High tackles

[Arctic fox]

Probably because it's hard to distinguish where some human beings' shoulders finish and their necks start. They've tried to make it non ambiguous (despite all the other ambiguous nonsense rules out there).

Gladstone Small says hi.

 

[Gethelred]

Rugby players tackle much lower and almost never does the tackling player land on the back of the tackled player.

Because in general, rugby players are tackled either front on or from the side, not behind. It takes a player to work their way through the line for them to get tackled from behind, and even then you don't want to tackle them forward; it results in them gaining increased distance.

Your argument was that the in the back rule is their to protect players from getting slung into the ground without being able to protect themselves.
(1) The in the back rule predates, by decades, the AFL giving a hoot about player safety.
(2) The AFL, in fact, made a specific rule about sling tackles not so long ago.
(3) The AFL have made other rule adjustments specifically based on duty of care.

... because this particular rule has been around longer than the AFL, and was made by people in common sense terms?

Where in my post did I mention sling tackles, or the AFL's duty of care?

If you're going to argue with things I didn't say, I'm out I think.

 

[Number37]

Because in general, rugby players are tackled either front on or from the side, not behind. It takes a player to work their way through the line for them to get tackled from behind, and even then you don't want to tackle them forward; it results in them gaining increased distance.

... because this particular rule has been around longer than the AFL, and was made by people in common sense terms?

Where in my post did I mention sling tackles, or the AFL's duty of care?

If you're going to argue with things I didn't say, I'm out I think.

Forgive me, I am not always au fait with mumbo jumbo.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Scrap the "in the back" rule and it will encourage (1) players to tackle lower & (2) players to stay upright instead of dropping to their knees.
Almost all high contact in AFL is from players dropping to their knees playing for free kicks.

Yep 'in the back' is a totally stupid one that needs revision, completely arbitrary with no connection to protecting the player.

In a 1-1 marking constest you can displace someone by backing into their front side, by bumping them on either side, but pushing from the backside with even minor force- freekick...

Unless of course if you have jumped off the ground!
Then you can literally bury your knee into the base of their skull as hard as you want, displace them with contact to the back with utter brutality such that they later lose a kidney, and as long as you touch the ball before you land on the ground, all good!

Meanwhile in the situation where a player is on hands and knees on the ground and over the ball, where literally the only means of tackling them is to 'mount' them in that position, if they then flop 5 cm to the ground, they get a free.

And then as you mention players in motion being tackled from behind, where much of the forward momentum is their own, is a redhot freekick, but so easily faked.

it's a hot, inconsistent mess.

 

[kickazz]

Why should tackles be penalised because a hand grabs the top of the shoulder instead of the side?

I can understand protecting the head, but why do shoulders need to be protected by the rules? An exciting run-down tackle by Hind was completely ruined because his hand touched Jack Billings' precious shoulder.

Who said that rule is solely about protecting the head?

The rule is in place because tackling above the shoulder is too easy, just as grabbing someone below the knee is.