In the wake of recent suspensions to Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield and Giants player Sam Reid as a result of aggressive bumps to an opposition players – causing them to potentially miss a week or more of footy due to concussion – we’ve seen people on social media making sensational such as ‘footy is dead’ or ‘footy has gone soft’.
But these statements are far from the truth.
Although in previous years, the bumps may have at worst got a week or even no suspension, but in recent times our understanding of the long term affects of concussion have increased dramatically. We now know about chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a brain degeneration caused by repeated trauma to the head and can only be diagnosed in autopsy while studying by studying sections of the brain.
CTE has been linked to, by peer reviewed articles, to psychiatric effects such as depression, aggression and suicidal behaviour.
Only three former AFL players, Graham ‘Polly’ Farmer, Danny Frawley and Shane Tuck have been diagnosed with the disease with the latter two taking their own lives.
CTE has been said to have played a role in the mental illness of Shane Tuck and Danny Frawley, which makes it very important to acknowledge the risk of CTE.
It is only inevitable that there will be more players diagnosed with the disease, but we can help prevent our current generation of players from suffering from the same problems.
The AFL has already taken important steps ahead of its rival sporting code NRL by introducing protocols such as a mandatory 12 day break for players diagnosed with concussion to help players fully recover. But they have taken a more important step.
The only people who can reduce the risk of concussion without the AFL, are the players. But as there is no short term consequence other than a free kick, so the AFL has taken the initiative to crackdown on dangerous bumps by handing out more severe punishments to players who chose to intentionally or carelessly make a dangerous bump.
If the AFL is to continue to crackdown, we should see a reduction in the number of dangerous bumps and tackles be carried out. The AFL in the past has cracked down on actions such as sling tackles, jumper punches and punches to the body, and as a result, we have seen a reduction in the incidents surrounding those that occur.
But unlike those actions, bumping is a more fundamental part of the game. This can make it more difficult to crackdown on these incidents, but it is important to make players think twice about whether a bump they make is necessary, if there is potential to make significant contact to the head and if there is a better alternative.
Getting rid of dangerous bumps does not mean the game has gone soft. It is more than possible to make a good bump without making contact to the head as long as players are watching the head. Players can still attack the ball as fiercely as possible and should they use the correct technique, it is unlikely that contact to the head will be made, meaning we can still see some tough footy around the contest and a see a few big hits which will get fans out of their seat.
It is important that we acknowledge that the wellbeing, safety and lives of AFL players must be prioritised to avoid future tragedies and that life is more important than your entertainment.
Footy will continue to be a thrilling experience to watch and footy will still be ‘tough’ as long as players take more accountability when in the contest and make big bumps without getting suspended.
Lukey Miller
Guest
A GWS player would be very unlikely to get a discount for such a bump in a Prelim final. A high profile player or a key player from a major club will often get the benefit of the doubt so that they could play in a Grand Final. GWS does not have the power or status to obtain from such a discount. Reid should have got at least 4 weeks.
Lukey Miller
Guest
I thought that Reid's bump was worse than Dangerfield's - it was off the ball. Fyfe was concussed and will miss at least one game, so the resulting injury to each "victim" should not be an issue when comparing penalties here. The AFL really need to get their act together on reducing concussion injury as the clock is ticking. Three weeks should be the minimum for a bump off-ball that results in a concussion - 4 weeks for Reid would be more appropriate.
Tony Wyld
Guest
Thank you Obsessed Much for differentiating the difference between bumps and shirtfronts. The shirtfront ( front on contact with no intention to tackle ) is one of the most dangerous acts in contact sports. Bumps can be dangerous but are mostly less hazardous. Too much social media AFL "fans" bemoaning the loss of "toughness" The shirtfront is relatively low risk for the instigator. Note how you try to bust a jammed door open.
Naughty's Headband
Roar Rookie
So by being late his intention was to headbutt? There's no evidence of that whatsoever. If the penalty is based on outcome, not intention, which it clearly is, then the lateness is irrelevant.
Birdman
Roar Rookie
Reid should have copped 3 too as the ball wasn't in the vicinity as it was in the Dangerfield incident. Both should have been sent to the Tribunal IMHO.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Alls good.
Yattuzzi
Roar Rookie
That was why I was surprised. I don’t mind a bit of your stick in any case. :happy:
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I don’t agree a late bump is worth 50m, there should be a suspension. Don’t forget it is mothers, not fathers, that allow their kids to play footy. We have to respect the sanctity of the head. Move with the times or be considered the same as RL.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
If l was referring to Geelong I would’ve used a capital “C” and spelt it thus: “Cat”. —– No, l mean cat, as in short hand for “scardey-cat”. I’ve admired many Cats over the years. —– I have not promulgated what you may’ve implied in what you wrote. —– Edit: l have always been fair with you.
Yattuzzi
Roar Rookie
R, wtf, is the act of a Cat? So Danger would not do this as a Crow? You are sounding like the other R. Ok, a late bump is worth 50m. Not three weeks. Logic out the window.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
"Lateness" is the act of a cat. I taught my teams to tackle honourably. As you'd know Aussie is about the ball, if the ball is gone before you get there, then there is no need to tackle or bump.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
If it wasn't late then it was just an accidental head clash. Their may've been some carelessness involved. Maybe 1 game, maybe not. ------ But you've entered conjecture territory.
Charlie Keegan
Roar Guru
The thing that I find disappointing is the AFL still drastically over weights outcome and not action. If they really want to do something about chronic traumatic encephalopathy they need to begin weighting action and not outcome as much the incident that sticks out is the high contact on green in the same game Reid was suspended for.
Flancrest enterprises
Guest
Definitely. The lateness of the bump is the red herring...not sure why people are focusing on it. He'd have got 2 weeks if it wasn't late. He was never getting anything else but a library card for the next few weeks.
Marty
Roar Rookie
Look at the footage. If you’re honestly trying to tell me that his right foot/leg is in the air because he just happens to be taking a step at the time, and it’s not because he’s trying to put some extra grunt into the bump by pushing off his left leg and using the momentum of his body, as he’s no doubt been taught to do since he started playing footy, well I’m not really sure what to say, apart from it being one of the funniest walking styles I’ve ever seen. I get that you lean into a bump, but once that foot leaves the ground it becomes more than a lean imo. It was a great bump, just got him a bit high, and that’s the problem.
Prez
Roar Rookie
One foot 30mm off the ground doesn't constitute intent to bump. Most of the time it just means some one is walking. And when you brace, as Montagna explained, you lean into the contact.
Marty
Roar Rookie
It might not have been avoidable but Reid wasn’t just protecting himself. He wasn’t just looking to brace himself and bounce off. He went into the bump with an upward action, that’s why his right leg was off the ground at the point of contact. He saw an opportunity to put a bit extra into it and knock the wind out of Fyfe’s sails, just like players have been doing forever and a day. Unfortunately for him he got Fyfe high and times have changed.
O M
Roar Rookie
An open mind requires open eyes. Totally agree Don.
Prez
Roar Rookie
The AFL has got these two incidents around the wrong way. The Dangerfield bump was clear and didn't need to go the tribunal, there was nothing in dispute. The Reid collision should have been sent direct to the tribunal as it is unclear as despite what Christian ruled it it very much in dispute as to if bumping or bracing.
Prez
Roar Rookie
Was the collision avoidable by Reid? If it wasn't then he is in his rights to brace and protect himself. Or did he deliberately move to bump Fyfe?