High tackles

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
7,072
10,801
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
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.
Might be the worst post I've ever read in my life.


I was thinking the same when Sheed missed a goal tonight. Why do the foals have to be 6.4m wide? Why couldn't they be 8m wide? If they were, a great goal wouldn't have been ruined.
 

HurleyHepsHird

Maximum Praxis
Oct 2, 2011
3,801
4,957
Annares
AFL Club
West Coast
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.
It lowers risk of contact to eyes/head, stops people getting cloatheslined and risky tackles that involve grabbing the top of someones shoulder from behind.
 

CrowInFiji

Club Legend
Sep 29, 2018
1,131
1,445
AFL Club
Adelaide
Should we wait for your brain to re-engage or do we need to explain the fact that the moment we make shoulders acceptable places to make tackles we start to see heads slam into the turf. Think about it.
 

Tim Evans Beard

All Australian
Apr 9, 2016
868
1,458
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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.
The risk of vertical compression of the spine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

footyfan1978

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 27, 2014
26,734
28,468
spacetime
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
there are no other teams worthy
Not enough high and sloppy tackles are called out by umpire. Should be more penalties so players are taught to tackle correctly which should be around the torso and not sloppy tackles that either too high or too low.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,335
17,503
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
 

CrowInFiji

Club Legend
Sep 29, 2018
1,131
1,445
AFL Club
Adelaide
Most idiotic post I've ever seen. Tackling above the shoulder would make it far more difficult for heads to hit the turf, stupid. That's what doing tackles do, not high tackles.
You arent picturing it in your mind. Keep thinking. Imagine how many shoulder tackles will end up with a player falling backwards completely defenceless.
 

Tim Evans Beard

All Australian
Apr 9, 2016
868
1,458
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I think the NRL do it a lot better, if there's incidental contact that slips high, it's play on, but you can't initiate by attacking at the head/neck of the opponent.
NRL contact is generally unidirectional (chest to chest) - AFL is multidirectional and therefore chaos theory would demonstrate the divergence between intentional and accidental is across broader spectrum than NRL.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
16,034
31,249
AFL Club
Carlton
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.
This is a terrible idea.

Players getting blindsighted and slammed into the deck, unable to soften their impact with the ground because the tackler will pin their arms.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,335
17,503
AFL Club
Sydney
This is a terrible idea.

Players getting blindsighted and slammed into the deck, unable to soften their impact with the ground because the tackler will pin their arms.
I would be interested to learn how such a rule change would increase the occurrence of players getting "blindsided and slammed into the deck".
As it is stands, there is incentive to flop foward to get a free for in the back.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
16,034
31,249
AFL Club
Carlton
I would be interested to learn how such a rule change would increase the occurrence of players getting "blindsided and slammed into the deck".
As it is stands, there is incentive to flop foward to get a free for in the back.
Because the purpose behind the push in the back rule is to mean that a player cannot be blindsighted to an opponent's approach and slammed into the ground in a direction from which they cannot defend. You must a) come from the front or the side, or b) take care not to drive wholly into their back when tackling from behind.

It's a 360 degree game. We have two eyes, in the front of our head. It's a pretty simple principle to avoid hitting people in a way from which they cannot defend themselves from injury.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,335
17,503
AFL Club
Sydney
Because the purpose behind the push in the back rule is to mean that a player cannot be blindsighted to an opponent's approach and slammed into the ground in a direction from which they cannot defend. You must a) come from the front or the side, or b) take care not to drive wholly into their back when tackling from behind.

It's a 360 degree game. We have two eyes, in the front of our head. It's a pretty simple principle to avoid hitting people in a way from which they cannot defend themselves from injury.
That sounds made up and/or a straw man.
Hundreds of times a game players are tackled from behind.
95% of time the tackled player flops to the ground hoping to win an 'in the back' free.
Players are specifically taught to tackle and roll, to avoid getting 'in the back'.

Pinning a player's arms has nothing to do with 'in the back'.
Driving a player into the ground with their arms pinned has everything to do with pinning a players arms.
 

Gethelred

Brownlow Medallist
May 1, 2016
16,034
31,249
AFL Club
Carlton
That sounds made up and/or a straw man.
Where I think you've decided upon your opinion, and you'd argue whatever you think it'd take to arrive at your destination.

It's funny how something that's obvious to one person is so absurd as to be made up, isn't it?
Hundreds of times a game players are tackled from behind.
95% of time the tackled player flops to the ground hoping to win an 'in the back' free.
Players are specifically taught to tackle and roll, to avoid getting 'in the back'.
... because that is the rule. If you get them full in the back, it's a free kick. The injury is avoided via the same technique as avoiding conceding a free kick.
Pinning a player's arms has nothing to do with 'in the back'.
Driving a player into the ground with their arms pinned has everything to do with pinning a players arms.
Pinning a player's arms means that they cannot use their arms to slow their fall or prevent heavier contact with the ground. If you know contact is coming, you can brace, arrange yourself in an acceptable manner to allow you to land; if you're taken directly from behind, the momentum of the tackle can bear you straight into the ground. Imagine Nic Nat doing that to Caleb Daniel; big bloke, weighing a good 30+kg's more than him, using all that weight and acceleration and landing directly on you.

The rule's the way it is to prevent that injury. I get that you don't get it.
 

Number37

Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
Oct 5, 2013
17,335
17,503
AFL Club
Sydney
Where I think you've decided upon your opinion, and you'd argue whatever you think it'd take to arrive at your destination.

It's funny how something that's obvious to one person is so absurd as to be made up, isn't it?

... because that is the rule. If you get them full in the back, it's a free kick. The injury is avoided via the same technique as avoiding conceding a free kick.

Pinning a player's arms means that they cannot use their arms to slow their fall or prevent heavier contact with the ground. If you know contact is coming, you can brace, arrange yourself in an acceptable manner to allow you to land; if you're taken directly from behind, the momentum of the tackle can bear you straight into the ground. Imagine Nic Nat doing that to Caleb Daniel; big bloke, weighing a good 30+kg's more than him, using all that weight and acceleration and landing directly on you.

The rule's the way it is to prevent that injury. I get that you don't get it.
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.

My argument was fairly simple.
The in the back rule provides a perverse incentive for players to put themselves in danger of getting driven into the ground without the ability to protect themselves, by collapsing to their knees.
Rugby players tackle much lower and almost never does the tackling player land on the back of the tackled player.
 

Remove this Banner Ad