of the incident occurring, the umpires cannot know of the extent of the damage done.

Nor can they, or should they, award free kicks on what might have happened – only on what they actually saw.

Rowe’s logic would suggest that if no free kick was paid then the bumping player should get off. In that case, neither Nat Fyfe, Richard Douglas or Jack Viney had anything to worry about.

In my view, Viney’s subsequent successful appeal has only muddied the waters where many think it has provided clarification. According to many, including Steven Rowe, the bump is part of the fabric of the game and must remain.

Others are less certain. Rowe’s radio partner, former Crows captain Chris McDermott, believes the time has come for the bump to go.

Part of the confusion comes from the fact that most are talking about a bump delivered from the front (Fyfe and Viney), or from an angle (Douglas).

Two players running side by side and bumping each other to cause a loss of balance is not seen as particularly dangerous and is still considered perfectly reasonable.

The AFL, however, have targeted those collisions where head contact is made. In the case of Fyfe and Viney this was as a direct result of the contact.

In the Douglas case the bump was delivered perfectly under the rules but subsequent head contact with the ground, resulting in Callum Ward’s concussion, was enough to suspend on the grounds of Douglas taking a poor option.

The welfare of Ward should have been, apparently, Douglas’ only consideration.

In each and every case, the damage to the head was accidental. Fyfe even suffered a slight head injury as a result of his decision to bump. The AFL saw the need to punish each man who initiated contact.

Presumably, this is primarily so that it may be seen to be doing something about collisions resulting in head contact – in the hope that this action today might prevent a legal action tomorrow.

American football has already set the scene for what may, and is likely to, follow down the track.

No doubt the AFL is keen to head this potential off at the pass. At the same time, the AFL attempts to satisfy Steven Rowe and his ilk by taking pains to tell us the bump is not dead at all. It is alive and well and only needs to be delivered properly to prosper.

Richard Douglas delivered it properly but still found himself in the stands for two weeks. Ergo, it is not the action that brings suspension but the result of that action. You can see why some are confused given the result of a perfectly delivered bump cannot be predicted.

Viney was eventually let off because it was deemed he had no option. Football is about decision making. He had time to decide to bump, to turn his shoulder into the oncoming Lynch, therefore he also had time to decide not to do that.

I agree that had Viney not done what he did then he might well have suffered some injury.

I suspect this possible outcome has not been thoroughly thought through by the AFL. I suspect the problem largely stems from the fact that in Aussie Rules the instinctive thing is to turn the shoulder into an oncoming player.

All things follow from that instinct.

In rugby league, given the nature of the game, tackles are invariably ‘front-on’ an the players do that, and expect that. So it can be done and it can be done without the tackler being hurt.

The problem for the AFL is to educate players over the next several years that they must tackle in that ‘front-on’ scenario and learn to do it safely. It may take some time to overcome a century of instinct.

In the meantime. the AFL is concerned with player welfare. The game is now very professional by which I mean there’s a lot of money flying about. In the days of essentially amateur footy, players accepted their lot as ‘part of the game’ and subsequent years spent in retirement suffering the long term effects of a footy career were equally accepted.

I doubt this generation of footballers will be so accepting.

I’m quite sure that the AFL doubts it as well. This ‘player welfare’ concern is less about today than it is about minimising legal action in the future.

The current stance on the ‘bump’ and it’s attending issues of head high contact are the thin end of a very big wedge. There are a dozen ways a player might suffer concussion in a game of footy and most of them involve accidents. What can the AFL do about that?

Imagine a young player today on the verge of a ten year career. By the time he retires he has suffered six, seven, eight concussions and all of them resulted in the other player being suspended.

Twenty, thirty years further on our young star is suffering regular migraine attacks, he’s on the verge of some dementia, or both. Does the AFL really think that player’s lawyer will say, “Mate, there’s nothing we can do – the AFL suspended all the players who bumped you in the head – you’ve got no case”?

My gut feeling tells me that it is far more likely the lawyer will sue the AFL on the grounds that they allowed the bump to continue and so put players at risk.

The AFL officials, sitting in the grandstand, have no control over how a bump may be delivered or what the end result might be. Having a rule which says, “Bump – but do it properly” will not cut the mustard when push comes to shove regarding compensation.

The only option open to the AFL is to ban the bump completely – or, at the very least, ban any bump involving the shoulder which is delivered from in front of the oncoming player.

The AFL cannot ban head contact in a game which is played from all points of the compass, with no concept of offside, and which involves players jumping (and, of course, coming down again).

Accidents will happen, head contact will occur, concussions will result. It is a given.

Will banning the bump save much in the way of players and injury. In truth, probably not much given we are currently talking about three incidents in 60 odd games this season.

But the only way to remove the confusion is to ban the front-on bump so Fyfe, Douglas and Viney are forced to approach their contest differently in full knowledge that to do otherwise will result in suspension, or, at the very least, a free kick.

The Viney decision, in my view, has just confused people more. It is the right decision for those, like Rowe, with an emotional attachment to the ‘spirit’ of the game, whatever that is, but the players are still liable to suspension if they bump.

This decision has not solved that problem at all. It is a difficult one for those of us who have watched footy for decades. I understand where Steven Rowe is coming from but I believe the money that is now required to make this game happen also means that the bump is dead, if only because the AFL cannot afford the financial burden which may follow if it survives.

In Steven Rowe’s day it was all about the game. Today, it is all about the money – pure and simple. I’m not sure the AFL gives a rat’s backside about the history, the tradition, the ‘spirit’ or the ‘fabric’ of the game – because, in this day and age, I’m not sure they can afford the luxury.