Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

[Rod_]

I didn't see any malice in what the Rowbottom incident. However agree that timing was poor when revising the slow mow replay. Made contact and has shown a high tackle with force. (The options are Free kick / 50m penalty or a week off)

My understanding is a Sheppard is a run along side a forward movement and taking someone out is not with force is not.. A Sheppard should not injure a player. Intent is to just delay the chaser from the player with the ball.

Players of 10 - 15 years ago would not get a kick however we are moving toward a contact free and injury free styles of play..

Therefore play within the current rules.

Borderline IMO. Agree, take a week off and allow Stevens or Campbell to come in.

[stevoswan]

Leave TB alone. Many people feel Rowbottom could do with a rest. He’s not going to win the Brownlow so why does one week matter? He can come back in two weeks and give the team his tenacious defensive midfield skills after a good rest. Doing what Rowbottom does is tough week after week. Need to manage these players every now and then.

Which is why I suggested the club may not bother to challenge.

In regard to your first point (request).....no. If TB keeps 'being TB on RB', probably not going to happen.

[stevoswan]

I didn't see any malice in what the Rowbottom incident. However agree that timing was poor when revising the slow mow replay. Made contact and has shown a high tackle with force. (The options are Free kick / 50m penalty or a week off)

My understanding is a Sheppard is a run along side a forward movement and taking someone out is not with force is not.. A Sheppard should not injure a player. Intent is to just delay the chaser from the player with the ball.

Players of 10 - 15 years ago would not get a kick however we are moving toward a contact free and injury free styles of play..

Therefore play within the current rules.

Borderline IMO. Agree, take a week off and allow Stevens or Campbell to come in.

Not possible.....footy can NEVER be contact free....or injury free. To try and make it so will kill the game......and the golden goose. You'd reckon the AFL would realise this.....as, let's face it, they're only in it for the golden goose.

Making the game attractive to every Mum and their aspirations for little Johnny's safety will not sell tickets.

[stevoswan]

I see the new James Bell thread has been shut again......and considering the 'reasons' given, why do we have a James Rowbottom thread?

Now I don't want the Rowbottom thread closed....just wondering why can't we discuss Bell outside of all the other threads?

[liz]

As opposed to a competition which seems to be saying that it is ok to elbow someone in the head, enough to draw blood, as long as it looks like an accident.....and you come from Richmond?

There was an incident a few years ago when Buddy was in possession and being tackled and moved his elbow (at some velocity), catching the tackler high (and concussing him, IIRC). Some in the media were calling for his head; others suggested that when you're in possession, you have the right to manoeuvre and to protect yourself. The MRP determined that Buddy didn't have a case to answer.

The Lynch incident arose in similar circumstances, and the lack of finding against him is consistent with the way the game has been adjudicated over recent years.

The starting premise in today's game is that we want to protect players by reducing head high contact. However, given the 360 degree and aerial nature of the game, plus the speed at which it is played, eliminating all head high contact means compromises need to be made. The game needs to decide which elements where head high contact is possible (or likely) are so integral to the game that they can't be removed, and which can. Those posts are moving over time.

It wasn't so long ago (well, maybe a decade or so) that we were in uproar when Mumford was suspended for a tackle that drove his opponent's head into the ground. I think he was the first player to be suspended for such an action. Now we are pretty used to players being suspended for such actions, albeit always accompanied by some mumblings about how tackling is just part of the game.

Bumps used to be celebrated. Often brutal ones. Byron Pickett was the master of them. Part of the Legend of Brett Kirk is the bump that Pickett laid on him in the 2003 QF, from which he staggered to his feet, went back into the fray, and was instrumental in helping the Swans hang on against a desperate Port side clawing back the deficit. In today's game, Kirk would be taken from the ground for at least 20 minutes, probably not to return at all.

