The big hip and shoulder

[sharpie]

On the weekend, there were 2 noticeable players who preferred to attack the man instead of the ball. I'm speaking of Mark Ricciuto against the Swans and Byron Pickett against the Hawks. Ricciuto cleaned up Goodes without penalty, and hit Craig Bolton high to give away a free kick. Pickett hit Crawford, whom everyone already knew was slightly injured, and Jade Rawlings, both times without penalty. These guys are praised for their "courageous" play, but I see it more as being overly aggressive and dangerous, gutless even as sometimes it is a cheap shot at someone not prepared for the impact.

I believe Picketts hits were "legal", in as much as they were not to the head. Ricciuto's attacks were a bit more reckless, and he was pinged at least once for it. However, I think that there should be something done to take these hits out of the game.

It is illegal to shoulder charge in rugby union due to the very high chance of an injury resulting from the attack. In today's professional game, where many other measures have been take to reduce the chances of injuries during the game, surely the AFL has to address this issue.

In almost every occasion, both Pickett and Ricciuto could have just as easily attempted a normal tackle, for the same effect, while minimising the chances of injury.

[penga]

bring back the biff!

[undy]

A lot of people are praising Pickett now, but at the start of the season, he was absolutely crap and a complete waste of space. Many commentators (and fans) thought that because he had dished out so many unexpected hits, he had got really nervous that he was going to cop one. With a new team around him, he wouldn't have been feeling that comfortable that he'd get much help. As the season has gone on, he has recovered his confidence and form.

I still think he has it coming to him and after he has copped one, he'll be back in no-mans land with his confidence shot to pieces and his game just behind it.

If Cressa is going to retire at the end of the season, then a king-hit on Pickett in the dying minutes of the GF before we lift the trophy would do a lot to clean up the game

penga - its not normally biff the way Pickett plays, more like assasination, he very rarely confronts someone who can see him coming.

Andy
(yeah, Pickett isn't my favourite player. Starting to be a few things to dislike about PA now, with Pickett, Wanganeen's acting,...)

[CureTheSane]

Re: The big hip and shoulder

Originally posted by sharpie
Pickett hit Crawford, whom everyone already knew was slightly injured, and Jade Rawlings, both times without penalty. These guys are praised for their "courageous" play, but I see it more as being overly aggressive and dangerous, gutless even as sometimes it is a cheap shot at someone not prepared for the impact.

I believe Picketts hits were "legal", in as much as they were not to the head.

I don't get this....

Crawford was on the field.
If he was too injured to play he would have been in the rooms or bench.

Then you complain about Pickett's hit on Crawford, and in the next breath say you thought it was legal.

Is it the rule you want changed so that more bumps are deemed illegal?

[EMJ]

Listen to Brereton's commentary always wants biffs and hips and shoulders anything and doesn't stop talking about it. He raved on and said the opposition would pay when Cressa unfortunately got injured by Adam Goodes. What is his problem?

[footyhead]

Re: The big hip and shoulder

Originally posted by sharpie
On the weekend, there were 2 noticeable players who preferred to attack the man instead of the ball. I'm speaking of Mark Ricciuto against the Swans and Byron Pickett against the Hawks. Ricciuto cleaned up Goodes without penalty, and hit Craig Bolton high to give away a free kick. Pickett hit Crawford, whom everyone already knew was slightly injured, and Jade Rawlings, both times without penalty. These guys are praised for their "courageous" play, but I see it more as being overly aggressive and dangerous, gutless even as sometimes it is a cheap shot at someone not prepared for the impact.

I believe Picketts hits were "legal", in as much as they were not to the head. Ricciuto's attacks were a bit more reckless, and he was pinged at least once for it. However, I think that there should be something done to take these hits out of the game.

It is illegal to shoulder charge in rugby union due to the very high chance of an injury resulting from the attack. In today's professional game, where many other measures have been take to reduce the chances of injuries during the game, surely the AFL has to address this issue.

In almost every occasion, both Pickett and Ricciuto could have just as easily attempted a normal tackle, for the same effect, while minimising the chances of injury.

Oh dear, this is what I fear about rugby converts comming into our game. Not undertanding the fine balance traditionally struck in AFL between skill and violance.
This is exactly what does not need to happen. Without the really hard physical stuff AFL becomes a pretty boys game and the skill required is never impressive as the skill required in the face of hardness.

[undy]

Re: Re: The big hip and shoulder

Originally posted by CureTheSane
I don't get this....

Crawford was on the field.
If he was too injured to play he would have been in the rooms or bench.

