The Willie Rioli tribunal controversy has left AFL coaches confused as it's become the latest chapter in the perennial debate around the bump.
On Tuesday night, the tribunal found the West Coast forward not guilty of rough conduct for jumping off the ground and colliding with Gold Coast young gun Matt Rowell, an incident that originally earned him a one-game game.
The AFL then said it disagreed with the tribunal verdict, but had decided against an appeal because it had little chance of succeeding.
"I probably side with the AFL, which is a little bit confusing because they thought it should have been a suspension. I probably agree," said Richmond coach Damien Hardwick.
"You leave the ground and you take a player in the head, regardless whether it's an accident, we sort-of understand the rules.
"It's probably clouded my understanding, how the AFL can feel this way and the tribunal another and then the AFL says it's an incorrect decision but then doesn't challenge?"
Hardwick added players will bump instinctively on occasion, but 80 per cent of the time coaches prefer them to tackle.
"There's going to be a stage where players actually have to take out a body, but from a front-on point of view or jumping in the air, I think players are pretty clear," he said.
"If you make head-high contact you take your career in your own hands, really."
Fremantle coach Justin Longmuir said there is no easy answer, noting players are making split-second decisions about whether to bump.
"One thing I would say is we need real consistency and clarity from the AFL about what's acceptable and what's not acceptable, and what forces players to miss games and what doesn't," he said.
"I can understand why players hesitate in those moments because they don't necessarily know the outcome."
Gold Coast coach Stuart Dew said they were split on how the Rioli collision with their player should be judged.
"It happened so quick ... there are going to be accidents that happen on the footy field, but our instructions with our players is clearly bumping is putting yourself at risk," he said.
"But in that case it did appear that it was contesting the mark and I think that's how they've done it. It could go either way."
