Tackling the tackling issue, how do we resolve the issue?

[justlookingaround]

Seems to me that the AFL, as a part of its efforts into minimising instances and long term effects of concussion has been advised by researchers that tackles in which the head is driven into the turf are a significant risk, so they are now in a position wherein they must punish such acts or else risk being found negligent in any future litigation. This is really where the AFL's biggest concern would lie - being found they knew something and didn't do anything about it.

However - if it is true that the AFL has not communicated to clubs and players these new interpretations of 'dangerous tackles', as has been claimed recently by players - they have already neglected their duty of care and are in breach of the OHS Act 2004 by not communicating newly identified risks and steps to mitigate those risks to relevant parties.

Concussion is an OHS issue for the AFL, probably more so than any other workplace in the country save for other contact sports, and to the extent that it is separated from other professions - you'd almost think it needs its own set of rules and regulations, because there are certain risks and hazards when playing contact sports which just cannot be reasonably avoided to the point of posing no risk at all.

Yes - actions like sling tackles and head high bumps, maybe even bumps in general must be banned and punished because they create an unreasonable risk of brain injury. But any sort of tackle almost always carries with it the risk of a player's head making contact with the ground. I would argue that is not an unreasonable risk. Footballing actions in general, be it jumping for a mark, turning to sprint the opposite direction - literally any innocuous movement, as we have seen time and time again have the potential to result in lifelong injury(lifelong=/=career ending).

Players should have the dignity of risk - that starts with being informed. There should be safeguards in place, but it is not reasonable nor possible to completely remove the risk of concussion from the game - because it is an inherent risk.

 

[TheOptimum18]

It's bloody tough one and some of the bans are ridiculous because the AFL is not providing a pathway for alternatives. The Taylor Adams incident was a gang tackle so how was Adams the culprit.

I think it was quite clear that Adams generated momentum coming into the tackle that resulted in a second action, finalising with the group being bought to ground in the manner that it was.

Adams could've easily come in and just tackled without bringing everyone onto the ground, so his suspension is the one that's easiest to justify.

 

[HalloweenJack]

I've been watching the PA v WCE match and there has been at least 20 instances (both ways) where the decision should have been holding the ball. Instead the umpires called for a ball up. Dermie has been prattling on about this throughout the match and he is correct. Umpires refuse to pay holding the ball all due to prior opportunity. It seems to me that a player no longer has to make any attempt to dispose of the ball if they've had no prior opportunity. This is wrong.

The other problem is that players are taken to the ground during tackles because umpires are allowing play to continue for too long instead of blowing the whistle for a ball up.

It seems to me that the umpires have been told by their coaches that this is how the game should be umpired. This is wrong.

A review into the umpiring coaches and the instructions given to umpires is required.

 

[Nikita Blue]

Awful free kick just paid to Neale for a staged dangerous tackle.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

It's nonsense what the game is coming to. The reason alot of these tackles turn into what is now a dangerous tackle is because they let the play go on too long instead of either paying the free kick earlier or balling it up once the ball is pinned. Hearing Razor Ray trying to justify it on SEN just makes me more frustrated by it all. If you want to protect the head make it compulsory that all players wear helmets. Otherwise they need to accept that accidents will happen. Nobody is forcing these players to play footy. Everybody knows the risks involved. The AFL is only concerned with litigation here not for the well-being of the players. We are turning this game into a joke.

100%, I came here to post the same. The umpires wait so long to blow the whistle.

Blow the whistle quicker for a ball up and don't slow the game down by calling for ruckman to nominate, throw it up, get out of the way and get on with it

 

[TheEscapeClub]

In the past the umpire blew the whistle much quicker. Watch games from the 70s and 80s. The whistle happens quickly and its either a free kick or a bounce.

Now the umpire waits for a while and the tackler either risks the tacklee breaking free or they bring them to the ground to ensure they cant escape.

This 2nd action is because of the AFL directing the umpires to wait and see what happens.

Taking forever to blow the whistle then allows more players to converge and create congestion.

 

[Mat Mann]

There needs to be a proper holistic discussion about changes to tackling rather than simply identifying specific types of dangerous tackles. We already have three key rules that inhibit tackling options.

1. You can't tackle below the knees
2. You can't make any contact above the shoulder
3. You can't fall into their back

It's easy to say 'well, just don't sling', but the reality is that the sling exists in tandem with these constraints and is a reaction to them.

In my opinion, number 3 should have never been a sweeping rule and is part of the reason players sling. I've never heard anyone articulate why someone falling slightly forward in a tackle should be an automatic free kick. These can constitute dangerous tackles but usually aren't.

It makes no sense and never has made sense. People are just used to it.

