Stevie J ruling on the money

Martin Blake writes in today’s Age under the extraordinary headline

Johnson decision an example of the nanny state:

 

It is such a contradiction to think that a little shoulder into the sternum of an approaching player, intended as a block for that player's opponent (in this case, the passing Joel Selwood), can draw a suspension from a final when there is so much more overtly dangerous conduct going on around it.

 

 

You’ve got this one wrong, Martin, on at least two counts. A “little shoulder into the sternum” it isn’t and it’s in full and clear breach of the Laws of Australian Football and has been since God’s dog was a pup.

 

Law 15.4.2 Shepherd states:

A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
    (a)    a Player who does not have possession of the football 
and who is no further than 5 metres away from the 
football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs;

 

Beyond anything else, it’s clear from the lines in the image that the ball is at least twenty-five metres away. Rule 15.4.5 specifies a free kick for infringing the shepherding rule, but when force is taken into account, there’s no question that Johnson is applying more than a shepherd or a block. He’s doing his best to take out the guy tagging his Captain.

 

Thirty years ago a “shirtfront” to an opponent was accepted as a legitimate tactic, but most of us have moved on. And a shirtfront most definitely is not a bump — it’s a weapon used to put an opponent out of the game.

 

Now, the perfect example of the “nanny state” decision was the ruling against Joel Selwood a few weeks ago when he pushed his brother after surviving a heavy tackle.

 

Johnson is a wizard with the ball and it would generally be better that he played than sat outside the arena, but equally there’s no room in the modern game for snipers.

 

AussieRulesBlog would have no issue with a shepherd or a stationary block within five metres of the ball, but this was a shirtfront twenty-five metres off the ball. At the very least, it’s unsportsmanlike conduct and, in our view, that makes the charge and the suspension appropriate.