Time to remove the intent to hurt

The likelihood that Chris Tarrant’s “bump” to shepherd Justin Koschitzke on Friday night will be reviewed by the Match Review Panel has provoked considerable controversy. There’s no question for AussieRulesBlog that Tarrant’s actions were legal. Koschitzke’s head wasn’t hit in the collision and did not make contact with the ground. Koschitzke was not injured in the clash.

 

Notwithstanding the legality of Tarrant’s actions, AussieRulesBlog questions whether Tarrant’s action was appropriate in the circumstances. Tarrant’s objective in the incident was to delay Koschitzke in his pursuit of Tyson Goldsack. Tarrant’s action was to run, at pace, to intercept Koschitzke at an angle apparently greater than 90º and to aim his shoulder at Koschitzke’s shoulder. The impact to Koschitzke was substantial.

 

Tarrant could have achieved the same objective by applying a more traditional shepherding movement with his arms spread wide, turning in to run up to five metres behind Goldsack. This action, properly applied, would have prevented Koschitzke from catching or pressuring Goldsack.

 

It will be an unfashionable view, but AussieRulesBlog thinks that rampant testosterone sanctions inflicting pain and hurt as a more legitimate expression of “a man’s game” than a more gentle, but equally effective, shepherd. Reducing or removing high-impact, head-on type collisions from the game would not be the end of the bump as is regularly asserted in this on-going controversy. Instead, it would signal the end of a culture that legitimises the intent to inflict pain through high-impact collision. The AFL has taken steps to protect players on the mark from high-impact collisions designed to free up the player with the free kick.

 

By way of illustration of the alternative, in the Essendon–Swans game the previous weekend, Adam Goodes confronted Angus Monfries head on. While it would have been legitimate to apply a hip and shoulder down Monfries’ centre line, Goodes absorbed much of the force of the collision with his arms. Monfries was still put to ground — and thus out of the contest — but was not otherwise inconvenienced.

 

We think the laws of the game could usefully be altered to define a roughly 45º angle as the maximum for applying a bump in a shepherding scenario. The shepherding player could still be legitimately put to ground and out of the contest, but by a glancing blow rather than an almost head-on collision.