The point is, if we are going to discuss tightening some rules about tackling, we need to think about loosening some others. The focus needs to be on danger and not technicalities.

the sling exists because
players are now strong enough to stand up in a tackle and alert enough not to release the ball
go back to the 70's and 80's, the umps would blow the whistle immediately and even pay holding the ball for a tackle that spun the player 180degrees,

then we introduced the Prior opportunity rule and it became a rolling scrum, players spun 360 degrees on a regular basis and we allow them to get away with it.

do away with or tighten the crap out of the prior opportunity, if we award frees quicker, then the ball gets moved on anyway and speeds the game like we want, if players are going to get pinged holding the ball more, they will dispose of it quicker.

we seem to be rushing so hard for a last touch out of bounds rule but ignore rules that will have a bigger impact

 

[Sherrinator]

Awful free kick just paid to Neale for a staged dangerous tackle.

He’s wrapped up. Why didn’t the umpire call the tackle and why did Ward keep pinning him and pulling him down? Why didn’t the 15 giants in the area wrap him up? Neale isn’t going head first into the ground unless some idiot drops him into it.

 

[Matilda05]

He’s wrapped up. Why didn’t the umpire call the tackle and why did Ward keep pinning him and pulling him down? Why didn’t the 15 giants in the area wrap him up? Neale isn’t going head first into the ground unless some idiot drops him into it.

Neale has one arm free as he falls / flops to the ground, in the past few weeks where a player has tackled another player and one arm is free , the MRP have assessed / graded these differently.
Personally I would like Lachie Neale to have to explain his decision to flop and stage for the free kick

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[NonPhixion]

the game is broken if Ward gets suspended. There is absolutely no malicious intent and unlike Neale he was just playing to the whistle

 

[TheEscapeClub]

He’s wrapped up. Why didn’t the umpire call the tackle and why did Ward keep pinning him and pulling him down? Why didn’t the 15 giants in the area wrap him up? Neale isn’t going head first into the ground unless some idiot drops him into it.

Ward kept doing what he was doing because the umpire wouldn't blow the whistle. If Ward releases him before the umpire blows the whistle then Neale just disposes of the ball to Brisbane's advantage. The umpire should have paid a free kick to Ward long before Neale was taken to the ground.

 

[Sherrinator]

Ward kept doing what he was doing because the umpire wouldn't blow the whistle. If Ward releases him before the umpire blows the whistle then Neale just disposes of the ball to Brisbane's advantage. The umpire should have paid a free kick to Ward long before Neale was taken to the ground.

Infuriating how useless these umps are. Neale is never getting that ball out. Watch some old games. The umps had good lung capacity back then.

 

[JackFlash]

The Callum Ward tackle today is exactly what the AFL is trying to stamp out. The game is getting closer and closer to the point where any tackle that brings a player to the ground will be penalised. It's not what players have been taught and it goes against everything Australian Rules football is all about, but the game is not the same anymore and we will only see the standing tackle sooner rather than later.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

Infuriating how useless these umps are. Neale is never getting that ball out. Watch some old games. The umps had good lung capacity back then.

In the 70s and 80s that would have been paid holding the ball the moment Ward tackled him, it wouldn't have even got close to Neale hitting the deck.

 

[TheEscapeClub]

The Callum Ward tackle today is exactly what the AFL is trying to stamp out. The game is getting closer and closer to the point where any tackle that brings a player to the ground will be penalised. It's not what players have been taught and it goes against everything Australian Rules football is all about, but the game is not the same anymore and we will only see the standing tackle sooner rather than later.

The AFL could stamp it out for next week by simply telling the umpires to blow their whistles quicker.

Neale baulked around and then was wrapped up by Ward almost immediately after it, instant holding the ball as soon as Ward got him.

 

[catstorm]

I watched several Sydney players trying to do the same as Neale in tonight game, getting tackled and throwing the head towards the ground to try and get a dangerous tackle free. It's bloody dangerous and the AFL must come out and address this, players are risking doing themselves some real harm.

 

[JackFlash]

The AFL could stamp it out for next week by simply telling the umpires to blow their whistles quicker.

Neale baulked around and then was wrapped up by Ward almost immediately after it, instant holding the ball as soon as Ward got him.

Players will have to be taught a new way of tackling and you are right the Umpires have to be faster on the whistle before that second action of throwing the player to the ground. I've always believed the playing surfaces are too hard and contact with the ground these days will result in head injury.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

I watched several Sydney players trying to do the same as Neale in tonight game, getting tackled and throwing the head towards the ground to try and get a dangerous tackle free. It's bloody dangerous and the AFL must come out and address this, players are risking doing themselves some real harm.

Yep, it's starting to get like the high contact rule - the AFlL tighten the rule to protect the head but all it does is encourage players to lead with their head to win the free kick but at the cost of more head contact.

