My link

This is a very moving article which links into two different issues raised on Demonland this year - Daniel Bell and sling tackles.

I'm convinced that the rules regarding tackling need to be made clearer and that the result of a tackle (ie, whether it causes injury or not) should not be relevant to whether a player is suspended. Rather, it's the type of tackle which should be the cause of any penalty. Apart from anything else, it's possible that the damage to a player's health may not be noticed in the short term (ie, by the time the MRP considers the matter) but could be significant for the player's health in the longer term.

Take the time to read the article.

I disagree. AFL is a tough sport. Its always been very physical. The people playing the game now grew up watching it and all said 'wow what a great game, I want to play that sport' They didn't say 'Wow thats good. But its a bit too rough. I hope they make it softer'

Everyone who plays contact sport knows the risks. Why are we turning our game into touch rugby is beyond me.

Maybe this should be banned too.

Mark of The Year

After all he made contact with the oppositions head and also could of hurt himself coming down from such a height.

And for people who agree with me here is a little something

Everyone who plays contact sport knows the risks. Why are we turning our game into touch rugby is beyond me.

Do they really? Everyone knows that in footy you might get a bit hurt, but I doubt too many of the 6 year olds signing up for AusKick know that they're potentially signing themselves up for a lifetime of degenerative brain disease that might not actually catch up with them until they're in their 50s.

Do they really? Everyone knows that in footy you might get a bit hurt, but I doubt too many of the 6 year olds signing up for AusKick know that they're potentially signing themselves up for a lifetime of degenerative brain disease that might not actually catch up with them until they're in their 50s.

And even they did, they probably wouldn't know any better anyway.

Do they really? Everyone knows that in footy you might get a bit hurt, but I doubt too many of the 6 year olds signing up for AusKick know that they're potentially signing themselves up for a lifetime of degenerative brain disease that might not actually catch up with them until they're in their 50s.

Of course not at that age.

But the same 6 year old when he turns 18 makes a decision. And then again every time he runs out on the ground. It's not like he makes the decision as a 6 year old and then has no choice but to continue on.

Morally, I think anyone running a sport has the responsibilty to make the sport as safe as possible for the competing athletes.

It's not like he makes the decision as a 6 year old and then has no choice but to continue on.

However, young 18-year-olds are notorious risk takers. Their frontal lobe development is incomplete, and they think it just won't happen to them. Death, injury and debilitation are just not part of their consciousness.

Do young male drivers ever think they'll die in a car crash? Do young smokers ever think they'll get lung cancer or emphesema?

Morally, I think anyone running a sport has the responsibilty to make the sport as safe as possible for the competing athletes.

I agree to a degree. However if we were to make it as safe as possible we would take away the contact side of it and make it touch football. Daisy Thomas took an absolute screamer against North a few weeks ago. Used his legs to force the north player out of his way which resulted in the north player slamming into another North player. It was a great mark. Should the Afl make this illegal as it could result in an injury? Robbo was a master of this. I remember him pretty much kicking a player in the back while he took a mark. He didn't even need to do it. But because he was going for the mark he is allowed to.

How can you make a game safe while you are allowed to knee a player in the back of the head to take a mark?

Even more so than this its not just allowed. Its celebrated as an amazing part of our game.

The biff is gone from the game. And thats a good thing. And as much as I loved the Whelan bump, he should have been suspended for it.

Yes lets make the game safe as we can. But lets not destroy the game in the process.

Of course not at that age.

But the same 6 year old when he turns 18 makes a decision. And then again every time he runs out on the ground. It's not like he makes the decision as a 6 year old and then has no choice but to continue on.

Trouble is that the kid starts at 6, and by 18 is obsessed with playing footy, and has channeled everything into making it as a professional sportsman. All of a sudden all sense is gone out of their decision making. They have always been taught to be tough, and that is all they can think about. I agree with you that there needs to be a level where we stop sanitising our game, cause some of this oversanitising shits me to tears, but certain things at least need to be looked at. I absolutely believe that the injury should not decide the penalty, it should be the act that caused the injury.

Further to that, it's a pretty terrible story. I had heard the basics of it, but this is the first time I had actually read it in detail. Hopefully we never hear of another one like it, as it is a truly sad tale.

My link

This is a very moving article which links into two different issues raised on Demonland this year - Daniel Bell and sling tackles.

I'm convinced that the rules regarding tackling need to be made clearer and that the result of a tackle (ie, whether it causes injury or not) should not be relevant to whether a player is suspended. Rather, it's the type of tackle which should be the cause of any penalty. Apart from anything else, it's possible that the damage to a player's health may not be noticed in the short term (ie, by the time the MRP considers the matter) but could be significant for the player's health in the longer term.

Take the time to read the article.

Sorry, I went off a little bit hasty and should have re-read your post a little better after I had read the article. I agree that the tackle situation should be explained a lot better to players. And also the risks involved. And your right that they should judge the tackle on the action not the resulting injury. I think the afl has done great with the new concussion rulings and giving the doctors more control over the players returning to the ground after suffering a large head contact.

However some of the penalties players are paying at the tribunal is a joke. The trengove tackle main one that is the closest to home.

And the fact that the bump has been basically eradicated from the game is not a good thing in my eyes

Do they really? Everyone knows that in footy you might get a bit hurt, but I doubt too many of the 6 year olds signing up for AusKick know that they're potentially signing themselves up for a lifetime of degenerative brain disease that might not actually catch up with them until they're in their 50s.

How many of Barassi's era had brain disease?

Does Skilton have it?

It seems more prevalent nowadays than it ever was. Why is this? Sure head knocks, but is there something else that makes our era more prone to damage?

How many of Barassi's era had brain disease?

Is it that there were fewer instances, or is it that there were fewer reports of it?

Skilton might not have a brain disease, but that's got nothing to do with anything really. You don't have to have been the best player to suffer these consequences, you just have to get hit in the head a lot.

And apparently AFL players get paid too much?

How many of Barassi's era had brain disease?

Does Skilton have it?

It seems more prevalent nowadays than it ever was. Why is this? Sure head knocks, but is there something else that makes our era more prone to damage?

How many of that era have been tested for it? Skilton has other issues arising out of his string of VFL injuries.

The game is far more physical than in the older days with more tackles by bigger bodies moving quicker. Its substantially different to what was played 40 years ago.

I think in recent years, the medical community is now become more aware of the LT impact of collision injuries.

The game is far more physical than in the older days with more tackles by bigger bodies moving quicker. Its substantially different to what was played 40 years ago.

Agree with that. The sheer number of contests and intensity of them is far greater than it was.

I probably had a kamikaze approach to my own game which I had to temper as I aged. I have always tried to coach this kind of attitude into my kids. Articles like this force me to rethink my standards and consider coaching some strategies to avoid head contact.

I will also add that the AFL has made a rod for it's own back regarding the current rules. Players are awake to the fact that all they need to do when attacking the ball is rush at a players legs using thier heads as a bettering ram to get a free. We see it every week from Sellwood and Co.

I understand the setiment behind the rule but it is encouraging the very thing it is trying to prevent. Having said that I don't know what the alternative is.