Our young players are taught from a young age to keep their head over the ball. Fair enough.

I believe this differs from expectation that a player dives in head first to a 50/50 contest on the ground, at high speed and from varying directions. Self preservation used to apply so a player would live to fight another day, or in another contest. Players who are not prepared to make this ultimate sacrifice are labelled, shirkers, or even worse, cowards.

I believe this expectation is bordering on blood lust; The herioc gladiator in a fight to the death for the benefit of the spectators.

How many of we fence supporters and journalists would be prepared to do the same, ex footballers included. If every player is to become a Glenn Archer then the statistical risks of severe injury increases enormously.

The recent facial injuries to our Brad Green, and now Alex Rance should indicate to many that this play should not be expected, or else, fit them up with Gridiron helmets as a duty of care.

Otherwise it is only a matter of time before we begin seeing severe Neil Sachse type injuries; career ending, and potentially fatal.

It doesn't excite mums and dads to take their youngster down to auskick either.

Our young players are taught from a young age to keep their head over the ball. Fair enough.

I believe this differs from expectation that a player dives in head first to a 50/50 contest on the ground, at high speed and from varying directions. Self preservation used to apply so a player would live to fight another day, or in another contest. Players who are not prepared to make this ultimate sacrifice are labelled, shirkers, or even worse, cowards.

I believe this expectation is bordering on blood lust; The herioc gladiator in a fight to the death for the benefit of the spectators.

How many of we fence supporters and journalists would be prepared to do the same, ex footballers included. If every player is to become a Glenn Archer then the statistical risks of severe injury increases enormously.

The recent facial injuries to our Brad Green, and now Alex Rance should indicate to many that this play should not be expected, or else, fit them up with Gridiron helmets as a duty of care.

Otherwise it is only a matter of time before we begin seeing severe Neil Sachse type injuries; career ending, and potentially fatal.

It doesn't excite mums and dads to take their youngster down to auskick either.

What an amazing, intelligent post - i concur with all your sentiments 100%. players need to play smart and be coached accordingly. look up, zone, and if you're not quite in the contest, grab the jumper and win a free kick.

that sickening collision was terrible and avoidable - i don't think that rance was in a 50/50 contest and he barrelled in with his head down. the look of almost shock and surprise on selwood's face was nightmarish.

to all the footballers out there, look up, play smart and you'll survive for another contest.

deez days, great post.

Our young players are taught from a young age to keep their head over the ball. Fair enough.

I believe this differs from expectation that a player dives in head first to a 50/50 contest on the ground, at high speed and from varying directions. Self preservation used to apply so a player would live to fight another day, or in another contest. Players who are not prepared to make this ultimate sacrifice are labelled, shirkers, or even worse, cowards.

I believe this expectation is bordering on blood lust; The herioc gladiator in a fight to the death for the benefit of the spectators.

How many of we fence supporters and journalists would be prepared to do the same, ex footballers included. If every player is to become a Glenn Archer then the statistical risks of severe injury increases enormously.

The recent facial injuries to our Brad Green, and now Alex Rance should indicate to many that this play should not be expected, or else, fit them up with Gridiron helmets as a duty of care.

Otherwise it is only a matter of time before we begin seeing severe Neil Sachse type injuries; career ending, and potentially fatal.

It doesn't excite mums and dads to take their youngster down to auskick either.

Its a high contact sport mate. The players know that, the coaches know that and even Mums and Dads should know that, if they are going t take their kids to Ozkick.

You cant ask a player not to commit to the contest 100%, because they just wouldn't do it. I dont know if you have ever played football, and i am not ranking myself up there with professional footballers, but going hard at the football (and sometimes head first) is just instinct!

This is going to sound anti-thetical but the crackdown on bumps to the head saved one of those boys yesterday from spinal cord problems.

Imagine if one of them sent their waist into that contest instead of their head?

I know Rance has got a depressed fracture but it could have been so much worse. Thankfully, players pull out when they know they'll be second too late, or they go low and head on - a lot safer than turning and hitting the contest with their hips.

The question I find myself asking is; how many of these injuries are caused by the new rule interpretations giving cheap frees to the player diving in head first? It seems to me that since the rule makers have decided on this approach players have stopped protecting themselves. Once upon a time they were taught to turn so that they crashed in side-on and the contact was to the shoulder. Now to do that is to likely give away a free kick and risk a report because the other guy was too stupid to protect himself in the same manner.

Maybe not gridiron helmets, but I wouldn't be surprised if one day the players were lining up in the old Nathan Burke style.

We've seen in the last week with the spate of jumps racing incidents, how quickly public scrutiny can mount. Now after however many years they've been run, the days of jumps racing in Australia could be over.

It may only take a similar spate of head injuries before the debate is opened.