Then you complain about Pickett's hit on Crawford, and in the next breath say you thought it was legal.

Is it the rule you want changed so that more bumps are deemed illegal?

I'm not sure about sharpie and I didn't see the Hawks game (in fact I could be ranting off-topic), but I think that there are some shepherds which contribute nothing positive to the game and should be illegal. At the moment, a player who happens to be within 5m of the ball carrier, but may be (say) falling behind him, can be legitimately hit. Because they are completely unprepared for the hit (they are intent on playing football), there is an increased risk of injury.

This type of play is not in the spirit of the game and is not seen very often, but I think it should be illegal.

Andy

[sharp9]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to charge the ruckman at a tap?????

Appalling effort by very talented but dirty player (there's a few of those around - Wanganeen, Lloyd, Mercuri, Rioli, Cockatoo-Collins etc)

Also I still don't understand where in the rules it says that a shoulder or hip to the head is legal. Can someone explain this. Is the interpretation something like "you can hit anyone who is standing up as hard as you like, anywhere you like as long as your arms are held into you body"?

It would be absolutely no lowering of standards if the interpretation were to be "a hip and shoulder must hit the opponent below the head." Simple really. Who could complain about that?

[footyhead]

The first game of AFL had no rules.
An argument could be made that if justice were to be left up to the respective teams (ie the players on the feild ) within a game, then we would get a harder and fairer game than we do with all these rules and the interpretations.
The principal of AFL all ways was and always should be non christian IE: an eye for an eye,
thats what we love about it. it is war so if pickett gets us then we get them, and if not this time then next, and the players code of silence requires that the philthy maggots have little to do with it in any case.
You can change all this if you want , but you wont be watching Aussie Rules. In fact a lot of people think that we already don't.


And as for Breraton, he was a fantastic player in the face of violance, and he took a couple of fantastic hits, including one in a grand final againts the cats.

[b0ek]

Re: Re: The big hip and shoulder

Originally posted by CureTheSane
Is it the rule you want changed so that more bumps are deemed illegal?

The umpires are already having a go at this... What was wrong with micky's tackle on a crows player earlier in the game on sunday? Got a free kick against him for a perfectly legal bump.

Barry Hall has been punished several times already this season for legal attacks as well, just because they looked ferocious. Just another reason why AFL umpires need to have played some level of senior football before they can umpire at AFL level. They've got no idea what's going on.

[penga]

Originally posted by undy
penga - its not normally biff the way Pickett plays, more like assasination, he very rarely confronts someone who can see him coming.

i think our game is way too sanitised and the way sharpie was talking he wants no physical stuff at all... IMO, a striking charge should be after 2 punches or more, not just one (ie toe to toe, no sniping)... some players deserve it, keep melee rules as is and decrease wrestling charges...

bring back the biff!

[sharpie]

Re: Re: The big hip and shoulder

Originally posted by CureTheSane
I don't get this....

Crawford was on the field.
If he was too injured to play he would have been in the rooms or bench.

Then you complain about Pickett's hit on Crawford, and in the next breath say you thought it was legal.

Is it the rule you want changed so that more bumps are deemed illegal?

I said that Pickett's hit was technically legal, since it wasnt to the head, but I also believe it was a fairly gutless, cheap shot, since Crawford was carrying an injury which Pickett deliberately targetted.

And as far as being a rugby convert who doesn't appreciate how violent AFL is and should be, rugby is by far a much more physical game, yet they still have the sense to try and minimise the risks of injury by making shoulder charges illegal. Again it is the difference between playing the ball and playing the man which I am talking about.

One final point. Troy Cook used to be the hip and shoulder specialist for the Swans. Since he has gone to Freo, he has reduced this side of his game quite significantly. He has also become a far better ball winner. I don't think this is a coincidence

[penga]

Re: Re: Re: The big hip and shoulder

Originally posted by sharpie
Troy Cook used to be the hip and shoulder specialist for the Swans.

that hit on mcmanus was huge!

[Sid]

I think we shouldnt take the physical parts of the game away. It definitely adds some excitement from my point of view. Even though a lot of sydney players arent very physical (probably roosey's say), i think the hip and shoulder is an exciting part of the game, having received them and given them.

Obvious downside is the injury side if it does occur.

[DandE]

Quick Question: Why did Mickey get paid the free against him in the 50 when it seemed to be a fair hip and shoulder. Just want to see how one eyed I really am - it did seem fair, although Goodsey got pinged for a good tackle a few weeks ago too.