Arm ******ing tackles

[outabounds]

Seems to be the way many players are tackling now. Players hell bent on pulling a player's arm back to stop correct disposal. I think it's only a matter of time before someone ends up with a shoulder reconstruction because of this technique. Has anyone else noticed that this is dangerous and should be stamped out.

On Pixel 2 XL using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Quivorir]

I was taught to play like that 20+ years ago. This isn't nothing new.

 

[Donakebab]

Blame this grub.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Seems to be the way many players are tackling now. Players hell bent on pulling a player's arm back to stop correct disposal. I think it's only a matter of time before someone ends up with a shoulder reconstruction because of this technique. Has anyone else noticed that this is dangerous and should be stamped out.

On Pixel 2 XL using BigFooty.com mobile app

The hyperextensions of the elbow make me cringe every time. Tour Miller has done a few tonight.

 

[PP34]

I was taught to pin the arms 18 years ago. It's nothing new.

 

[dlanod]

Seems to be the way many players are tackling now. Players hell bent on pulling a player's arm back to stop correct disposal. I think it's only a matter of time before someone ends up with a shoulder reconstruction because of this technique. Has anyone else noticed that this is dangerous and should be stamped out.

They got rid of it out of league, which should tell you something.

FWIW "arm tackles" are more commonly talking about throwing out an arm to try and tackle an opponent. "Chicken wing tackle" is the term for bending their arm behind their back.

 

[Back One Out]

Don't hate the player, hate the game

Under the current HTB interpretations, it's a foolproof way of earning yourself a free kick from the umps. It forces your opponent to hurriedly try to get boot to ball or be penalised. Tackle them any other way and they'll drop the ball (play on), or dish it off to a teammate, or hold onto it for a ball-up. Or maybe they'll milk a free kick for 'too high' or 'in the back'. There's rarely any reward for the perfect textbook tackle, so why wouldn't you grab their wrist?

Blame the AFL's idiotic rules & interpretations

Side note: It's only a dangerous 'chicken wing' tackle if you bend the arm back behind the player's back. Some people see a tackler grab his opponent's wrist and they label it a "chicken wing" even if he doesn't put any force on the shoulder joint. But there are degrees of force. Judge each tackle on merit. Don't generalise based on the action.

 

[Matera92]

It's almost like penalising players for pinning another players arms in a tackle and calling it a 'dangerous tackle' has caused them to try and find new ways to tackle each other without penalty.

Who'd have thunk it?

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Grabbing player around the wrist with one hand while tackling with the other = bad
Pinning one arm while tackling both arms around the waist = not bad

IMO

 

[Back One Out]

They got rid of it out of league, which should tell you something.

FWIW "arm tackles" are more commonly talking about throwing out an arm to try and tackle an opponent. "Chicken wing tackle" is the term for bending their arm behind their back.

Completely different scenario in the NRL with the 2nd tackler doing a Brazilian Jiu Jitsu arm lock on the prone player to prevent him from getting to his feet quickly to play the ball.

If an AFL tackler is good enough to clasp his opponent's wrist in a one-on-one tackle, then why should he be prohibited from doing so? (with the proviso that he doesn't bend the player's arm behind his back in a manner which could cause injury)

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Seems to be the way many players are tackling now. Players hell bent on pulling a player's arm back to stop correct disposal. I think it's only a matter of time before someone ends up with a shoulder reconstruction because of this technique. Has anyone else noticed that this is dangerous and should be stamped out.

On Pixel 2 XL using BigFooty.com mobile app

Been happening for a while. Also a big contributor to blokes smashing their heads on the ground because they don’t have an arm or shoulder to break their fall.

AFL will outlaw it once there’s a serious injury.

 

[Del165198]

If the umps weren't instructed to give players 45 minutes to dispose of it then it wouldn't be a problem.

The tackler doesn't get rewarded if the player just drops it or spins 720 or throws it away, so they have to make it obvious to the smooth brain umps.

 

[dlanod]

If an AFL tackler is good enough to clasp his opponent's wrist in a one-one-one tackle, then why should he be prohibited from doing so? (with the proviso that he doesn't bend the player's arm behind his back in a manner which could cause injury)

Most of those "good enough" have grabbed the player's arm before they even get to the ball but umpires won't call holding free kicks unless it's the jumper or in a marking contest.

