Time to change the tackling rules

[Cleric]

With all the concern about high tackles and head injuries, it's time for the AFL to change the rules to allow Rugby style tackling around the legs. It's far safer, far more effective, and will start to make the tackler look lower to the legs than higher around the mid section.

I'm not sure why there a rule preventing at any more. They have taken the bump out, and have reduced the tackling options.

 

[PhatBoy]

With all the concern about high tackles and head injuries, it's time for the AFL to change the rules to allow Rugby style tackling around the legs. It's far safer, far more effective, and will start to make the tackler look lower to the legs than higher around the mid section.

I'm not sure why there a rule preventing at any more. They have taken the bump out, and have reduced the tackling options.

I’ve never ever understood why you can’t. I have always assumed there is concern about injury to players who get tackled around the legs as they’re kicking or preparing to but I don’t really see any extra inherent risk in performing such an action anyway; if a player is about to kick the ball chances are his opponent will try and tackle him around the waist anyway.

It is a ridiculous rule. Tripping using your feet - of course that should be outlawed but using your hands? Makes no sense to outlaw it

 

[Shane Heard]

Most Australian rules tackles are from
Behind the ball carrier.
You can’t have blokes diving to the ground and wrapping their arms around knees and calves.
You’d have 10 acl injuries a week.

Rugby is all front on attack and they all have legs twice the thickness of ours and more likely to withstand the hit/trip.

 

[PhatBoy]

Most Australian rules tackles are from
Behind the ball carrier.
You can’t have blokes diving to the ground and wrapping their arms around knees and calves.
You’d have 10 acl injuries a week.

Rugby is all front on attack and they all have legs twice the thickness of ours and more likely to withstand the hit/trip.

The legs tackles don’t come from front on mate.

In the centre third of the field where the attack is direct, the A defender will generally target the hips with his shoulder, the B defender will try and tackle above that and prevent an offload, wrap the ball up. Legs tackles happen from the side as the ball gets shifted to the centres and wings, or from behind if a break gets made.

 

[endure]

Does the league even want the aggressive tackle - in its purely physical capacity - to exist in the game going forward?

 

[mr bagcroft]

Nonsense.
A player shall attempt a tickle to constitute a tackle.
If the player with the ball lips curl at either end in a northwards fashion and the umpire sees this facial incursion,
a free shall be paid.

 

[Cleric]

Most Australian rules tackles are from
Behind the ball carrier.
You can’t have blokes diving to the ground and wrapping their arms around knees and calves.
You’d have 10 acl injuries a week.

Rugby is all front on attack and they all have legs twice the thickness of ours and more likely to withstand the hit/trip.

In rugby there are tackles from behind, in front and from the sides. There is no increased risk of ACL from any of them.
Reality just does not bare that out.

 

[Thuggee_Cult]

I do think that the AFL should change the tackle rules, but not the way the OP suggests.

Ankle taps - definitely a hard no on this. I still remember Dennis Carroll ankle tapping Wayne Schimmlebush in a Swans v Roos game in the late 80s, Schimmas ankle was busted as a result.

I actually think that the AFL have a problem of their own making when it comes to tackling. The term 'prior opportunity', in my opinion, is the worst phrase to ever enter the football vernacular. Over time this phrase has mounted a case for rewarding the tackler over the ball winner, which goes against the very fundamentals of our game.

Why do we have to reward the tackler? Seriously, why? By definition they are second to the ball.

I actually think that the best place for this to start is banning the tackling of the arms and only allowing tackles around the body.

This would allow the ball winners to free their arms to
a. dispose of the ball
b. allow players to protect their fall
c. promote more fluid and quality ball movement and in turn minimise congestion more naturally to the game, rather than tinkering at the edges with stupid rules like the stand rule

Anyway rant over, carry on

 

[smasha]

Tha Horne Francis swallowed whistle for htb when he was tackled 720 degrees was a disgrace.

Not even a whisper about it in the media.

Any other club and they would have brought it up.

#boysclub

 

[Shane Heard]

In rugby there are tackles from behind, in front and from the sides. There is no increased risk of ACL from any of them.
Reality just does not bare that out.

Yeah but In rugby the come from behind tackle is rare and they predominantly fall forward onto bare grass…into space.
If we did it in our game blokes would falling head first into traffic most times with little time to brace for contact with an arm out.

We banned tripping/hacking and below the knee tackles back in the 1800s for a reason ..

 

[kickazz]

Tha Horne Francis swallowed whistle for htb when he was tackled 720 degrees was a disgrace.

Not even a whisper about it in the media.

Any other club and they would have brought it up.

#boysclub

The 360 degrees or whatever is not a rule, never has been.

 

[kickazz]

I do think that the AFL should change the tackle rules, but not the way the OP suggests.

Ankle taps - definitely a hard no on this. I still remember Dennis Carroll ankle tapping Wayne Schimmlebush in a Swans v Roos game in the late 80s, Schimmas ankle was busted as a result.

I actually think that the AFL have a problem of their own making when it comes to tackling. The term 'prior opportunity', in my opinion, is the worst phrase to ever enter the football vernacular. Over time this phrase has mounted a case for rewarding the tackler over the ball winner, which goes against the very fundamentals of our game.

Why do we have to reward the tackler? Seriously, why? By definition they are second to the ball.

I actually think that the best place for this to start is banning the tackling of the arms and only allowing tackles around the body.

This would allow the ball winners to free their arms to
a. dispose of the ball
b. allow players to protect their fall
c. promote more fluid and quality ball movement and in turn minimise congestion more naturally to the game, rather than tinkering at the edges with stupid rules like the stand rule

Anyway rant over, carry on

I don't mind this, there was once a time when most tackles were like this, i.e. low.

Around the arms is more effective but risks the tackle going high. Now we have this situation where if the ball carrier lifts their arm to contribute to the highness, it can be play on. In the past, it was the risk you took as a tackler if you went around the arms.

In any case, if tackling around the arms was outlawed then a stricter approach to correct disposal could be taken. It could be a good thing.

 

[RedV3x]

With all the concern about high tackles and head injuries,

The head has always been off limits.

it's time for the AFL to change the rules to allow Rugby style tackling around the legs.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

It's far safer,

No, it's a trip and can cause great damage.

far more effective,

No, it's far from effective because a players arms are still free so a player can simply hand-pass.

I'm not sure why there a rule preventing at any more.

because it's a trip and trips are dangerous.

They have taken the bump out

No they haven't. A player must adjust to ensure the bump doesn't make contact with the head.

and have reduced the tackling options.

I don't think you've ever seen a game of AFL.
A player can forcefully tackle another player as long as it is done in a controlled manner.
It is a far cry from the decade where if a tackling player "carried forward" the tackled player it was called "push in the back".