The game will inevitably transform after the Mackay incident at some stage, so what does that look like?

[Chopperdave]

Helmets are dumb because they offer a false sense of security. Look at NFL. The answer is so simple its actually painful that the AFL hasn't done anything yet... STOP REWARDING PLAYERS WHO INITIATE HEAD-HIGH CONTACT!!!!

He wasn't the first but Selwoods success in initiating head-high contact has led many players like Shuey, Gray, 90% of the Bulldogs and many more in the AFL to embrace leading with the head. Not saying it's the Selwood "shrug" specifically but the "high contact" rules that encourage players to initiate the contact to the head.

So while there is obviously a duty of care for the "bumper/tackler" there is also a duty of care personally for the player being bumped. If Clark turns his body to the side rather than leading with his head chances are we just have a solid collision and no concussion. I remember being taught from u9's how to turn our body and hit a contest side on so as not to cause any head contact there was no ducking/initiating high contact for frees.

It's not only concussion but one day at the rate we are going we will see someone break their neck by ducking the head. The sooner the AFL cracks down on initiating head high contact the better.

 

[Papa G]

Christ. Although society is no doubt weaker these days and people in general are more helicopter over little Oliver or Esmarelda, I've been hearing this "parents won't want their kids playing footy" for the last 30 years. Its actual bollocks.

 

[JHF1870]

Helmets are dumb because they offer a false sense of security. Look at NFL. The answer is so simple its actually painful that the AFL hasn't done anything yet... STOP REWARDING PLAYERS WHO INITIATE HEAD-HIGH CONTACT!!!!

He wasn't the first but Selwoods success in initiating head-high contact has led many players like Shuey, Gray, 90% of the Bulldogs and many more in the AFL to embrace leading with the head. Not saying it's the Selwood "shrug" specifically but the "high contact" rules that encourage players to initiate the contact to the head.

So while there is obviously a duty of care for the "bumper/tackler" there is also a duty of care personally for the player being bumped. If Clark turns his body to the side rather than leading with his head chances are we just have a solid collision and no concussion. I remember being taught from u9's how to turn our body and hit a contest side on so as not to cause any head contact there was no ducking/initiating high contact for frees.

It's not only concussion but one day at the rate we are going we will see someone break their neck by ducking the head. The sooner the AFL cracks down on initiating head high contact the better.

The selwood shrug is more bullshit than it is a concern. The ones like Oliver that plow in head first are the ones risking serious spinal injury

 

[Ramify]

Christ. Although society is no doubt weaker these days and people in general are more helicopter over little Oliver or Esmarelda, I've been hearing this "parents won't want their kids playing footy" for the last 30 years. Its actual bollocks.

Yeah have heard the same.
Heh, I thought participation was at an all time high?

 

[jackster83]

One thing's for sure - Hocking needs to be fired at the sun. Useless campaigner.

 

[Chopperdave]

The Selwood shrug is more bullshit than it is a concern. The ones like Oliver that plow in headfirst are the ones risking serious spinal injury

The problem is the shrug itself is only minor in the scheme of concussion its the action of the player being tackled intentionally committing an action with the intention of winning a free. I totally agree that the head down driving into tackles is far far worse but the league needs to crack down on all "Player initiated" head high contact.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Mandatory helmets

Helmets have worked out amazingly for the NFL. They have no issues whatsoever with concussion.

 

[bumsonseats]

One thing's for sure - Hocking needs to be fired at the sun. Useless campaigner.

They're going to need a bigger boat

 

[Alesana]

Umpire bounces the ball, and no one moves. Any type of contest can result in an injury; ruck contests, marking contests etc. So the Umpire bounces the ball and no one moves for 20 mins x4, it's the only way to eliminate any chance of injury. Isn't that what they want?

 

[tiggsy]

I don't doubt that the game will change as the AFL tries to make it safer. you only have to look at the constant changes to the rules that we've seen over the last decade. having said that, I'm not sure how you could write a rule to stop somebody accidentally colliding with somebody else when you're both going full boar at the contest and arrive at the same time. Dunstall said pretty much the same, stating that he had spent the week trying to work out a rule that could prevent the David Mackay incident specifically and couldn't work out how you could draft it. I think the fact that they both contested the ball and arrived within 4/100 of a second of each other makes it a real footy accident. Not sure you can regulate for such an anomoly.

 

[bumsonseats]

Why dont we just make it no running......walking only

 

[JHF1870]

I don't doubt that the game will change as the AFL tries to make it safer. you only have to look at the constant changes to the rules that we've seen over the last decade. having said that, I'm not sure how you could write a rule to stop somebody accidentally colliding with somebody else when you're both going full boar at the contest and arrive at the same time. Dunstall said pretty much the same, stating that he had spent the week trying to work out a rule that could prevent the David Mackay incident specifically and couldn't work out how you could draft it. I think the fact that they both contested the ball and arrived within 4/100 of a second of each other makes it a real footy accident. Not sure you can regulate for such an anomoly.

He is right. But the solution would lie in adjusting the game rather than creating rules. Force man on man in an open field game. That mitigates the damage without enforcing stupid rules.

 

[JHF1870]

Why dont we just make it no running......walking only

View attachment 1157524

Yeah we get it. I got it after your first post

 

[bumsonseats]

He is right. But the solution would lie in adjusting the game rather than creating rules. Force man on man in an open field game. That mitigates the damage without enforcing stupid rules.

