Head-high hits will dominate the AFL landscape for at least a week longer after a spate of clashes this weekend.
Several AFL players look set for spells on the sidelines despite intense scrutiny on the bump following Jack Viney’s case.
Injury-plagued Hawthorn could be the hardest hit, with Jarryd Roughead likely to face sanction for a high bump on former teammate Ben McGlynn.
The diminutive Swan felt the full force of the Hawthorn forward, with his head making solid contact with the ground on the way down.
With a treatment room full of senior players, the Hawks can ill-afford Roughead sitting out their next-up clash with Port Adelaide.
Sam Mitchell, Brian Lake and Cyril Rioli are certainties to miss the trip to Adelaide Oval, while Luke Hodge, Liam Shiels, Josh Gibson and Brad Sewell have to covercome fitness concerns for the top of the table match.
The ugliest clash of the round came in the physical match between Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs on Saturday night.
Liam Jones made no friends with the pro-Demons crowd when he ran through defender Dean Terlich in the third quarter.
Terlich was substituted from concussion though Demons coach Paul Roos said he was doing well after the match.
Elsewhere, Lance Franklin made low impact but prominent arms to the heads of ex-teammates Isaac Smith and Grant Birchall, while in the high intensity Fremantle-Port Adelaide match Paul Duffield laid out Chad Wingard with a head-high bump.
In Brisbane, Paul Chapman swung an arm wildly at Jack Redden, while Andrew Raines had Brendan Goddard struggling on the Gabba deck.
Then in the first five minutes in Perth, returning West Coast forward Mark Lecras made a head-high bump on Will Hoskin-Elliot.
The number of clashes in just a handful of games of football could suggest footballers don’t read the paper, watch the news or turn on a radio – so relentless has been the coverage of Viney’s clash with Tom Lynch last week.
The teenage Demon was eventually cleared, with Melbourne’s arguments that he was bracing rather than bumping finding favour with the appeals board.
After the Demons’ narrow loss to the Bulldogs on Saturday night, Roos said he was “absolutely staggered” Jones’ hit on Terlich went unpunished.
Commentators have predicted a two or three week layoff for Jones, which did not earn a free kick on the night.
Roos said after feeling the support of the community behind them in the Viney case, he hoped an understanding of the rule was clear.
“We’re really supportive of the bump rule … as far as I’m concerned it’s black and white,” he said.
“If you choose to bump when you have an alternative then you suffer the consequences.
“Jack Viney did not bump. His case was about bracing for contact and I hope that didn’t get lost in the whole week.”
langou
Roar Guru
I actually hope they all get rubbed out including Duffield. We need to protect the head and I like the idea that if you decide to bump and collect someone on the head you should cop a penalty. The Viney incident was a little different as he really had no alternative. It was two players going for the ball which ended in a collision. However, in all of the examples on the weekend, the players had a clear choice and decided to bump.
John Wilkins
Guest
According to Hector at the post match press conference, no one would have noticed Roughead's bump (sorry, "Brace") if Harley hadn't of mentioned it :-)
TomC
Roar Guru
That's not the incident he was suspended for, actually. The MRP decided the incident in that photo didn't have even force to warrant a reportable offence.
David Williams
Guest
I am not an AFL fan but I was intrigued with the Viney affair. My view, watching the action live, was that Viney could have avoided the worst of the collision. Just before the contact he can be seen slowing slightly, straightening up and then angling in on his opponent. People have exclaimed the "bravery" of Viney, I can only see an attack on an exposed individual. The AFL got the decision right in the first place but appeared to buckle under pressure.
Axle an the guru
Guest
The bump is an automatic reaction in most cases that happens in those split seconds. It has been instilled and bred into players for over a hundred years. You carnt make it disapered in a couple of wks.
Michael huston
Guest
I know it's difficult to make a split second decision not to bump, but when are the players going to wake up? In a week dominated by controversy surrounding the bump, the players seemed to have taken no notice.
Franko
Guest
You've given me a wonderful flashback to the days when the umpire used to run long distance to find the offending player, stop and ask him to turn around. Always the perpetrater would turn around arms flung in the air as the umpire took out his little note book, held it toward the heaven and wrote down the number, crowd cheering/booing. Been a long time since we have seen those scenes. A report used to be a spectacle in itself.
Cat
Roar Guru
What you say is all true, but remember we often have the advantage of slow motion replays from multiple camera angles to make the call, the umpires have 1 millisecond to decide
Cat
Roar Guru
Chappy is good for at least one of those moments of stupidity a year, looks like recent team form is getting to him
Franko
Guest
Rougheads problem is that he entered the season with 93.75 carry-over points. He only needed to look at someone the wrong way and he'd get a week, honestly I am amazed he made it this far in the season. Chapman was also reckless and will get a spell: http://images.theage.com.au/2014/05/11/5416770/1399794960805.jpg-620x349.jpg
Bayman
Guest
Having written extensively on 'the bump' in recent days I confess to having a major concern with how these incidents play out. The most significant thing is that, invariably, the umpires have failed to detect any high contact given free kicks for these events have been pretty thin on the ground. Paul Roos was right to be 'absolutely staggered' the Jones bump on Terlich carried no free kick. Just as the Adelaide club and fans had every right to be 'staggered' when the Viney bump, sorry, brace on Lynch went equally unpunished. Everybody, afterwards, happily accepted the fact that Viney hit Lynch in the head. The umpires, however, missed it completely. Just as they did with Jones. It should also be said that Fyfe and Douglas were also suspended for incidents which did not warrant a free kick and, to be fair, I don't really think a free was warranted in those cases (let alone suspension). But it raises an issue. How can 'fair play' on the ground result in subsequent suspension and how come 'foul play' on the ground be missed by three umpires. In the 'media driven' cases of Fyfe, Douglas, Viney and now Jones, the incidents occurred around the ball and in clear view of everybody at the ground, including the umpires. There was no pack of players obscuring the umpire's view. It makes me wonder if the umpires are somehow working to an instruction. After all, umpires hardly report anyone any more and boundary and goal umpires never report anyone. Haven't done for years. Perhaps the instruction is, "Don't worry about it, we'll pick it up on the match review." I don't particularly have a problem with that, as long as that is made clear to all, including the fans, but I do think there should be a separation between 'reportable' and 'infringement'. That is, it's fine for the offending player to get suspended after the match but most fans, and coaches apparently, would also like the free kick to actually get paid at the time.
Cat
Roar Guru
Teams should secretly agree to appeal every case the MRP hands down a penalty for, make the AFL keep sitting the tribunal and appeals board until clear and concise directives are handed down and the system is overhauled to make sense.
Axle an the guru
Guest
Lets face it, the AFL have to send people to the tribuneral for accidents now, because the game is that clean, if they didnt then the mates club members would not have a job, as there would be no one going to see them.