#AFL Round 21 Weekly Discussion Thread

[stevoswan]

I don't think it's clear from the vision (that I've seen) whether there was head high contact. If there wasn't, I don't think it follows that he needs to be punished just because someone got injured. Bumping in itself isn't a reportable offence. A late bump would normally warrant a free kick but no more than that.

Remember that Franklin managed to knock out Hamling in the Freo game with a rotating elbow in a tackle but it was a legitimate football act, despite the injury.

I've already said I don't believe there was high contact but that contact was unnecessarily late and risky and I'll add, avoidable......so suspension required but tribunal hearing unnecessary.

[stevoswan]

Collingwood home against Lions unfortunately and Giants can't win a trick injury wise. Josh Kelly concussed, Sam Reid hamstrung (gee, where have I heard that before?) and Heath Shaw seems to have done his left knee. They won tonight but will hobble into the finals......

[liz]

I've already said I don't believe there was high contact but that contact was unnecessarily late and risky and I'll add, avoidable......so suspension required but tribunal hearing unnecessary.

But for what reportable offence? (I know the answer has to be "rough conduct" because it wasn't a strike, but being late doesn't make it suspendable as far as I understand the rules).

[Matty10]

But for what reportable offence? (I know the answer has to be "rough conduct" because it wasn't a strike, but being late doesn't make it suspendable as far as I understand the rules).

Doesn’t this just fall under the same category as any bump where damage is done to the head or neck? If you elect to bump an opponent (and no other option is reasonable) you will face sanction if the outcome results in an injury above the shoulders.

I haven’t looked at the rule book, but there have been instances in the past where players have been knocked out from the impact with the ground (not the bump itself) and that has been the ruling (as well as the directive by the AFL, from my understanding).

[RogueSwan]

It was late and I thought his shoulder made contact with his head...

I thought there was obvious head contact. Luke Darcy, as usual, tried to play it down and not mention the high contact.
Screen Shot 2018-08-12 at 7.51.53 AM.png

[liz]

Doesn’t this just fall under the same category as any bump where damage is done to the head or neck? If you elect to bump an opponent (and no other option is reasonable) you will face sanction if the outcome results in an injury above the shoulders.

I don't believe that is the rule when it comes to bumps. In particular, if there is an "accidental" head clash arising from a bump, players are now mostly given the benefit of the doubt (eg Hawthorn's Burton earlier this year), though the MRO does have the discretion to charge them if the head clash was inevitable or highly likely as a result of choosing to bump (which I'd argue the Burton contact was).

They did change this a couple of years ago. For a while, players were held accountable for head clashes that arose during a bump.

I can't recall a player ever being cited for a legal bump where the player hurt his head on the ground.

I'm with Rogue Swan in that I think there might have been high contact directly in the bump but at the real-time speed and grainy footage I've seen, it's hard to be sure. Christian would have had access to better footage before laying his charge. That said, I am surprised it has been deemed serious enough to go straight to the tribunal. It wasn't like it was full-flush head contact. Most of the contact was to the body.

[Flying South]

I think it's outright bullying. In the end, the discussions around why Goodes was being booed became tiresome. It didn't matter. Regardless it was a sustained attack on a player just going about his business.

I wonder if those who joined in (and who booed Ablett today or Franklin earlier this season) have thought about how they'd like it if a group of people gathered around them in their workplace and booed them for an extended period.

While I don't like any form of booing, I agree it's a bit different if it's in response to the game itself. The booing of Ablett today most certainly wasn't.

The Swans are not squeaky clean in the bullying of players. The sustained physical and mental attack on Jason Johannisen was disgusting in my opinion. It started a 'movement' in the AFL that evey team thought it ok to bully, intimidate and domineer a man playing a game that he loves. How it was allowed to continue for so long amazed me. In any other work place people would and should be sacked for that type of disgusting behaviour.

[liz]

The Swans are not squeaky clean in the bullying of players. The sustained physical and mental attack on Jason Johannisen was disgusting in my opinion. It started a 'movement' in the AFL that evey team thought it ok to bully, intimidate and domineer a man playing a game that he loves. How it was allowed to continue for so long amazed me. In any other work place people would and should be sacked for that type of disgusting behaviour.

Not sure booing crowds and players targeting an opposition player are comparable. Not saying the Swans targeting JJ was a good look but it's a pretty common part of the game nowadays and I am sure Swans players have been on the receiving end. I don't think the Swans "started it" with their treatment of JJ. Indeed, the team was widely criticised for not coming to the assistance of Mills during the round 6 loss to Carlton last year, when he was receiving excessive physical attention from Carlton players.

Back on the booing of Ablett, there's a piece up this morning on the AFL site that highlights a flop by Ablett in the first quarter right in front of their goal. It won them a goal. If that is what the Hawthorn crowd was booing him for, it makes a bit more sense than if it was just because he was Ablett. I still don't particularly like it, but I understand it.

Doesn't explain why Buddy has been audibly booed in a couple of recent games in Melbourne.

[CureTheSane]

I would suggest that Johannisen had been quite vocal in previous games and the Swans decided to shut that down, successfully.

[Matty10]

They did change this a couple of years ago. For a while, players were held accountable for head clashes that arose during a bump.

Great, now I have to look things up!

With all the controversy surrounding concussion, I'd be staggered if the AFL weakened their response in recent years regarding impact from avoidable collisions. Their information paper related to concussion from 2012 states that one of the Laws and Tribunal changes to protect the head and neck included the following: "High contact classification given to incidents where head hits the ground".

Also, I would think that Brown would be guilty under the Law against charging as noted below:

15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of a Player colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
(i) who is not within 5 metres of the football;
(ii) who, although within 5 metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact;
(iii) who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick;
(iv) after that Player has disposed of the football;
(v) who is Shepherding another Player on their Team; or
(vi) before the football is brought into play.

So, if all of the above still stands, Brown could be reported for charging and in the process making high contact (irrespective of whether he was hit in the head during the collision, as his head clearly strikes the ground after the incident). The seriousness of the outcome would then depend on the medical report, but being carted off on a stretcher does not help his case.

[Flying South]

Not saying booing a player and physically bullying a player is comparable. Just saying bullying of any kind is not acceptable. And there is no justification for it what so ever. Even on a sporting field.

[Sandridge]

Dogs back within 4 pts after being down by 28 at HT. Anyone game enough to say they're barracking for them?

Now up by 1.

[MattW]

Dogs back within 4 pts after being down by 28 at HT. Anyone game enough to say they're barracking for them?

Now up by 1.

I'm absolutely barracking for them.

[ugg]

I’d happily enter such a Faustian pact to improve our finals chances.

[liz]

I’d happily enter such a Faustian pact to improve our finals chances.

Not a Faustian pact for me. North are my most detested team by far, regardless of finals ramifications for us.