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

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!]

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??

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

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.

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

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…

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.