Thought I'd start a topic on here as this seems to be a big issue in the AFL at the moment.

Keen to get people's thoughts on the high number of suspensions being handed out for tackles?

It seems the AFL have got a bit trigger happy on these, with some seemingly innocuous tackles being slapped with 1 or 2 week bans.

I'm all for protecting players heads, but I think it has got a bit over the top now and they should relax it a little for the players. It is so hard in the moment, with players momentum and strength to have bans for a tackle like Merrett or Adams on the weekend.

I think tackle bans should be reserved for the genuine sling tackles. I was one person who was annoyed Chandler was suspended last year as he didn't do a whole lot wrong and it was more the other players momentum that caused the concussion.

Food for thought!

Just don't throw the player to the ground. 

The players will adapt. Just don't use that double-action throw.

4 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Just don't throw the player to the ground. 

That's easy to say, but imagine you've got a strong AFL footballer in a tackle and they are pushing one way and you are trying to pull them the other. They then lose balance and your full weight pulls them down. It's not completely black and white. I agree that a sling tackle is reportable but some of these are pretty mild tackles.

Kind of makes me wonder what the point is with training guys in BJJ and grappling moves. 

6 minutes ago, layzie said:

Kind of makes me wonder what the point is with training guys in BJJ and grappling moves. 

Good grappling takedowns are designed to avoid impact to the head and to maximize control of the person

7 minutes ago, MrFreeze said:

Good grappling takedowns are designed to avoid impact to the head and to maximize control of the person

No argument at all from me but the speed and distance at which two players go at before impact can look a little different to two fighters in close proximity in the octagon. Just wonder if they factored that kind of stuff in but I agree it's a proven method. 

Edited April 18, 20232 yr by layzie

2 hours ago, Action Jackson said:

Thought I'd start a topic on here as this seems to be a big issue in the AFL at the moment.

Keen to get people's thoughts on the high number of suspensions being handed out for tackles?

It seems the AFL have got a bit trigger happy on these, with some seemingly innocuous tackles being slapped with 1 or 2 week bans.

I'm all for protecting players heads, but I think it has got a bit over the top now and they should relax it a little for the players. It is so hard in the moment, with players momentum and strength to have bans for a tackle like Merrett or Adams on the weekend.

I think tackle bans should be reserved for the genuine sling tackles. I was one person who was annoyed Chandler was suspended last year as he didn't do a whole lot wrong and it was more the other players momentum that caused the concussion.

Food for thought!

I think the AFL has been too slow, rather than "trigger happy". If the penalties being handed out this year were in place three years ago, players by now would have stopped engaging in dangerous tackles and head-high bumps. However, because the AFL has been too slow to act (and been inconsistent), players today have not yet learned to remove these dangerous actions from their play. I strongly believe that if the tougher stance being shown this year had been in place three years ago, Kossie would have removed the dangerous bump from his game and would not have been suspended earlier this year. 

We are going through a time of change in which the rules of the game and the way players tackle are going to be heavily scrutinised. There are going to be inconsistencies and a level of confusion. Maybe even outrage. And there is going to be serious financial cost. It’s ironic because footy is an aggressive game at all levels. It’s part of the games DNA. Can you imagine a game without tackling ? That probably goes too far, but we are facing a change in how we play and watch the game. Will it become a game of tiggy touchwood where players think twice how they tackle and how they approach every contest ?  I think so. The only certainty is that concussion and serious injury ( from say a sling tackle) will be unacceptable. Class actions and individual law suits are going to be commonplace at all levels of footy including at a junior level. The culture of the game will change as toughness at the contest undergoes revision. We will have to play and watch footy with different optics and a different appreciation of the game. It will become more like basketball than rugby. Coaches, players, administrators and spectators will have to adapt to a very different environment. 

I think this needs to be looked at with the holding the ball rule.

There are no doubt big changes ahead for all contact sports but rules shouldn't be viewed in isolation.