Funny thing about Jumps racing. There's nothing wrong with the races, it's the trainers that are the problem. They don't teach the horses how to jump, they just make them run fast and expect them to hurl themselves over the obstacles however they like. No wonder so many fall. What they need to do is introduce proper regulation of the trainers and make them meet mandatory minimum standards in things like jumping technique.

I hate the position people take on this. You may say it's easy for me to say this from my armchair, but I hope they don't go in this direction.

The instances in which I've been injured playing footy, and I've had my fair-share of impact-injuries, are the things I remember most fondly. And it's not the hit itself that I remember (at all!), it's the getting up and going and meeting the next contest head-on that I love. I loved being the guy that lifts his team with that kind of play.

Robert Walls said it best (and this may be the only thing he's said that I respect) when he said it takes all kinds of courage to play footy. Every guy who runs out there has courage, some to gut-run, some to take a hit, some to back into a contest, some to chase. If you ask me, by taking away the courageous element of the game we mess with the fabric that makes it "footy." In fact, with the rule-changed, we're doing that already. I'm living in the States now and even die-hard fans complain about the lack of courage in their game. The only sports fans that know how we feel are Canadian and American Hockey fans... and it's no coincidence that there is a massive element of danger with both games.

I stopped playing footy after I lost desire due to a heavy knock to the head. I went off and pursued other interests, but the truth is I lost courage... I was too soft. And I'm comfortable with that. I didn't have the courage to run out there and chase the pill, always after that perfect play.

The thing about this topic that I object to is the fact that the advocates for protection and safer footy seem to have either forgotten the courage aspect of the game, or never understood it in the first place. Take it away, and you take away the game. We are not Grid-iron, and never should look to be like that, no matter what people say.

The question I find myself asking is; how many of these injuries are caused by the new rule interpretations giving cheap frees to the player diving in head first? It seems to me that since the rule makers have decided on this approach players have stopped protecting themselves. Once upon a time they were taught to turn so that they crashed in side-on and the contact was to the shoulder. Now to do that is to likely give away a free kick and risk a report because the other guy was too stupid to protect himself in the same manner.

agree 100%. what was with warnock getting penalisaed for head high contact? that free kick cost us a goal, and it was a joke. warnock had two eyes on the ball and was trying to pick it up when a west coast player dived head first into him. he didn't make any contact, the WC player did.

i can understand not bumping a player who is running at the ball trying to pick it up and bent over, but if you dive into a contest it should be bad luck.

how many players get free kicks for in the back when they dive at another players legs. why isnt it a free kick for tripping?

As some one who played gridiron if you stuck those helmets on, you would avoid head injuries like the rance one, still possible Ko's though, but just think of how many ribs would get broken due to the helmet. then they would introduce pads to cover the ribs an hey hey lets change it to a square field 100 yards long.

I'm sorry I understand where your coming from but gridiron helmets....... stupid idea.

This argument pops up every 2 years whenever there's a head clash.

imo helmets aren't the answer, just better coaching of players from a young age to protect themselves

agree 100%. what was with warnock getting penalisaed for head high contact? that free kick cost us a goal, and it was a joke. warnock had two eyes on the ball and was trying to pick it up when a west coast player dived head first into him. he didn't make any contact, the WC player did.

i can understand not bumping a player who is running at the ball trying to pick it up and bent over, but if you dive into a contest it should be bad luck.

how many players get free kicks for in the back when they dive at another players legs. why isnt it a free kick for tripping?

I also agree. Problem with making hard & fast rules is that players will then risk serious injury to exploit them.

The real issue is that players seem afraid to protect themselves for fear of being called soft.

The ability to give & take a bump without serious injury was always one of the great skills of the game.

I thought Selwood did everything right & turned slightly side on to take the impact.

Rance just dived head first into him.

I also agree. Problem with making hard & fast rules is that players will then risk serious injury to exploit them.

The real issue is that players seem afraid to protect themselves for fear of being called soft.

The ability to give & take a bump without serious injury was always one of the great skills of the game.

I thought Selwood did everything right & turned slightly side on to take the impact.

Rance just dived head first into him.

Totally agree.

We must protect the head of a player bent over picking up a ball, but someone diving in = He Ducked play on!

I have given up on criticising umpiring decisions as most of these are driven from above with no idea of the short term effect on the game why change a rule like this that has served the game for a long time.

Players are now deliberately dropping the ball as they are being tackled and/or diving in head 1st to the contest. 5yrs ago many of these players would have been benched or dropped at most clubs for these actions but they are now re-warded by the rules? Someone has plenty to answer for!

One thing they have gotten right is the rushed behind rule.

I was taught to protect yourself by getting to the contest as quick as possible (not possible being slow as a wet week) but once at the contest you use your vision to feel where to contact is coming from and turn your body to meet the on rushing opposition...

gridiron helmets: only if we get horns

I was taught to protect yourself by getting to the contest as quick as possible (not possible being slow as a wet week) but once at the contest you use your vision to feel where to contact is coming from and turn your body to meet the on rushing opposition...