Hi Gill

Fancy seeing you here on a night like this

 

[JHF1870]

Hi Gill

Fancy seeing you here on a night like this

Well I guess BF is diverse

 

[JackFlash]

It will now see a review of the rules they play the game under, Mackay couldn't be suspended because he never really broke any rules? The AFL will work hard to come up with new rulings on this (whatever that might be). They don't want to see head injuries of any kind for any reason which is impossible under the current rules, it's a fast paced, contest based, contact sport that will see adjustments to that in the coming 12 months. The bump is history, it has no hope of survival and there is not a single thing any footy fan can do about it. Coaching will change, player thinking must change and media scrutiny of how a bloke goes for the ball will be eradicated. To tackle or not to tackle, that is the question? To Bump means you're not playing the following week. Footy is about to undergo some radical changes.

 

[JHF1870]

It will now see a review of the rules they play the game under, Mackay couldn't be suspended because he never really broke any rules? The AFL will work hard to come up with new rulings on this (whatever that might be). They don't want to see head injuries of any kind for any reason which is impossible under the current rules, it's a fast paced, contest based, contact sport that will see adjustments to that in the coming 12 months. The bump is history, it has no hope of survival and there is not a single thing any footy fan can do about it. Coaching will change, player thinking must change and media scrutiny of how a bloke goes for the ball will be eradicated. To tackle or not to tackle, that is the question? To Bump means you're not playing the following week. Footy is about to undergo some radical changes.

It might bring about strategic changes. Players might focus on stealing or stripping the ball as opposed to tackling.

It will piss a lot of people off but I reckon they will impose a no front on contact policy of any kind. This would mean a defender would have right of way to a forward running player. I think it wil only apply with a leading player, not a stationary one, just like defensive spoils. So Jake Lever is stationary,, Fyfe could run back, take the mark making minimal contact into Lever. If Lever was running toward the ball, Fyfe could not contest the mark against the flight if he makes contact to the moving Lever.

I cant see them policing any side in stuff. That would be stupid.

 

[Greg1853]

I think theres a very good chance next year new rules will be brought in that entring a contest at "excessive speed" will be considered a "dangerous act" and a suspendable offence if a head injury occurs. Its inevitable I think.

Whether or not is entering a contest at excessive speed, or something similar, I believe there is something in this issue that has not really been addresed in most of the commentary in the Clark/McKay incident.

Everyone seems to be saying McKay was "going for the ball", but at the pace he was running, how he went from front-on running to another body position and thrust himself at the contest, at the last second he was never in a position to actually grab the ball. I would argue at the last second he was not going for the ball, but just crashing the contest at the same time Clark is truly attempting to take possession of the ball (which is truly going for the ball). This is why I am not 100% happy that McKay has no price to pay now, whilst Clark is paying the price for being brave (and arguably stupidly brave, because he was not unaware of the possible contact, but just willing to wear it and the consequences).

 

[kranky al]

Christ. Although society is no doubt weaker these days and people in general are more helicopter over little Oliver or Esmarelda, I've been hearing this "parents won't want their kids playing footy" for the last 30 years. Its actual bollocks.

So you dont look at actual results and just go with your gut on everything?

 

[jesterwester]

There probably has to be a cultural mindset in the way that the game is reported, and analysed, too.

Put yourself in an alternate timeline where Mackay does what the AFL suggests he should have done. He doesn’t accelerate, waits for Clark to pick up the ball, and attempts to tackle. In the interim, Clark has picked up the ball and fired a quick handball over the top to Mackay opponent who runs on to set up an easy scoring oppurtunity for the saints, and probably realistically puts the game out of reach of the crows.

Come the Sunday/Monday footy shows, that incident is brought up, but for very different reasons. Mackays already a whipping boy at the crows, but the panels has a field day grilling him frame by frame over not accelerating enough at the contest, to show leadership by his attack on the ball.

In either timeline for Mackay, it’s been really lose/lose. I’m sure the irony wasn’t lost on him that he puts his body on the line and this is what happens, as it’s not something he’s overly known for.

Players are in such a hard spot now, because the line between being tough and hard at the ball and a long suspension is very very thin. And the truth of it is- I don’t think the AFL actually knows the solution to it just yet.

I think they are just reacting to an unfortunate serious injury and trying to pin blame on a player as a way of showing they are doing something. When in reality, it was just the unfortunate result of a contact sport.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Umpire bounces the ball, and no one moves. Any type of contest can result in an injury; ruck contests, marking contests etc. So the Umpire bounces the ball and no one moves for 20 mins x4, it's the only way to eliminate any chance of injury. Isn't that what they want?

What if players have a car crash on the way to the ground?

 

[Ron The Bear]

There's no reason our game has to change to accommodate the fantasies of the unelected junta at AFL house and some self-important flogs like in the media like King and Whately trying to make it all about them with unnecessary calls that go too far.

It's all moving in one direction, sadly. You can't fight it. Too much money at stake.

The high mark will come under scrutiny eventually.

 

[md20]

Theres an episode on south park where the NFL is changed to them wearing bras and tinfoil hats, using a balloon instead of a ball, and hug and use compliments instead of tackling

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

Christ. Although society is no doubt weaker these days and people in general are more helicopter over little Oliver or Esmarelda, I've been hearing this "parents won't want their kids playing footy" for the last 30 years. Its actual bollocks.

Yeah, I was going to mention this - is there any data to back this up? I.e. participation rates compared to other sports over the years. Given how long we've been hearing about it, you'd expect to see it reflected in the data by now I reckon.

Anecdotally, I have a son that is nearly 5 years old and started Auskick this year - HEAPS of kids there, boys and girls. Seems to still be plenty of parents willing to let their little darlings play Aussie Rules, though I guess it would be more relevant to look at u/15s, u/18s etc where the kids may actually get hurt.

If we were talking about cricket it would be a different story - there's been a noticeable dropoff in participation (at least in my area, but I've heard similar stories elsewhere) over the past decade or two. Clubs folding left, right and centre. But footy is still as popular as ever as far as I can see.

 

[croweater 41]

AFL in the not so distant future