Those who administer the game have made the call that it is possible to bump, shepherd, tackle without causing head high contact to the opposition, and thus you can reduce the risk of head high contact to players without eliminating those elements from the sport. On the other hand, it is pretty much impossible to eliminate incidental head high contact in marking contests , particularly aerial ones, without fundamentally changing the game. So "the game" has determined that such head high contact has to be accepted. At least for now.

Those elbows by players seem to - at the moment - sit in that area of what can't easily be eliminated from the game, unless we want to deny the right of a player to try and break a tackle or even to try and dispose of the ball. The video of the Lynch incident available on the AFL site isn't great. It just shows the incident as it happened from a wide-pan camera. There's no replay or close up vision (though I think I saw something on the footy news over the weekend). From the vision on the AFL site, it doesn't look as if Lynch raised his arm high, or swung it particularly hard. Even from what I can recall of better vision, the contact does look accidental.

Rowbottom's high contact on Merrett was, I am sure, also accidental, but different types of footy action are adjudicated differently. For now, the Lynch action has pretty consistently been deemed to be reasonable, and the Rowbottom one not correctly executed and thus not reasonable. Maybe, in time, we will see the AFL determine that a player in possession has a duty of care for any contact made to a tackler, but for now that is not the case.

If every slightly clumsy act by a player in possession were deemed reportable / suspendable, I think Buddy would have had several enforced holidays over the last few years.

[Ludwig]

Yes and no. I reckon he was running towards Merrett with the intention of tackling him, not anticipating that Merrett would fumble the ball. But the fumble happened long enough before Rowbottom arrived for him to change his action to a shepherding one, rather than a tackling one. Rowbottom was entirely within his rights to shepherd in that situation - ie the ball was close enough - but not to catch Merrett high. He needed to just lower his body a tad to ensure the contact was all to Merrett's chest.

I don't have a problem with Rowbottom sitting out a match for that. If he doesn't, the competition is saying that it is fine for players to be collected high in that way. That's not where the competition is right now (for good reason).

I'm okay with RB getting a week if that's the way things unfolded. The only contention I have is that the head high contact was caused by the nudge in the back from Mills. But I'm not sure this is the case. It's just the vision of the replay suggests it might be. I think the push in the lower back caused his body to rise up just enough to catch Merritt in the head. I doubt we will challenge anyway.

[stevoswan]

Rowbottom's high contact on Merrett was, I am sure, also accidental, but different types of footy action are adjudicated differently. For now, the Lynch action has pretty consistently been deemed to be reasonable, and the Rowbottom one not correctly executed and thus not reasonable. Maybe, in time, we will see the AFL determine that a player in possession has a duty of care for any contact made to a tackler, but for now that is not the case.

If every slightly clumsy act by a player in possession were deemed reportable / suspendable, I think Buddy would have had several enforced holidays over the last few years.

Some very relevant points there but I have highlighted what I believe is the crux of the problem.

It could be argued that James action, due to the push he received from Mills, made it clumsy and not deliberate or unreasonable, as the MRP seems to have deemed.

I'm not too worried about him missing a week as he may need a break anyway.....I just see the problems associated with the emboldened bit above leading to weird and inconsistent MRP rulings....indeed 'cherry picked' rulings, depending on who is involved.

[Ludwig]

I see the new James Bell thread has been shut again......and considering the 'reasons' given, why do we have a James Rowbottom thread?

Now I don't want the Rowbottom thread closed....just wondering why can't we discuss Bell?

I think it means that we can discuss Bell in the regular match threads.

While we're on the point, I think Bell had one of his typical games. He works hard, but doesn't contribute much. I think we have better selection choices. I would prefer to see Clarke, Gould, Roberts, Ronke, COR or Stephens in the senior side before selecting Bell. I don't know why we can't wait until Bell strings together a few near BOG performances in the VFL before he gets another run in the seniors. I don't see ow this is helping his development, nor the players who might be selected in his stead.