I know, surely Rance and Selwood could have used their peripheral vision to see each other coming and turned slightly so they hip and shouldered each other. What they did was dangerous, and they're lucky not to be more seriously injured.

I was taught to protect yourself by getting to the contest as quick as possible (not possible being slow as a wet week) but once at the contest you use your vision to feel where to contact is coming from and turn your body to meet the on rushing opposition...

What you say makes perfect sense but as one of the commentators on FOX (I think it was) said, players are weary these days of getting rubbed out. If one of those players did go a little side on to protect themself, not only did they risk the possibility of hitting their opponent in the head with the full force of their body but they were also perhaps looking at a 6 week holiday. Players are now more weary than ever about the culture of protecting the head and of the rules to the point that they are not going in body on body as much any more (in front on situations) and there will one day be a very serious injury because of this. The AFL in it's efforts to "clean up" the game is in some ways putting players in more danger.

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere but this is Rance's 2nd head clash involving broken bones in the head in 3 weeks (Brad will testify). Maybe coincidence but please start to look where you are going!

Its about time we abolish "in the back" and unless the tackle rips a blokes head off get rid of that too.

95% of free kicks in our game are soft and ruining the game. Bring back the show of strength.

If you duck your head, do so at your own peril. No free kick should given for ducking your head, dropping to your knees or drop the shoulder so the arm slides over ect ect.

Make those rules above that I've mentioned and our game won't have anywhere near the "grey areas" of umpiring. It would be alot easier to officiate.

I understand the emotion involved but you can't introduce a hard helmet without then indroducing full body armour to protect the rest of the body from the helmets. Imagine players diving head first into contests using the hemet as a weapon.

Our game has changed enough, hard helmets would make it unrecognisable.

On what Jared Rivers did, Luke Hodge does it, Glenn Archer did it etc etc. Acts of selflessness are what raise the bar of courage in a team and may win you flags.

The game is still very much about courage, don't change it.

Its a high contact sport mate. The players know that, the coaches know that and even Mums and Dads should know that, if they are going t take their kids to Ozkick.

You cant ask a player not to commit to the contest 100%, because they just wouldn't do it. I dont know if you have ever played football, and i am not ranking myself up there with professional footballers, but going hard at the football (and sometimes head first) is just instinct!

Exactly right mate.

I still play footy and i copped a very hard hit diving head first to get too the ball its pure instinct, Especially when you dont have much time to think about it wich is often the case.

Its about time we abolish "in the back" and unless the tackle rips a blokes head off get rid of that too.

95% of free kicks in our game are soft and ruining the game. Bring back the show of strength.

If you duck your head, do so at your own peril. No free kick should given for ducking your head, dropping to your knees or drop the shoulder so the arm slides over ect ect.

Make those rules above that I've mentioned and our game won't have anywhere near the "grey areas" of umpiring. It would be alot easier to officiate.

Agree nothing i hate more than players talking people pinning there arms almst a perfect tackle alothough they get pinged for in the back simply cus the momentum of the player being tackled was already falling forward.

It happened to moloney on nickoski i think in the 3rd quarter.

Unless your body is forcing them or driving them from there back into the ground it shouldnt be a free.

But the main thing i recon is if the contact is soft and not really influencing the play or player at all should be left uncalled like a tiny tap on shoulder.

Its about time we abolish "in the back" and unless the tackle rips a blokes head off get rid of that too.

It depends on the full definition IMO.

"Hands in the back" as an outright rule needs to be abolished I agree. McLean was robbed of a mark IMO and in many cases if a defender is backing into a forward you should be able to hold them off with your hands.

"Push in the back" IMO should remain as a rule. You can't have players blatantly pushing another player out of the contest.

There will still be grey areas but umpires should be able to tell the difference between a push (ie defender is propelled forward) to a hold off where the forward stands their ground and goes backwards off the defender.

Edit: in light of golly's new thread I should stipulate that this is with respect to marking contests and I agree with what he has said in his new thread about other instances of "in the back" such as with tackles.

Its a high contact sport mate. The players know that, the coaches know that and even Mums and Dads should know that, if they are going t take their kids to Ozkick.

You cant ask a player not to commit to the contest 100%, because they just wouldn't do it. I dont know if you have ever played football, and i am not ranking myself up there with professional footballers, but going hard at the football (and sometimes head first) is just instinct!

I agree with this.......

And this is actually where we, as fans, come into it. Because while no-one wants to see awful collisions like there was on the weekend, we are also very critical, if not scathing of players who do not fully commit to a contest, or those who won't go in hard after the ball. The media is ready and waiting to critique a players courage, so we as supporters can't have it both ways.

No person wants to see these kids hurt, but it can at times be an unfortunate outcome of any body contact sport.