Well
O'Meara didn't try to sling and it wasn't a sling tackle. But he did go to ground himself early in the piece, seemingly to increase the likelihood of Spargo going to ground.
Going off your feet as a tackler has been a technique used by AFL players for a while now and it unnecessarily increases the chance of not only head injuries but serious leg ones too.
I'd argue the tackle is a sideshow in the game. AFL players aren't and have never been particularly good at it as a whole. Reducing the value of tackling to protect safety wouldn't lose us much.
Getting rid of the prior opportunity clause would increase the value of a tackle, encouraging more of it. It's a pretty indirect way of trying to protect players' heads. Just stipulate players need to keep their feet in the tackle.Is the "no prior opportunity" rule somewhere at the root of the problem?
It encourages the player to take possession when they have no chance of disposing of the ball effectively, to turn a loose ball into a 50:50 at least,
but further for the chance of a free by some degree of staging, dropping to draw the high tackle, simulating a sling??
Players would then try to keep the ball moving rather than seek the no prior stoppage??
I look at all of this from how do we protect the players from head and neck injuries?
O'Meara didn't try to sling and it wasn't a sling tackle. But he did go to ground himself early in the piece, seemingly to increase the likelihood of Spargo going to ground.
Going off your feet as a tackler has been a technique used by AFL players for a while now and it unnecessarily increases the chance of not only head injuries but serious leg ones too.
I'd argue the tackle is a sideshow in the game. AFL players aren't and have never been particularly good at it as a whole. Reducing the value of tackling to protect safety wouldn't lose us much.