[liz]

It could be argued that James action, due to the push he received from Mills, made it clumsy and not deliberate or unreasonable, as the MRP seems to have deemed.

No-one, including the MRO, is suggesting Rowbottom's action was deliberate (ie that the head high contact was deliberate). The act itself wasn't unreasonable either. It's just that the AFL has deemed that bumps (or shepherds or blocks - whatever you want to call them) and tackles are the two otherwise reasonable footy actions where the player is obliged to ensure that no head high contact results (including a clash of heads in the case of bumps/shepherds/blocks).

It is possible that the slight push Rowbottom received put him enough off balance that he couldn't lower his body. It's impossible to know from the vision we can see, and I suspect it will be a hard case to make at the tribunal because the push looks slight and he was already committed to the shepherd.

[stevoswan]

I think it means that we can discuss Bell in the regular match threads.

While we're on the point, I think Bell had one of his typical games. He works hard, but doesn't contribute much. I think we have better selection choices. I would prefer to see Clarke, Gould, Roberts, Ronke, COR or Stephens in the senior side before selecting Bell. I don't know why we can't wait until Bell strings together a few near BOG performances in the VFL before he gets another run in the seniors. I don't see ow this is helping his development, nor the players who might be selected in his stead.

We can discuss Rowbottom in the regular match threads also.....however, it was deemed that we need a separate Rowbottom thread so that the regular threads were not hijacked by spirited Rowbottom debate. Why can we not debate Bell, who garners similar robust discussion? I have a theory but dare not mention it here....only Liz can enlighten us on the real reasons......but I will add that I believe a truly holistic society (and indeed forum) is one where everybody can be discussed equally without creating 'controversy'.

Do we have to hijack the other threads with excessive Bell debate, a la Rowbottom, before Bell can be discussed in a dedicated thread? I'm confused.

[Goal Sneak]

Not possible.....footy can NEVER be contact free....or injury free. To try and make it so will kill the game......and the golden goose. You'd reckon the AFL would realise this.....as, let's face it, they're only in it for the golden goose.

Making the game attractive to every Mum and their aspirations for little Johnny's safety will not sell tickets.

I think the AFL is also concerned with the threat of legal action from past players, making sure they'e covered their duty of care.

[stevoswan]

I think the AFL is also concerned with the threat of legal action from past players, making sure they'e covered their duty of care.

So now we're changing/ruining the game to protect those at the top? Putting the importance of the league itself over the actual attractiveness and watchability of the game? Sounds about right.

[Goal Sneak]

So now we're changing/ruining the game to protect those at the top? Putting the importance of the league itself over the actual attractiveness and watchability of the game? Sounds about right.

I would think they see it as an area where they are potentially exposed to legal action and are looking to cover their butts, much like any business would try to do. Depending on how you view the likelihood of the threats, you could argue that they are putting the importance of the league first, by protecting it.

[TheBloods]

This is something I've been wondering for years now....ever since 'blocking' free kicks started to be paid. I believe the rule is you can shepherd an opponent as long as the ball is within 5m.

I don't think the umpires are totally aware themselves....there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a 'block' and what constitutes a 'shepherd'. 20 years ago, Rowbottom's bump/shepherd whatever it was, would have attracted little scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -



Obviously not you. No one is surprised.

Ridiculous . 5 pages spent on this topic . C grader might miss a week , big deal . Its done now , what is there to discuss ? No one thinks RB is a dirty player and hes not the first and wont be the last to do reckless stupid things when playing poor footy . The club and RB will have already moved on , lets do the same.

[liz]

I would think they see it as an area where they are potentially exposed to legal action and are looking to cover their butts, much like any business would try to do. Depending on how you view the likelihood of the threats, you could argue that they are putting the importance of the league first, by protecting it.

I'd have thought that protecting players from injury - especially concussion - in instances where it is deemed to be avoidable (which, in a high pace, contact sport is only a subset of instances) comes before protecting the AFL from legal action.