The big hip and shoulder

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by sharp9
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal to charge the ruckman at a tap?????

I thought exactly the same thing after that Riccuito incident on goodes. If it isn't illegal, then it damn well should be. A ruckman's job at a ruck contest is to contest the ball. Being hip and shouldered in a ruck contest is very dangerous to the ruckman.

Don't get me wrong. I love a fair hip and shoulder in general play, but on a ruckman at a ruck contest it goes beyond the spirit of the game. Where's the ruck's protection? It was a gutless act by Ricciuto and should have been penalised with a free kick AND a 50m penalty. Am I wrong?

[Plugger46]

Cleaning up blokes who are not looking, is not exactly heroics, from Pickett.

[chammond]

Cleaning up blokes who are not looking, is not exactly heroics, from Pickett.

I always thought that hitting a bloke who's not looking was considered one of the most cowardly acts.

Not sure how it became an acceptable part of football?

[NMWBloods]

I agree - there are a number of players who seem to make their name by cleaning up some guy who is simply going for the footy. It's hardly an attractive or desirable part of our game.

[SXP]

It's very simple. What's not illegal is legal.

[scurrilous]

that's right. and what is illegal is illegal or should be. I'm sure there's a rule regarding third man in at ruck contests taking out the oposition ruck.

Or maybe it's just my high morals (pfft yeah right). It's certainly something I wouldn't do.

[dimelb]

The big difference between AFL and Union or League is that AFL has no offside rule - and is a faster, more open and varied game as a result. It also means that a player is less likely to be able to spot trouble coming, and is much more vulnerable to a sneak ambush of the type Pickett is so keen on. The game is physical enough without that kind of cheap shot - it should be wiped. As Yates was by the tribunal when he ambushed Brereton - a great case for a send-off rule in AFL.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by chammond
I always thought that hitting a bloke who's not looking was considered one of the most cowardly acts.

Not sure how it became an acceptable part of football?

Well the idea in footy is to be aware not just of the ball, but of everything around you and if you arn't you will pay the price.
To watch a great player perserver under these conditions is awsome.
To take the hardness out of the game ruins it.
AFL is essentially a game of skill VS brutality. That is it's beauty.
If you don't like that stuff then I suggest you watch more Gaelick.
The problem with AFL is not the Biff , it is inconsistancey by the umpires. The answer ??
Get rid of one of them and let the players determine the hardness of each game. It even out in the long run, beleive me.
The players don't like the consequences of undully rough play. IE they get paid back.
As I said earlier footy is old testament stuff. "an eye for an eye
and that is as should be

[chammond]

Well the idea in footy is to be aware not just of the ball, but of everything around you and if you arn't you will pay the price.
To watch a great player perserver under these conditions is awsome.
To take the hardness out of the game ruins it.
AFL is essentially a game of skill VS brutality. That is it's beauty.
If you don't like that stuff then I suggest you watch more Gaelick.
The problem with AFL is not the Biff , it is inconsistancey by the umpires. The answer ??
Get rid of one of them and let the players determine the hardness of each game. It even out in the long run, beleive me.
The players don't like the consequences of undully rough play. IE they get paid back.
As I said earlier footy is old testament stuff. "an eye for an eye
and that is as should be.

I realise that this puerile twaddle has to be a wind-up, but it's interesting to remember that such an attitude was commonplace until probably only a decade or so ago.

Fortunately, the Commission's long-term strategy to ensure the survival of AFL has resulted in a gradual movement towards a game of exquisite skill and competitiveness, and the gradual eradication of mindless brutality.

I'm sure that the overwhelming majority of parents see this as an imperative precondition to letting their kids play football. When I played football 25 years ago, it was a game for thugs. If it was still like that, I wouldn't even bother watching football, let alone allowing anyone I care about play the game.

[Nico]

Couple of points on this issue.

1. To those who want the biffo back. Consider this, the game is played at a much faster pace than bygone days, so when someone gets hit full on there is much greater danger of injury. What the AFL has tried to do is keep the physical side, but being far more severe on head high tackles(hence more reports). So what you see is far more sophisticated tackling than in the past.
There is no place in our game for king hits and off the ball incidents, and from what I understand this ploy of hitting someone when a contest is finished and when a players body is somewhat relaxed is reportable.

2. The Goodes incident was an example of my last point. Riccuto had no eyes for the ball and he lined him up deliberately to make contact after the contest. I have seen it a number of times and am convinced he was attempting to put him out of the game. Goodes got, up but what if he had been spiflicated and knocked out. Would there then have been media scrutiny and subsequent report. I think so.