Tackling banned?

[Colonial]

So the AFL say it’s not the action now that’s chargeable but the result?
So every time a player gets injured, no matter how legal the action is, he(or she) will get charged?
Only takeaway that can be had from last night.

 

[ferball]

The game is cooked.

Obviously the next step is to ban the tackle and have umpires count to three when a player gets the ball.

If in that period a player doesn't dispose of the ball or bounce it then its htb.

If an opposition player comes within three metres then the player must immediately dispose of the ball or be called htb,

If the opposition player is within three to five metres the umpire must restart their count and count to 1.275 seconds before calling htb.

If a player has their back to the player with the ball but is within three to five metres then the umpire must again reset their count but this to to 2.437 seconds to allow for the player without the ball to potentially turn around.

If the player with the ball attempts to step the opposition player within three metres the umpire must immediately call stand.

Both players must then stand still and the outcome of the contest will be decided by a random number generator sponsored by crypto dot com.

If the random number generator fails some sort of 16 sided D&D style dice will be rolled by the off field umpire with the results of the rolls being decided by a random draw of outcomes that is carried out by the captains before the match.

This draw will be televised and betting allowed on the outcomes.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

AFL have released new guidelines for what a tackle should look like. Something like below

 

[Scythe94]

Whilst I disagree with the suspensions, I feel like the 'game is ruined, becoming non-contact etc' is being overblown a bit.

There have been (from a rough count) 18 suspensions for tackles this year. In isolation, yep, it's a lot.

Then you consider that there have been 18,508 tackles laid this year, meaning that even with these super-stringent new rules from the AFL, only one in every ~1,000 tackles are resulting in suspensions. There are still obviously many, many ways to approach tackling without landing in hot water.

So yeah, while the suspensions are certainly rough (and at times, definitely incorrectly adjudicated), the whole 'destroying fabric of the game' argument is a bit premature, IMO.

 

[Colonial]

Whilst I disagree with the suspensions, I feel like the 'game is ruined, becoming non-contact etc' is being overblown a bit.

There have been (from a rough count) 18 suspensions for tackles this year. In isolation, yep, it's a lot.

Then you consider that there have been 18,508 tackles laid this year, meaning that even with these super-stringent new rules from the AFL, only one in every ~1,000 tackles are resulting in suspensions. There are still obviously many, many ways to approach tackling without landing in hot water.

So yeah, while the suspensions are certainly rough (and at times, definitely incorrectly adjudicated), the whole 'destroying fabric of the game' argument is a bit premature, IMO.

But Bedford did a standard chase down tackle. Nothing illegal.
Only down was Taranto was unfortunately injured.

So does that mean no matter how the player was injured then the opposition player involved gets a ban?
Kelly did a hamstring so the nearest opposition player gets a few weeks?
Taylor’s nutsack got done so the oppo involved gets a month?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Whilst I disagree with the suspensions, I feel like the 'game is ruined, becoming non-contact etc' is being overblown a bit.

There have been (from a rough count) 18 suspensions for tackles this year. In isolation, yep, it's a lot.

Then you consider that there have been 18,508 tackles laid this year, meaning that even with these super-stringent new rules from the AFL, only one in every ~1,000 tackles are resulting in suspensions. There are still obviously many, many ways to approach tackling without landing in hot water.

So yeah, while the suspensions are certainly rough (and at times, definitely incorrectly adjudicated), the whole 'destroying fabric of the game' argument is a bit premature, IMO.

And of those 18 tackles virtually none of them would have been a free kick in any era of the sports history. The AFL are wrong here, not the players.

 

[Scythe94]

And of those 18 tackles virtually none of them would have been a free kick in any era of the sports history. The AFL are wrong here, not the players.

I'm not disagreeing with that point. The overarching point that I was trying to make is that I think people are getting a little too worked up about the idea of 'tackling being banned' altogether.

Can definitely be argued that the AFL is going overboard at the moment (as a result of lawsuit fears, etc), but I don't really think we're anywhere close to banning tackling as a whole.

 

[Colonial]

I'm not disagreeing with that point. The overarching point that I was trying to make is that I think people are getting a little too worked up about the idea of 'tackling being banned' altogether.

Can definitely be argued that the AFL is going overboard at the moment (as a result of lawsuit fears, etc), but I don't really think we're anywhere close to banning tackling as a whole.

What in Bedfords tackle was anything but text book?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I'm not disagreeing with that point. The overarching point that I was trying to make is that I think people are getting a little too worked up about the idea of 'tackling being banned' altogether.

Can definitely be argued that the AFL is going overboard at the moment (as a result of lawsuit fears, etc), but I don't really think we're anywhere close to banning tackling as a whole.

No we are not close to it, but asking players to do half power tackles, roll them on their side, put a cushion under your opponents head is not reality. The AFL are asking the players to do this. Yes you can tackle, but don’t tackle to hard. Wtf does that mean.
Outcome based suspension is bad for the sport.

 

[Edddiiieee]

Laura Kane and Andrew Dillon have blood on their hands.
Destroying the game we all once admired and loved.
It's disgusting how the game is being managed, shame shame shame

 

[Colonial]

Giants fighting for footy!!!

 

[Underarm]

No we are not close to it, but asking players to do half power tackles, roll them on their side, put a cushion under your opponents head is not reality. The AFL are asking the players to do this. Yes you can tackle, but don’t tackle to hard. Wtf does that mean.
Outcome based suspension is bad for the sport.