What constitutes a legitimate tackle and how/when a player tackled moves the ball on or doesn't needs to be looked as part of the whole.

Also gang tackles should be looked at, the pile on is not good optics.

 

i think the umpires could help a little by blowing the whistle quicker in stoppage srcimmages. they seem to let some of them go on for ages, you can only hold someone still standing in a tackle for so long.  apart from sling tackles these scimmages get more dangerous for other injuries the longer they are allowed to continue

 

5 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think this needs to be looked at with the holding the ball rule.

There are no doubt big changes ahead for all contact sports but rules shouldn't be viewed in isolation.

What constitutes a legitimate tackle and how/when a player tackled moves the ball on or doesn't needs to be looked as part of the whole.

Also gang tackles should be looked at, the pile on is not good optics.

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg I think. 

We are going to see a lot more in this space and it’s long overdue. 

Over the coming years we will start to learn more about the strong links between concussion and neuro degenerative brain diseases and how the changes in legal landscape that follow. The AFL will have to adapt or risk having participation in the game nosediving as it has already started to at grass roots. 

 

39 minutes ago, rjay said:

I think this needs to be looked at with the holding the ball rule.

There are no doubt big changes ahead for all contact sports but rules shouldn't be viewed in isolation.

What constitutes a legitimate tackle and how/when a player tackled moves the ball on or doesn't needs to be looked as part of the whole.

Also gang tackles should be looked at, the pile on is not good optics.

 

Exactly, I've watched old games from the 70's, 80's and even early 90's and as soon as a player was tackled it was either ball up or holding the ball.

Then coaches bought in congestion and the AFL massively relaxed how quickly decisions were made in order to stop the game becoming one repeat stoppage after another and allowing players to use strength to break tackles. At the same time modern fitness programs really kicked in and the average bulk and upper body strength of players went right up too.

I'd like to see 3 changes:

1. A massive and widespread clamp down on holding the man at stoppages. It's crazy to me that umps will pluck out free kicks in front of goal for a defender having their arms around the waist of a forward even if there's no holding and the forward has initiated contact, but allow so much at stoppages. Oliver should get 10 free kicks a game.

2. Be prepared to pay a ball up if a guy is tackled cleanly and immediately

3. Pay holding the ball if there's been prior opportunity more so than if the tackle is fully complete. Whilst it will lead to a few instances that look a bit like touch footy if a player has had prior they really only need to be wrapped up

The first 1 in particular I just find really inexcusable that there is so much holding at stoppages. The more open stoppages are the less danger there is of repeat tackling. 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think the AFL has been too slow, rather than "trigger happy". If the penalties being handed out this year were in place three years ago, players by now would have stopped engaging in dangerous tackles and head-high bumps.

I think the laggard now is the Tribunal. They need to get on board with the anti-concussion strategy.

I can't see how they let some cases off. McKay for instance, ran straight at Sheezel with his arms crossed and elbows up, but got off

I'm okay with them eradicating the sling tackle into the ground, however holding-the-ball should be called if a player is spun 360 degrees whilst upright in a tackle.

1 hour ago, TRIGON said:

I'm okay with them eradicating the sling tackle into the ground, however holding-the-ball should be called if a player is spun 360 degrees whilst upright in a tackle.

I'm personally ok for every 360 to be paid ball. 

Edited April 19, 20232 yr by layzie

If the changes in Aussie rules are going to be significant spare a thought for the Rugby and Gridiron codes and the velocity of the hits delivered there. 
 

Aussie rules is possibly the most adaptable in regards to changing of rules to mitigate concussions without impacting the core product imo. 

Can’t believe Kane Cornes tonight when he was saying Merrett shouldn’t have been suspended as he’ll miss ANZAC Day. 
The issue I have with this one is that his dumping of Sparrow was to hold up play, he knew he’d already given away a free for high contact so to hold him up he took him to ground. Sparrow probably made the incident look worse as he knew he’d already won the free. But overall Merrett was rightly suspended for his dangerous tackle, big game or not the action needs to be penalized. 
 