Neale just seemed to give up in this one which made it easier for Ward to bring him down. Sure Neale gets a free kick, but also an extra head knock that he contributed too - the opposite of the AFLs intention.

 

[quotemokc]

There needs to be a proper holistic discussion about changes to tackling rather than simply identifying specific types of dangerous tackles. We already have three key rules that inhibit tackling options.

1. You can't tackle below the knees
2. You can't make any contact above the shoulder
3. You can't fall into their back

It's easy to say 'well, just don't sling', but the reality is that the sling exists in tandem with these constraints and is a reaction to them.

In my opinion, number 3 should have never been a sweeping rule and is part of the reason players sling. I've never heard anyone articulate why someone falling slightly forward in a tackle should be an automatic free kick. These can constitute dangerous tackles but usually aren't.

It makes no sense and never has made sense. People are just used to it.

The point is, if we are going to discuss tightening some rules about tackling, we need to think about loosening some others. The focus needs to be on danger and not technicalities.

Correct on #3.

In the back should only exist when impeding a marking contest.

I don't even understand why you cannot shove a player running with the ball in the back.

 

[Del208273]

IMHO, one thing that needs to be implemented is a quicker whistle - be it a ball-up or holding the ball.

Too many times the umpire waits.....and waits..... and waits - often until the crows yells, "BBBBBBBAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL" before blowing the whistle.

I would suggest there is a greater potential for injury when the umpire/s procrastinate instead of being decisive.

 

[aCunningPlan]

IMHO, one thing that needs to be implemented is a quicker whistle - be it a ball-up or holding the ball.

Too many times the umpire waits.....and waits..... and waits - often until the crows yells, "BBBBBBBAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLL" before blowing the whistle.

I would suggest there is a greater potential for injury when the umpire/s procrastinate instead of being decisive.

Umpires at every level are instructed to wait until it is clear the ball is not coming out. I'm sorry but a quick whistle will just mean 20 pointless ball ups each match when the ball is free and moving. It would slow down the game, frustrate players and fans to no end and give ball winners so incentive to get in first if they are given no chance to move it. Umpires aren't waiting just for theatrics or procrastinating, they are genuinely waiting until the ball is locked in. The suggestion of blowing the whistle quicker might sound good but it just doesn't work in the modern game when most players are clever enough to get their arms free.

 

[Del208273]

Umpires at every level are instructed to wait until it is clear the ball is not coming out.

That's the problem at the moment.

It seems obvious to everyone EXCEPT the umpire that the ball isn't coming out.

For me, quicker ballup decisions would lead to less congestion as delaying the whistle encourages more players to crowd the contest.

Anyways, I disagree but thanks for the civil response

 

[aCunningPlan]

That's the problem at the moment.

It seems obvious to everyone EXCEPT the umpire that the ball isn't coming out.

For me, quicker ballup decisions would lead to less congestion as delaying the whistle encourages more players to crowd the contest.

Anyways, I disagree but thanks for the civil response

My experience with umpiring tends to be the more ball ups there are the more congested play gets as players crowd around the contest. After three or four ball ups in a row you start looking for a free to move play along as it leads to more tackles and more chances of someone getting knocked around the head as players get more frustrated. Quicker whistles would not improve safety or game play.

 

[TheOptimum18]

My experience with umpiring tends to be the more ball ups there are the more congested play gets as players crowd around the contest. After three or four ball ups in a row you start looking for a free to move play along as it leads to more tackles and more chances of someone getting knocked around the head as players get more frustrated. Quicker whistles would not improve safety or game play.

But you can't have it both ways.

If the priority is the head, and making sure that all facets of the game helps protect the head, then there will be tradeoffs in other parts of the game. You can't have a foot in both camps, which in the end, results in bungling up the whole thing.

The AFL has caused a massive problem by trying to control too much of what should be the responsibilities of coaches (I'm clearly talking about how to deal with congestion here). AFL has tried so hard to implement rules to help decrease congestion, any step back that even hints at increasing congestion brings scrutiny back to previous rules that supporters already immensly dislike.

Are the AFL more concerned about protecting player's, or more concerned about congestion and ball movement?

 

[aCunningPlan]

But you can't have it both ways.

If the priority is the head, and making sure that all facets of the game helps protect the head, then there will be tradeoffs in other parts of the game. You can't have a foot in both camps, which in the end, results in bungling up the whole thing.

The AFL has caused a massive problem by trying to control too much of what should be the responsibilities of coaches (I'm clearly talking about how to deal with congestion here). AFL has tried so hard to implement rules to help decrease congestion, any step back that even hints at increasing congestion brings scrutiny back to previous rules that supporters already immensly dislike.

Are the AFL more concerned about protecting player's, or more concerned about congestion and ball movement?

That's the point I am making though, more congestion leads to a greater risk of injury.