The debate over the bump penalty and sin bin has been a hot topic in the AFL for some time now, and it has recently come to a head with the tribunal hearing of Crow player, Rory Sloane. Sloane was reported for a bump on Geelong’s Patrick Dangerfield during the Round 7 match between the two sides, and was subsequently given a one-match suspension by the Match Review Officer.
The incident has sparked a debate over whether the bump penalty and sin bin are appropriate punishments for such an offence. On one side, there are those who argue that the bump penalty is too harsh, and that a sin bin would be more appropriate. They argue that the bump penalty is too severe, and that a sin bin would be a more appropriate punishment, as it would allow the player to return to the field after a period of time.
On the other side, there are those who argue that the bump penalty is necessary in order to protect players from serious injury. They argue that the bump penalty is necessary in order to ensure that players are not engaging in dangerous play, and that it is an effective deterrent against such behaviour.
The tribunal hearing of Rory Sloane will be an important step in determining whether or not the bump penalty and sin bin are appropriate punishments for such offences. It will be interesting to see what the tribunal decides, and how it will affect the debate over these punishments. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that this debate is far from over, and that it will continue to be a hot topic in the AFL for some time to come.
