The Nick Maxwell bump that has caused all the confusion among players and fans alike.
It all started when Nick Maxwell shirt fronted Pat McGinnity and then in the 3rd week Young and Motlop were reported for bumps/ rough conduct. They also received reprimands which many think was because Nick Maxwell got off for a worse bump.
This raises so many questions so I ask:
What are peoples opinion on the situation of the bump? Are we glad you can now bump without fear of suspension or will this just bring more injuries?
Some Twitter Feedback
- Doogsta Love the bump, essential part of football.
- danielando Certainly are glad that it is still OK! There still needs to be some contact in the game so it does not become the GAFL
- Glumph The only one we need to outlaw is front on head high when one player’s eyes is on ball, other ONLY going for the man. (Maxwell?)
- Kick2Kick but isnt 99% of bumps eye on man instead of the ball?
- Glumph player with ball expects tackle or bump, player with head down attacking ball must be protected from neck injury
- Glumph comes down 2 intent & awareness.Sum r clever @ throwing in the hip while going for ball 2 protect them & hurt opponent.
* Just a note that all Football discussion on Twitter can be found at #aflfooty.
This bump was last year worthy of a suspension but could it be over looked today?
My Opinion on the Bump for Today’s AFL
Their is no doubt that the neck must be protected, AFL is lucky no one has become a paraplegic but players like Carey, Grant and Caracella all had their careers finished early (or threatened) due to neck problems.
In the last few years we have seen some players take out the neck with a bump like Waters (WCE) and Ben Johnson (Coll) which should be reported. However the tribunal then sighted minor bumps it become so silly that the game was almost at a non contact sport level.
While I still state that Maxwell should have been suspended I am glad that more minor incidents like Motlop & Young were allowed to go through the keeper as they were nothing compared to Maxwell’s.
Your Opinion on the State of the Bump and How Should it be handled by the Tribunal?
How do you think the tribunal should handle these bumps that we see? What are to you the tell tale signs? Should it be if you jump to bump your gone? Arm tucked in or not? Eyes on the ball? Contact when marking?
Some Examples of Bumps Modern and Classic
Every AFL footballer fan loves to see a big bump so to keep all our fans happy hear are a few we have found via various locations. In looking at the hits below, you cannot help but notice the difference between the years.
Loading ...
February 25th, 2009 at 10:00 am
AFL is a tough sport, and it needs to hold on to that aura to remain a unique spectacle. In saying that, There a two areas where I think our bump rules must be clarified.
1. A player without the ball, who is clearly in close pursuit of the ball, should be protected from any front on bump by a player who chooses not to go for the ball. In the Maxwell example, I think he had three choices. To go for the ball himself, the shepherd McGinnity off his line, or to shirtfront. Option three should be outlawed, and he should have been suspended.
2. The flying front on bump, which Motlop only got a reprimand for, has been dealt with in confusing inconsistency. Once the feet are off the ground, and the player curls into the hip and shoulder position, they have no choices left, and can’t change direction. Players must be coached better to avoid this, but the tribunal must help by handing out consistent penalties for high front on bumps.
This is one area I feel the NRL has been handling better than the AFL. Once they identify a style of tackle they don’t like, they hit it hard with stiff penalties, and reduce the instance pretty quickly. AFL needs to take note before someone has more than a broken jaw.
[Reply to Comment]
February 25th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Totally agree Matt Henderson (btw sorry your comment got caught in filter).
I think the problem is that in regards to example 1 & 2 the AFL tribunal was hard on it (last year etc) but that all went out the window with Maxwell getting off this year, all the hard work, all the hard decisions/ suspensions equal nothing now.
In regards to example 2. I do not think that just because a player jumps to bump (like Motlop), he should be reported. However seeing he bumped after the Sydney player disposed off the ball is where the problem and report should be. You have to protect the person who is going for the ball. Something Young, Motlop & Maxwell all did not do…
[Reply to Comment]
February 26th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ah, Jermayn, ever heard of a bloke by the name of Neil Sachse? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Sachse)
Sachse was left wheelchair-bound after a collision with Kevin Murray in Round 2 of 1975.
I think Matt’s definition in 1 (above) is spot on and I’d agree 100%. On the Motlop-style ‘bump’, I’d be even more fiercely opposed. All options are lost once the player becomes a missile.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The clock is ticking . . . again
[Reply to Comment]
February 26th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Oh actually never heard of Sachse, thanks for the correct AussieRulesBlog, I will have to fix that.
I think for a love tap like Motlops it should be maybe a down field free kick but when theirs force behind it, it should be reportable.
[Reply to Comment]
February 26th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
It’d be nice if we could have instantaneous decisions on shades of grey when a bloke launches himself at an opponent. It’d be nice, but it ain’t gonna happen!
As you would know, I’m not necessarily a fan of black and white rule interpretations, but I’ll make an exception in this case. Leave the ground and collide with an opponent and you’re suspended for a minumum 4 weeks — end of story.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..The clock is ticking . . . again
[Reply to Comment]
February 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Nah sorry AussieRulesBlog, you cant have instant decisions on every bump/ hit/ tunnel, that is just stupid imo.
Football is a gray game, every situation, every bump, every hit and every game is different. Motlop’s jump and bump was stupid but no way does it deserve 4 weeks (this is AFL football). It was a soft hit that had no real impact or danger to the player. It deserved a down the ground free kick and a look by the tribunal but 4 weeks??
[Reply to Comment]
March 1st, 2009 at 9:31 am
Of course we get instant decisions now — from the umpires. They have only a split second, while watching play continue, to decide whether to blow the whistle or not.
What I really meant was to be able to instantaneously differentiate between fine shades of grey in a collision situation. For instance, in the Motlop bump, did he hit the other bloke hard enough to warrant a whistle? As I said in my previous post, once the players feet leave the ground he has NO OPTIONS and is totally committed to the collision. In my view, that abandonment of options is negligence.
aussierulesblogs last blog post... . . all he saw was . . . [but he blew his whistle anyway!]
[Reply to Comment]
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:54 am
Ok sorry if I miss understood any of your last comment…
I agree that it deserved a free kick as he hit him after the ball was disposed and it was negligent but that is were it should have stayed. We are just wasting the tribunal’s time.. (maybe they get paid by case, so more cases to review the more they get).
Thanks for your comments AussieRulesBlog
[Reply to Comment]