AFL must consider rule changes to discourage ‘bumps’
One round, three “bumps” and once again the debate turns to whether the AFL is really doing enough to protect players’ heads.
On any other weekend, it might have gone unremarked when Melbourne’s Kysaiah Pickett, Sydney’s Lance Franklin and Adelaide’s Shane McAdam dealt out varying quantities of kinetic punishment to their unwitting opponents and were in turn rewarded with varying periods of suspension.
With concussion very much in the spotlight thanks to court action by former players as well as a Senate inquiry into traumatic head injuries in sport, the “bumps” – in reality violent, high-speed collisions – provided a dramatic, high-definition reminder that current sanctions are probably not doing enough to deter risky on-field behaviour.
Some may argue that an element of unpredictable danger is necessarily part and parcel of our great game, a gladiatorial contest that demands physical courage; that tighter rules around physical contact, especially off the ball, would rob it of its spectacle.
However, as we become increasingly aware of the long-term effects of head injury in contact sport, the risk-to-reward ratio has changed, for players and the organisations that manage them.
Steps have been taken in recent years to minimise ongoing or supplementary damage following concussion. The AFL and now the NRL impose a mandatory stand-down period for affected players.
Whether these protocols will improve overall outcomes, given what we know about the true length of recovery times, is as yet unknown. But they at least recognise the severity of this type of injury, which has been linked to chronic traumatic encephalopathy – a degenerative brain disease – and the necessity for ongoing observation and management.
Suggestions abound for harsher, more visible sanctions to dissuade reckless play, including those borrowed from other sports, such as the red and yellow cards used in NRL, rugby union and soccer.
Immediately removing a player from the field not only sends them a sharp message irrespective of subsequent punishment but also marginally reduces their team’s chances of winning; another incentive to curb more violent instincts.
Veteran columnist Greg Baum observed on Monday that some form of bump-related crackdown appears inevitable in the current climate, though implementation could be a difficult.
“Longer bans – but how much longer? Tighter rules, leaving no loopholes?” Yet, he believes, “On a scale that runs from open slather to total ban, we’re much closer than ever to prohibition.”
Not only is player welfare at stake, but clubs and sporting organisations have to consider future legal liability, a factor being examined by the Senate committee as a specific term of reference. It may well be addressed in court given the number of concussion-related claims filed against the AFL in recent weeks, alongside one from former AFLW Collingwood vice captain Emma Grant, who launched a civil lawsuit against the club after suffering a debilitating head injury in 2020.
Ultimately, tweaking the rules to further discourage unnecessarily rough play would no doubt elicit howls of protests from traditionalists but surely makes sense if it minimises the incidence of head injury and future suffering.
We have to accept, to some degree, that players will continue to face the prospect of catastrophic injury just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; to an extent, that is inevitable in any contact sport. But to not make reasonable efforts to mitigate the risk, in this day and age, feels increasingly barbaric.
The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.
Most Viewed in Sport
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article