Are you able to make any sense of the rule to protect the players head?

Question

I want to make an interesting point about rules regarding the protection of the players head. Henry Slattery was knocked out cold by what was clearly NOT malicious play by Brendan Fevola. The thing that I fond interesting about this whole scenario is that for weeks we have seen players rubbed out or reprimanded because of a blow to the head of another player however in this case, what has been said to or done about Fevola causing a blow that hospitalised his victim? Despite knowing that it was purely an accident, i cant help thinking that it makes a mockery of the suspension or reprimand of other players who have done the same. If I was one of those players who is now out of Brownlow contention, I would be feeling very angry to know that somebody caused more damage yet wasn't punished for it at all. Your thoughts?

Answer 1

you have made an interesting point.

heres my view:

i think the difference, as you have outlined, is the intent. where it compares with the bump is because a person applying a bump is clearly going for the man, whereas someone in fevola's position was clearly going for the ball. i think this is the difference. however, this raises the question that if you could disguise the fact that you were going for the man, would you get off (given recent decisions) ?

i tend toward saying yes.

Answer 2

i did not see the inncident on TV...but that is a very good point.

I think in freak accidents like that (well..thats what u said), then I think a maximum penalty of a repremand and 50 demerit points (100 points to be out of brownlow) can be put against the player.

then the players will be even more careful about the head.

yes, if they are more careful over the head, then AFL may be getting a little soft....but when your head is down over that ball, you dont know who is coming at you or at what speed...not many ohter sports in the world have situations where players heads are over the ball...thats why this rule cant be compared to any other sports....

its a tricky one...and one that should be looked at as I am sure it will happen again; maybe with worse consequences (even if it is an accident!)

Answer 3

The players in the past few weeks where players have been suspended/reprimanded for head high bumps had no intention on going for the ball, there intention was player.

Where as Brendan Fevola's intention was the ball, he had no idea Slattery was in his path. It was an accident, no need for a suspension although the impact and injury has very high.

Answer 4

You answered your own question in the question.  It was an accident, accidents happen in collision sports, which is another example why it take guts to play aussie rules, you just never know where the knock is going to come from, the side, the back, the front?

The blokes that got suspended were viewed to have shown intent in their actions, fevola's actions were not malicious in any way, he had his eyes on the ball and that's it, i don't even know how you came up with this to be honest, it's a none issue,  i personally had plenty of injuries over my 36-37 odd years of aussie rules, some were intentional by others, most were just bad luck, the broken noses were half and half.  all good fun.

Answer 5

wear somtehing lol

Answer 6

The difference with that and other examples is they had their head over the ball on the ground whereas Slats was airborne flying for a mark. Fevola was also going for the ball, and Goodes, who finally is getting suspended just runs straight through the player, no intention of gaining possession.

Answer 7

Well how it works is a flow diagram of decisions:

Is it Adam Goodes who did the bumping - If Yes: No problem

Is it any other player - If yes - a week or two or maybe a reprimand if they've been good

Is it Fev, Richo, Moons or Rocca ... then that's ten weeks.

Fact is sometimes players DO put their heads in a stupid position, but they should generally be protected.  An accidental bump when going for the ball should be a free kick.  No attempt at the ball, that should be a week or two out.  Line the bloke up from 30 metres away as Goodes did - then it's five to ten weeks.

(Did you notice I'm peeved with Goodes?)

Answer 8

There needs to be consistency!

For example:



Beau Waters: Head high/side bump to a player while running at full speed to the ball. Attention to the ball only! He gets 2-3wks!

Adam Goodes: Head high bump to adam seelwood. He doesnt even get a week.

Its pathetic and unfair.

I find that the umps are to influencial on the final margin because they blow the whistle and often a goal results. But then the same infringment to anouther team isnt blown and so the other team does not get a goal. Its so unfair and stupid.

If i was the player who was out of brownlow contention i would be very mad at the other players! Adrew Dimitreou needs to take care of these umpiring mistakes before he starts introducing new teams and stupid rules like 'hands in the back' and that interchange thing. And they cant even time properly! How many times has the clock not stopped ticking?????

Answer 9

**I think the whole system is starting to become a real joke.  It'll get to the stage where players won't want to touch another player for fear of being reportered (ok, so maybe that's a bit exaggerated but you get what I'm saying).

I saw the Fev incident and although there was clearly no intention I was a bit worried that he might get reported for it because these days, it doesn't matter if you intend to do something or not, you can still get reported.**

Answer 10

I completely agree with you, the Tribunal needs to be consistent. Most players that get reported don't try to hurt opponents on purpose, but they still are punished. Accident or not, if a player causes a blow to another players head, they should be dealt with accordingly. If all players got of charges because they 'didn't mean it' or 'it was an accident', nobody would be punished!