 

[Back One Out]

Most of those "good enough" have grabbed the player's arm before they even get to the ball but umpires won't call holding free kicks unless it's the jumper or in a marking contest.

There you go.

That's the solution

Umpire's should be more aware of & willing to penalise players who grab their opponent's wrist or arm before they've taken possession of the ball.

Holding the man.

 

[Lightning_Rod]

Seems to be the way many players are tackling now. Players hell bent on pulling a player's arm back to stop correct disposal. I think it's only a matter of time before someone ends up with a shoulder reconstruction because of this technique. Has anyone else noticed that this is dangerous and should be stamped out.

On Pixel 2 XL using BigFooty.com mobile app

As a kid we were taught to pin both arms, we now know the damage that can cause pinning one arm is only a natural progression, only way to avoid possible injury from a tackle is to remove the tackle

 

[dlanod]

only way to avoid possible injury from a tackle is to remove the tackle

Stupid comment. It's possible to reduce the risk of injuries from tackles by banning the most dangerous forms without removing the tackle. League has done it. NFL has done it. AFL has done it to a degree, e.g. high contact.

 

[Lightning_Rod]

Stupid comment. It's possible to reduce the risk of injuries from tackles by banning the most dangerous forms without removing the tackle. League has done it. NFL has done it. AFL has done it to a degree, e.g. high contact.

I wasn't advocating to remove the tackle, my point was that the tackle in our game at the speeds theyre running at its near on impossible to remove the chance for injury during a tackle, and imo if you take too many more elements away from the tackle its redundant.

 

[PP34]

If the umps weren't instructed to give players 45 minutes to dispose of it then it wouldn't be a problem.

The tackler doesn't get rewarded if the player just drops it or spins 720 or throws it away, so they have to make it obvious to the smooth brain umps.

Correct. It's very hard to get a holding the ball without laying a well timed or strong tackle. Players are very good at getting the arms free or making the most of the umpiring leniency.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Don't hate the player, hate the game

Under the current HTB interpretations, it's a foolproof way of earning yourself a free kick from the umps. Tackle them any other way and they'll drop the ball (play on), or dish it off to a teammate, or hold onto it for a ball-up, or milk a free kick for 'too high' or 'in the back'. No reward for the tackle. So why wouldn't you grab their wrist?

Blame the AFL's idiotic rules & interpretations

It's only a dangerous 'chicken wing' tackle if you bend the arm back behind the player's back. Some clowns see a tackler grab his opponent's wrist and they label it a "chicken wing" even if he doesn't put any force on the shoulder joint. There are degrees of force. Judge each tackle on merit. Don't generalise based on the action.

Say it sister!!

 

[Professor Knowall]

... It's possible to reduce the risk of injuries from tackles by banning the most dangerous forms without removing the tackle. League has done it. NFL has done it. AFL has done it to a degree, e.g. high contact.

True - but the trouble is that many legal AFL tackles are still high or "highish", due to the desire to pin the arms in order to prevent any legal disposal, and this is still potentially dangerous.

In addition, the on-going HTB/prior opportunity/incorrect disposal rules/interpretations are a mess - it seems to be a lottery from game to game, umpire to umpire, quarter to quarter, decision to next decision. And it's one of the major contributors (albeit not the only one) causing the chronic ugly game congestion.

How about we simply ban tackling of the arms altogether and insist a legal tackle can only be applied below the armpits (but not the arms). If this is introduced, the following will follow -

1) As the arms would be free (in a legally applied tackle), the player with the ball would have the opportunity to immediately legally dispose the call AFTER any legal tackle. If the tackled player then immediately fails to handball or kick the ball, it's an automatic free kick against him, simple as that.

2) There would thus be no need whatsoever for an umpire to try to judge "prior opportunity", which is a perennial dogs breakfast ATM.

3) Tacklers would be encouraged - and trained - to go lower and at the body in the tackle (similar to rugby and NFL), thus reducing the amount of tackles landing or slipping high, thereby reducing high contacts and concussions.

4) It also provides extra protection against sling tackles (which still happens even if not intentional), as the tackled player will have both hands free to help protect getting their head slammed and concequent concussions.

