Greater Western Sydney star Dylan Shiel has defended the bump in AFL, saying players also have a responsibility to protect themselves.
Shiel, controversially forced out of last season’s preliminary final after a bump from Richmond captain Trent Cotchin, backed match review officer Michael Christian for letting Ryan Burton’s bump on North Melbourne’s Shaun Higgins go without penalty.
Christian’s decision, while supported by AFL football operations manager Steve Hocking, had polarised opinion and reignited concussion concerns given Higgins was knocked out and needed lip surgery.
But Shiel worried that a suspension for the Hawthorn defender would mean the death of the bump. He stressed the incident must be distinguished from Lindsay Thomas’ hit on Geelong midfielder Scott Selwood. The Port Adelaide veteran received a three-week ban.
“I certainly don’t want to see the bump extinct in our game – it’s a terrific part of the game,” Shiel said.
“We play a high-speed, physical sport that people love to watch.
“That Higgins one we saw on the weekend, I’m pretty sure Burton didn’t go in with any intent to hurt or hit the head.
“It’s important to differentiate that with someone like the Lindsay Thomas (incident), which was just plain reckless.
“It’s hard because the public and media expect us players to play on the edge and play like animals but, at the same time, we’ve got to be very careful about our heads and looking after our opposition.”
Shiel volunteered he should have protected himself better from Cotchin’s hit last year which went unsanctioned despite the Giants’ midfielder failing a concussion test.
“There’s an obligation from both players to look after themselves as well as each other – it’s a two-way street,” Shiel said.
“I can’t be expected to go in recklessly – exposing my head – to a contest and, if it gets collected, I point the finger expecting a suspension for the opposition player.
“I’ve got to have the skills and awareness to protect myself … these collisions happen.
“What happened last year between Cotch and I, you could argue I could have certainly prevented that by protecting myself a bit more.”
Shiel was optimistic any confusion would soon turn into “some clear understanding and explanation of what we can and can’t do”.
“It’s a very hard game to rule.
“I take my hat off to what the umpires are doing and what the AFL have done.”
Brendan
Guest
I don't think that the intention of Thomas was to hurt Selwood, rather to prevent Selwood from accessing the ball and to give himself or another team mate time to gather the ball. Note that Thomas both turned his back and initially hit the shoulder, both actions of someone expecting to ride out a counter bump to thier own advantage regarding the ball. Reckless, yes, but not malicious. But Selwood didn't brace or counter bump, instead he dove forward, exposing his head. I actually feel quite sorry for Thomas. He gets 3 weeks for the bump, and one for a retaliatory strike on Joel Selwood. As the rules stood, he deserved it, so he didn't contest. He even gave a press conference where his contrition was very evident. And then the cards started falling around him. Firstly, Burton gets no case to answer, for a similar offence. Then Mitchell also has no case to answer. This strike was far more premeditated than Thomas's strike on Joel, and had greater impact. Thomas came from a prone position, lying down, and barely reached Joel. Furthermore it was reactive from being half chocked by Joel. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, and you can understand Joel's motivation (although he actually didn't know it was his brother that had been knocked out) and even his restraint. But he had as much or more impact than Thomas could muster from their two relative positions. And so he rightly was charged. But after an appeal he was let off. Leaving Thomas the only one taking the punishment where several incidents occurred. Thomas, I think that you are more the man than the others in this saga. Yes you did the wrong thing but it wasn't premeditated like some make it sound. And you humbly sought remission for your act.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I think you are being too kind Dyl, or preparing your defence for when you put Cotchin's lights out the next time you play him in a final.
Vocans
Guest
Shiel is right. Although Thomas was wrong in his attack on the head, Selwood was unskilled in not recognising that Thomas would get to ball before him. If Thomas had protected the ball with his body rather than going the shirtfront, Selwood would have had to tackle, but instead chose to throw himself at the ball, body unprotected. I think the rule still states you can bump within 5 metres of the ball, so Thomas bumping the chest would be legal, but not the head contact. If we don’t want shirtfronts aimed, like Thomas’s, motivated by the desire to hurt the player, then change the rule. But Selwood left himself far too open, showing a lack of skill in doing so.