However why was the potential to cause harm not added to this suspension? If he dumped him, then Sparrow could’ve been concussed. Why the inconsistency?

25 minutes ago, Gunna’s said:Why the inconsistency?

Players are publicly asking the same thing now - not just keen supporters/observers.

It’s definitely a very subjective decision making process still in its current form. 
However, like everything, change does take time to adapt to so I think we just need to hold our horses. 
 

As for Cornes…. He runs his mouth to suit his agenda - as we all know. 

Merrett was extremely stiff to get suspended. It was a football action and sometimes people will get hurt. It cannot be avoided in a contact sport.

10 hours ago, layzie said:

Kind of makes me wonder what the point is with training guys in BJJ and grappling moves. 

The grappling could actually help as it is more controlled and more designed to stop the player getting a possession away than merely dumping them to the ground. Requires a lot of strength obviously and good positioning of the body.

7 hours ago, hemingway said:

We are going through a time of change in which the rules of the game and the way players tackle are going to be heavily scrutinised. There are going to be inconsistencies and a level of confusion. Maybe even outrage. And there is going to be serious financial cost. It’s ironic because footy is an aggressive game at all levels. It’s part of the games DNA. Can you imagine a game without tackling ? That probably goes too far, but we are facing a change in how we play and watch the game. Will it become a game of tiggy touchwood where players think twice how they tackle and how they approach every contest ?  I think so. The only certainty is that concussion and serious injury ( from say a sling tackle) will be unacceptable. Class actions and individual law suits are going to be commonplace at all levels of footy including at a junior level. The culture of the game will change as toughness at the contest undergoes revision. We will have to play and watch footy with different optics and a different appreciation of the game. It will become more like basketball than rugby. Coaches, players, administrators and spectators will have to adapt to a very different environment. 

Totally agree. I think it's heading towards an international rules / gaelic footy model.

Less contact, more running.

I don't particularly like it but I think it's unavoidable.

I feel sorry for those players who just lose their balance in a tackle and accidentally bring their opponent to ground.

As usual the worse thing about it seems to be the media driving the agenda

28 minutes ago, Brownie said:

Totally agree. I think it's heading towards an international rules / gaelic footy model.

Less contact, more running.

I don't particularly like it but I think it's unavoidable.

I feel sorry for those players who just lose their balance in a tackle and accidentally bring their opponent to ground.

As usual the worse thing about it seems to be the media driving the agenda

So true Brownie

Our game is dying by a thousand cuts.

 

6 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I think the laggard now is the Tribunal. They need to get on board with the anti-concussion strategy.

I can't see how they let some cases off. McKay for instance, ran straight at Sheezel with his arms crossed and elbows up, but got off

I’m so glad you mentioned Mackay getting off… that was patent absurdity. [censored] ridiculous.

I have no idea what the AFL argued, but I’ve watched it a few times (as I and my Carlton friend that sent me the clip, couldn’t believe he got off) and there’s 3 problems that obviously the AFL (incredibly) doesn’t categorise as contributions towards suspension.

1. McKay is looking at Sheezels head the entire time he’s running towards him. Almost universally in sport, you’re looking at your target. 

So his focus was solely on Sheezels head.

2. Sheezel kicks the ball a fraction of a second before McKay hits him. McKay could have easily attempted a smother but CHOSE to put his elbows out and hit Sheezel.

So he chose to hit Sheezel and not try and smother the ball. 
 

3. He bee lines Sheezel and his ‘defensive’ action, running at full pace, is to put his arms out in the way you describe. Not a tackle, not a smother, not a hip and shoulder, but elbows out at neck height. 
 

He got off as it was argued he ‘pushed’ Sheezel in a defensive manner. Running at full pace, not looking at the ball but at Sheezels head, not choosing to smother or try and tackle, but raising his arms, elbows up and hitting him barely shoulder height. 
 

That constitutes defensive apparently.