And the Players are asking the AFL to clamp down on concussions in the sport by threatening legal action and asking for more money for people who are medically retired.

 

[RAPPA]

There is absolutely no way of changing a tackling technique that provides a 100% guarantee of avoiding a concussion. Simply impossible in a contact sport. But there were probably close to 1000 tackles laid over last round's games with two resultant suspensions. The round prior, no suspensions (iirc). The tackle is not dead, but there's simply no way - in a contact game played on turf - to 100% avoid a concussion event.

 

[Colonial]

And the Players are asking the AFL to clamp down on concussions in the sport by threatening legal action and asking for more money for people who are medically retired.

And? How was Bedford supposed to tackle there?

 

[smeggaz]

Let's just wear belts with Velcro straps? Play on a padded surface? Mandate head gear? Can't take the opponent to ground? Train (for those getting tackled) to be more aware and stronger (core, neck, reflexes) in the tackle?

It's funny that you can go for a speccy and knee some poor person in the head, break a jaw etc but a textbook tackle = 3 week ban.

Ban / penalize the malicious stuff and stop punishing the outcome instead of the action.

Almost anything you do in life has an element of accepted risk. My knees and hips are chronically effd from Athletics.

There will always be incidences and accidents and if you make it a non contact sport, you'll probably end up with other problems anyway.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

So the AFL say it’s not the action now that’s chargeable but the result?
So every time a player gets injured, no matter how legal the action is, he(or she) will get charged?
Only takeaway that can be had from last night.

It's just bizarre.

My question is how they think that these suspensions will protect them from legal liability?

I mean, it's not illegal to tackle someone. It's not illegal to bump someone. It's not illegal to jump into a pack with knee.

They're literally allowing these dangerous acts to occur.

So the game does not become safer by suspending guys when someone gets hurt.

It's just weird. I don't understand the logic.


As I said years ago, the AFL simply has to draw a line in the sand in terms of managing expectations of the risk of injury.

ie. Hey everyone, heads up that you can get badly hurt playing AFL footy. There's heaps of stuff that is legal in the game, that can injured you. If you want to play, you need to accept the risk.

Then of course they draw that line. King hits, head high shirt fronts, sling tackles, and whatever else can be outlawed. The act is outlawed. The act.

Other acts that have been agreed to be legal football acts, are just part of the game.


There is literally zero way that the speccy won't be next. The AFL will suspend guys guys for launching at packs with their knee and collecting someone. You'll be allowed to do it - but you'll get suspended if you happen to hurt someone. And therefore, guys will stop doing it. And it will be dead.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

And the Players are asking the AFL to clamp down on concussions in the sport by threatening legal action and asking for more money for people who are medically retired.

Let them take legal action. Good luck proving the AFL is the reason you are having issues. Surely the AFL lawyers will ask, were you ever dropped as a baby, have you ever fallen over and hit your head, have you fallen out of a tree, have you fallen down stairs, have you ever been in a fight and been hit in the head. Have your er had any contact to your head outside of playing football?
Mate I don’t want to see anyone hurt but I reckon they are drawing a long bow thinking the AFL is at fault for their issues.

 

[Underarm]

And? How was Bedford supposed to tackle there?

Bedford leaps at Taranto, and Bedford admits has very little control over what happens next. That puts the onus on Taranto - who has his arms pinned - to figure out how to avoid falling into the ground.

The AFL would want Bedford to get closer to Taranto so that he doesn't need to leap or pin both his arms. If that means every so often Taranto gets away, so be it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Bedford leaps at Taranto, and Bedford admits has very little control over what happens next. That puts the onus on Taranto - who has his arms pinned - to figure out how to avoid falling into the ground.

The AFL would want Bedford to get closer to Taranto so that he doesn't need to leap. If that means every so often Taranto gets away, so be it.

Fantasy world.

 

[Underarm]

Fantasy world.

Which part?

 

[falcons2]

Over 1000 tackles on the weekend. No problem from over 99% How many hit their head on the ground?

Are the concussions the result simply of the grounds being too hard?

 

[GoldbergsGold]

There should be waivers like with boxing, MMA, car racing or other dangerous sports, so The AFL can't be sued. The AFL are reacting this way because of all the lawsuits. The players should be aware that the game is super dangerous and not participate if they're concerned for their well being. I'm surprised waivers were not a thing decades ago.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Which part?

That players will not leap to stick the tackle, or get players will ask themselves am I close enough to make a good AFL sanctioned tackle. Its just a fantasy thinking players are thinking these things, they never ever will.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There should be wavers like with boxing, MMA, car racing or other dangerous sports, so The AFL can't be sued. The AFL are reacting this way because of all the lawsuits. The players should be aware that the game is super dangerous and not participate if they're concerned for their well being. I'm surprised wavers were not a thing decades ago.

Agree, the AFL don’t want waivers though because they would be concerned parents won’t let their kids play.

 

[JackFlash]

Tackling is on its last legs now, they are asking players to do the impossible. It's inevitable that tackling will be banned eventually in the next 3 - 5 years...Harley Reid will still be playing the game when he won't have the option of tackling an opponent. Sad days. We play the game on manicured oval surfaces and they are too hard, TV doesn't want to broadcast games played on a bog anymore, they must hate it when it rains. i remember as a kid running onto a ground after the game and you would sink 5cm (2inches) into the surface, there is no give in them these days, most of these concussions are coming from hitting their heads on the grounds. Australian Rules Football has been ever changing this century, but at what cost to the game itself? They have a unique contact sport, but don't want any contact?