The AFL executive makes its fair share of mistakes, however, there is little doubt that the executive (and Match Review Committee) has made the brave and correct decision in creating the head-high contact rule and applying it in this week’s controversial Lance “Buddy” Franklin case. Franklin last night had his appeal against a two-match ban for rough conduct dismissed. Franklin had earlier been cited for making head-high contact on Ben Cousins last Saturday, in an incident that led to the Richmond star being concussed and unable to play on.
Claims that removing the head-high bump from AFL football turns the game into some form of non-contact sport are preposterous. Unsurprisingly, the allegations are often leveled by obese, alcohol-swilling onlookers who most likely lack the fitness to run onto the field, let alone compete in one of the most physically demanding sports on earth. As AFL has become a professional sport in recent years, the strength and conditioning of players has increased exponentially. The level of contact and ferocity at AFL level is a far cry from the near-amateur days of behind-the-play contact and all-in brawls of days gone by. It takes far more courage to absorb a bone-crunching tackle from a 190-centimtre, 95-kilogram machine than to cannon into a player’s head while they are trying to pick up the football.
It should be noted that Franklin elected to bump Cousins, knowing that his action may lead to head-high contact. Franklin could have avoided the collision, or sought to tackle Cousins. As The Age noted this morning, the law is straight-forward, it is a reportable offence if “in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) [a player] causes forceful contact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck and, instead, of bumping, the player had a realistic alternative to [a] contest the ball; or [b] tackle the opponent.'”
The benefits of the law do not manifest immediately but the intent of the rule is clear — to prevent a player from becoming a quadriplegic as a result of head-high contact during a match. The situation is certainly not outside the realms of possibility — in 1975, the 24-year-old Footscray player, Neil Sachse, tragically damaged his spinal chord and was rendered quadriplegic after an accidental incident with Fitzroy’s Kevin O’Keefe. In the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup, prop Ben Darwin suffered a career-ending spinal injury as a result of contact to his neck. Darwin was perilously close to permanent neck injury or quadriplegia,
While critics have flooded talkback and opinion pages with claims that the Franklin verdict will turn AFL into “netball”, the reality is very different. It takes little courage to mount a head-high challenge to a player, often unaware, in possession of the football (especially when the person making contact is far larger and stronger than the victim). It takes far more courage to actually pick up the football. Hawthorn football manager Mark Evans claimed that “the point for me still remains that I am not sure this law is in the spirit of the game [and] we look forward to lobbying the AFL about what we can do to get that reversed to a much more reasonable position” — which leads to the question: is AFL a game that rewards the courageous and fearless, or those who use physical stature and unawareness of a victim to gain an advantage over their opponent?
There are also subsidiary commercial benefits from the AFL’s stance in recent years. Since the violence has been largely removed from football (replaced by fitness, strength and a remarkable improvement in tackling) female attendance continues to increase. Doubling the potential market for any business makes good commercial sense. As does preventing people from becoming quadriplegic.
Great article. The game is pretty tough, fast and exciting to watch.
Adam
Thank you for actually presenting an arguement as to why you believe what you believe rather than throwing insults at those who disagree, although “obese, alcohol-swilling onlookers who most likely lack the fitness to run onto the field, let alone compete in one of the most physically demanding sports on earth.” does you or your arguement no favours.
I disagree because I dont take as true that Buddy had other options. It may appear that way watching the slo-motion replay but as Cousins took him on and encouraged contact Buddy was unable to move his arm quickly enough to tackle, and couldn’t evade. Why he would want to evade I am not sure as that would enable his opponent to escape as though Buddy was not there.
It is a different game, I hold no grudges to the fans of this game but it is not the same game it was ten years ago, some changes for good and some not so good. I refer to Dermott Brereton and his analogy of the under 10s football his son plays. In the under 10s you cannot tackle so the only way to dispossess your opponent was to bump or slap the ball from their hands. Now the only option to dispossess your opponent is to slap the ball out of their hands. That sir is basketball. Not the same game.
“is AFL a game that rewards the courageous and fearless, or those who use physical stature and unawareness of a victim to gain an advantage over their opponent?”
Just wondering how Buddy fits into the second part of that sentence? Was he doing that? I would have thought Cousins maybe was using Buddy’s need to miss his head to draw a free kick but I dont believe that was his intention.
Where is the duty of care on the victim? I believe this has come from Blake Caracella’s injury where he recklessly slid into a pack and ran into a knee.
I disagree with your views re Franklin. I strongly support the rule aimed to protect players’ heads. However, I think it has been wrongly applied in this case. At no stage did Franklin target Ben Cousins’ head. Cousins did not have his head down at any stage, and the bump was perfectly fair in the circumstances. Sure, Franklin may have chosen to takle instead of bump, but football is all about making the ‘right’ choice in a fraction of a second. This is not cricket, where a fast bowler has ample time to decide whether to bowl a bouncer at a tail-ender or pitch the ball up. Franklin had next to no time to make his choice. I have seen the incident involving Nic Maxwell earlier this year and there really is no comparison between the two incidents. Maxwell had time to change direction, and the opposing player had his head down. The Franklin incident is very different.
I also have trouble with your use of the Neil Sachse incident. Sachse stumbled and his head hit the knee of a player coming the other way. There was no ‘tackle’ in the normally understood sense of the word. No practical rule change could have avoided what happened.
By the way; I am a Carlton supporter and the suspension may benefit us, so I have no vested interest in it being overturned.
Russell
Any other time of year they would have took the week on offer.
Theres a young bloke at West coast who got his jaw broken by
Nick Maxwell that must be scratching his chin .
Adam, no comment on the pros and cons of the rule. Simply a very big tick for the fluency, logic and simply powerful use of the language. Your second par should be made mandatory for every backpacker/traveeller so that when they’re challenged about our “sissy game of aerial ping-pong” they can simply dip into their money belt and flash a card with that paragraph inscribed on it. Great writing! (Tho’ my 32-year career in newspaper journalism was only a modest but honest one, I DO know great writing when when I see it.) Your whole comment was logical, fluent and rational. But that second par … wow! (P.S. I have absolutely NO grudge or ill feeling towards “Buddy”. He is, to use today’s youth’s word of the (year, decade?) an “awesome” athlete and it’s a pity he made the mistake. But he’ll learn.
One question tho’. How the hell does somebody of his stature not occasionally and ACCIDENTALLY hit a “shorty” like Cousins head high?? Just a thought.
Regards etc