Protecting the head

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Protecting the head

How can you avoid hitting the head every so often if the guy is moving around, trying to dodge you? Sometimes it will happen. We allow the bump, but if you attempt it - and don't forget the target is moving - and miss by a fraction, you're gone. It's just not realistic.

True, and I guess that is the risk that you take. If a player deliberately ducks his head aware of the oncoming bump, that should be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor. At the end of the day though, as the player laying the bump you owe the duty of care to protect the head. If you think you might collect the player high, exercise caution.

I can see the merits of having a 'special circumstances' disclaimer on the rule, but it probably only adds to the difficulty of applying the law in what is already a very difficult area to adjudicate. As you say, split second decisions and interpretations of the circumstances make it very difficult to give clear cut, definitive answers.


If Franklin had tackled, but Cousins had disposed of the ball a split second before, Franklin could not only have given away a free but also a 50m penalty for impeding him after he had disposed of the ball.

If it had been Ablett instead of Cousins, definitely.

This comes down to awareness. If you go for the tackle, hopefully the player is still holding the ball. Examples of this happen every week and it's pretty common. Some times players get the free, other times they don't. If Ablett is involved, you can almost guarantee the 50m penalty. That's an umpire issue and not a MRP, Rules committee one imo at least.

4 characters!

[Bornadog]

Re: Protecting the head

The head must be protected, however, there are the bumps that are intentional and they go wrong because contact was high and there are the Franklin type. The Franklin incident, happened in a mili second, so no time to make a decision on exactly what you are going to do.. Franklin did not go into that contest thinking he was going to bump Cousins, it was Cousins actions that it turned out that way. Lloyd went straight into the contest to take the player out. Whether he hit his head I am not sure, hard to tell on the replay, however, because he was knocked out, you would think he hit him in the head.

Therefore, a player has a duty of care when applying the bump and they should avoid the head. However, there are accidental hits and these are just a free kick, ala Franklin.

[AndrewP6]

Re: Protecting the head

It is a contact sport, which what makes our game so great, there are always going to be injuries, and the faster the game gets, the harder the contact.

No problems with hardness, but head-high contact is going too far IMO...

That said, IMO Buddy's bump on Cuz was fair, the fact that he got him high was an accident, he certaintly went out to bump Cousins, and thats fine, why should he have to tackle?

Don't think intent should come into it. His actions caused the contact. If intent was claimed as accidental, players would be doing it every week (claiming "accident"). He doesn't have to tackle, but if he's going to bump, and gets the bloke high, he has to accept the consequences - in this case, a fortnight off.

If a player IMO is rubbed out, and there have been due to accidental contact, it's a shame that a player might lose a Brownlow because of an ACCIDENT,

If it's accidental contact to a player's head, then que sera sera. That's the chance you take.
[/QUOTE]

[sikpup64]

Re: Protecting the head

we are stuck with this crappy rule til the end of the season whether we like it or not for now

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Protecting the head

No problems with hardness, but head-high contact is going too far IMO...



Don't think intent should come into it. His actions caused the contact. If intent was claimed as accidental, players would be doing it every week (claiming "accident"). He doesn't have to tackle, but if he's going to bump, and gets the bloke high, he has to accept the consequences - in this case, a fortnight off.



If it's accidental contact to a player's head, then que sera sera. That's the chance you take.

[/QUOTE]

What's the difference between Franklin's hit in Cousins and Cross' hit on McCarthy.

Both knocked out their opponents? Surely Cross must go?

[AndrewP6]

Re: Protecting the head

What's the difference between Franklin's hit in Cousins and Cross' hit on McCarthy.

Both knocked out their opponents? Surely Cross must go?

He might...

[SonofScray]

Re: Protecting the head

Players shouldn't be rubbed out because they make contact with the head. Not in isolation anyway, which is what is currently happening. Any contact with the head in a bump and they invoke this crap "rough conduct" rule.

Likewise, the outcome to the opposing player shouldn't even be factored in to it. A fair bump can still KO someone just as an elbow might not do any damage. Its not fair to judge the act on the consequence.

The rule is supposed to look after the guy with his head over the ball, in case they are any Byron Picketts about. It is supposed to protect the payer in the marking contest from being lined up from the other direction by a bloke not going for the ball. See Buddha Hocking on Harvey a few years back. Its to prevent the elbows being raised or swung out in the bump - Sinclair v Picione.

When you hit the head in this manner, its a report.

It shouldn't be used to crucify anyone that puts a hard bump on the opposition instead of going the ball. You are allowed to bump a bloke within 5m of the contest - you can line up a player chasing and take him out with the bump, thats a shepherd. You can go past the ball and take out the other contesting player, thats a shirtfront. You are allowed to do it.

If you hit the head in these instances it is a free kick.

A lot of "head high" reports should have been free kicks and that's it. Murphys report against the Hawks last year was neither and he still got weeks. Buddy's was as fair as you can get.

.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Protecting the head

He might...

I thought the same thing when I saw the incident. A bit of a head clash. Will be interesting to see what happens as I'm sure it will get looked at this week.

[Bornadog]

Re: Protecting the head

What's the difference between Franklin's hit in Cousins and Cross' hit on McCarthy.

Both knocked out their opponents? Surely Cross must go?

One was a bump the other a tackle and accidental clash of heads.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Protecting the head

One was a bump the other a tackle and accidental clash of heads.

Of course. I was being facetious.


The arguement was the Franklin deserved to be suspended because he knocked the other bloke out, regardless of whether it was accidental or not, regardless of his intent.

Cross knocked someone out accidentally, surely the only thing that matters is that Mrs. McCarthy's little boy got hurt?


Using the same logic that applies to the bump, the tackle must be banned immediately!

[Bornadog]

Re: Protecting the head

Of course. I was being facetious.


The arguement was the Franklin deserved to be suspended because he knocked the other bloke out, regardless of whether it was accidental or not, regardless of his intent.

Cross knocked someone out accidentally, surely the only thing that matters is that Mrs. McCarthy's little boy got hurt?


Using the same logic that applies to the bump, the tackle must be banned immediately!

true