Duck Season - New high tackle interpretation starting this week

[deanox 9,915]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-01/duck-season-is-over

While i don't mind that they are doing something about this, the decision to make it prior opportunity is guaranteed to result in some inexplicable umpiring decisions this week, and for the rest of the season.

The only reasonable change in interpretation was "if a player contributes to a high tackle on then it will be called play on".

Anyone trying to burst through should already be considered to have had prior opportunity so that interpretation wasn't needed.

[rjay 24,928]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-01/duck-season-is-over

While i don't mind that they are doing something about this, the decision to make it prior opportunity is guaranteed to result in some inexplicable umpiring decisions this week, and for the rest of the season.

The only reasonable change in interpretation was "if a player contributes to a high tackle on then it will be called play on".

Anyone trying to burst through should already be considered to have had prior opportunity so that interpretation wasn't needed.

It needed to be paid though 'deanox' and the umpires were getting it wrong.

Let me say that I'm not talking about the Selwood slipping in the tackle decision here, it's not overly dangerous but may not be a great look for the game...It's a whole different issue.

I think anyone charging head first should have a free paid against them immediately, forget prior opportunity. It is a very dangerous thing to do and will end up with someone crippled if they don't stop it.

I would even go as far as it coming under the MRP and that the player doing it should get weeks. It's not just him in the wheelchair, imagine the player he runs into the the guilt he would feel.

Lets see if the interpretation can stomp it out. I hope so, if not the harsher measures will need to be taken.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,053]

I could've sworn this was a rule already...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure about two years ago they said that if you ran your head into a stationary tackler then it wasn't high contact. I think calling it prior opportunity is new, possibly a response to umpires not being willing or able to pay it right with what they had.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

wabbit season

[deanox 9,915]

They get it mostly right in Rugby union. "Dangerous tackle" not "over the shoulder high contact".

Incidental contact is play on. If either the act or the contact is dangerous, then pay a free.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

I would hate to be an umpire, would be a very difficult gig

[deanox 9,915]

I did it for a few years. It was quite enjoyable.

The biggest problem was that you were told specific ways to interpret events. Instead of umpiring what (I felt) was a natural interpretation.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Yeah but have you ever done it on a cold night at the G infront of 50000?

[RalphiusMaximus 6,053]

I did it for a few years. It was quite enjoyable.

The biggest problem was that you were told specific ways to interpret events. Instead of umpiring what (I felt) was a natural interpretation.

Official interpretations are just a way to change the rules without due process. So many of the interpretations they have given us over the years have run directly counter to the written rules it's just silly. The best thing they can do is do away with the interpretations and umpires' DVD and just adjudicate the game by the rules as they are written.

[deanox 9,915]

Official interpretations are just a way to change the rules without due process. So many of the interpretations they have given us over the years have run directly counter to the written rules it's just silly. The best thing they can do is do away with the interpretations and umpires' DVD and just adjudicate the game by the rules as they are written.

Agree. Most of the rules make perfect sense as written.

The problem seems to be the "changing interpretation to influence a specific scenario". You shouldn't need interpretations, the rules are written!