5) As a correctly tackled player will have free hands to dispose the ball, this will enhance continual ball movement, helping to reduce the too high ugly and hard to umpire congestion.

6) The better free flowing ball movement and less congestion would also be likely to improve the amount of scoring.

So, to sum up, by banning any tackling of or around the arms, it makes for the welcome elimination of "prior opportunity", less dangerous high tackling and sling tackle head slams, reducing concussion, opening up the play, more free flowing football and less congestion - or while still having rough body tackling as an integral part of the game.

 

[theyellowsash]

I was taught to pin the arms 18 years ago. It's nothing new.

Pinning the arms and grabbing the wrist and pulling the arm behind the back are two entirely different techniques

 

[PP34]

Pinning the arms and grabbing the wrist and pulling the arm behind the back are two entirely different techniques

Even grabbing the wrist I was taught as well. Any possible legal way to tackle the opponent and force them to be unable to dispose of the footy. It's definitely not new. Probably just a bit more common now with the way the game is umpired and how great players are at getting their arms free to get rid of it.

 

[Dez!]

If players try fend off defenders then absolutely grab the arm, I'm not letting you push me off and am taking that arm.

 

[Sirlemsip]

How about we simply ban tackling of the arms altogether and insist a legal tackle can only be applied below the armpits (but not the arms).

Then you'll have the player with the ball running around with their arms by their side so they can't get tackled.

I don't think you have thought this through...

 

[D-N-R]

True - but the trouble is that many legal AFL tackles are still high or "highish", due to the desire to pin the arms in order to prevent any legal disposal, and this is still potentially dangerous.

In addition, the on-going HTB/prior opportunity/incorrect disposal rules/interpretations are a mess - it seems to be a lottery from game to game, umpire to umpire, quarter to quarter, decision to next decision. And it's one of the major contributors (albeit not the only one) causing the chronic ugly game congestion.

How about we simply ban tackling of the arms altogether and insist a legal tackle can only be applied below the armpits (but not the arms). If this is introduced, the following will follow -

1) As the arms would be free (in a legally applied tackle), the player with the ball would have the opportunity to immediately legally dispose the call AFTER any legal tackle. If the tackled player then immediately fails to handball or kick the ball, it's an automatic free kick against him, simple as that.

2) There would thus be no need whatsoever for an umpire to try to judge "prior opportunity", which is a perennial dogs breakfast ATM.

3) Tacklers would be encouraged - and trained - to go lower and at the body in the tackle (similar to rugby and NFL), thus reducing the amount of tackles landing or slipping high, thereby reducing high contacts and concussions.

4) It also provides extra protection against sling tackles (which still happens even if not intentional), as the tackled player will have both hands free to help protect getting their head slammed and concequent concussions.

5) As a correctly tackled player will have free hands to dispose the ball, this will enhance continual ball movement, helping to reduce the too high ugly and hard to umpire congestion.

6) The better free flowing ball movement and less congestion would also be likely to improve the amount of scoring.

So, to sum up, by banning any tackling of or around the arms, it makes for the welcome elimination of "prior opportunity", less dangerous high tackling and sling tackle head slams, reducing concussion, opening up the play, more free flowing football and less congestion - or while still having rough body tackling as an integral part of the game.

Making tackling around the arms illegal will simply mean that players will keep their arms down rather than try and keep their arms free, much like they shrug to try and get high contact.
Im not sure tackling around the hips or low will necessarily reduce dangerous tackles. Much of the force comes from the slinging action and is increased the lower the tackler goes. Trying to get the player to spill the ball probably means going in even harder, keeping them off balance.

Players who have their arms free now don't automatically try and protect themselves - they try and get the handball out or make sure they don't drop it in the tackle. Protecting themselves over doing the team thing is trained out of them.

Rugby is a different sport where much of the tackling is done front on, and how players accept tackles is different. Sometimes, keeping hold of the ball is good - it would be a different game if getting rid of the ball every time was mandated. I don't think it necessarily translates to AR.

Umpires need to look at blowing the whistle a bit quicker. Ironically, they wait to reduce ball ups but probably just increase congestion. If they got in a bit quicker then there might be fewer players around the ball when they throw it up.

Holding one arm is fine, but if they blow the whistle a bit quicker, the tackler might not need to add the extras like throwing them to the ground or pulling the arm out the socket.