High tackles

[GraphiteAluminium]

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

14

Jack Billings

Age

28

Ht

185cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.3

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

5.1

5star

T

2.9

4star

G

0.7

4star

D

19.7

5star

K

11.7

5star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.7

4star

T

2.9

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

13.8

4star

K

9.2

4star

HB

4.6

4star

M

5.2

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

' precious shoulder.

 

[mike123]

Makes it harder to tackle and opens up the game

 

[StonesThrow]

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).

 

[GraphiteAluminium]

Makes it harder to tackle and opens up the game

Oh ok, great logic; how about we just get rid of tackles all together and make it touch football?

 

[mike123]

Oh ok, great logic; how about we just get rid of tackles all together and make it touch football?

That would just slow the game as it’s easier to touch, tackles give players a chance to break tackles.

 

[RobbieGray17]

If defenders were smart, they'd learn to anticipate the drop

 

[RobbieGray17]

If the rules weren't sh*t, they wouldn't be pandering to less intelligent fans like yourself.

Nice insult. Maybe you should be questioning your whinge fest thread on the main forum when it probably should be on the rules and umpiring forum.

 

[mike123]

Idiotic argument.

Says you

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[juss]

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.

 

[footyfan1978]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

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).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RAPPA]

I’d prefer if there was a concerted effort to crack down on the constant throws that somehow are being recognised as handpasses.

 

[Number37]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.