Mandatory head protection

[Snake_Baker]

Are you sick of absurd and inconsistent interpretations of ducking, sling tackles and incidental high contact?

It's time to make head protection gear mandatory and only award free kicks for obvious forceful contact above the shoulders. Abolish the sling tackle penalty altogether. It was only a matter of time before stuff like this was going to cost a club it's finals campaign and now it has occurred.

We'll see less concussions too. It's time.

 

[Rotayjay]

Haven't helmets (including the big hard helmets of American football) been shown to be useless?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Haven't helmets (including the big hard helmets of American football) been shown to be useless?

I am referring to incidental contact, shrugging tackles etc..

 

[Lensen]

so mandate helmets to protect from tackles slipping up which injures approximately zero players a year

good idea

 

[Snake_Baker]

so mandate helmets to protect from tackles slipping up which injures approximately zero players a year

good idea

Hey, I mostly agree with your outlook, so lets take steps to stop these terrible interpretations and woeful O.H. & S. inspired rules

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Are you sick of absurd and inconsistent interpretations of ducking, sling tackles and incidental high contact?

I'd like to hear more.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'd like to hear more.

I don't want this to be hijacked by interpretation of the existing rationale.

I want to see this type of controversy removed from the game altogether.

 

[BoxMatrix]

First off, helmets do not prevent concussions. That has been proven.

Secondly, introducing helmets will only lead to more players driving with the head, as they've got more sense of security. So the problem then becomes worse.

 

[Snake_Baker]

First off, helmets do not prevent concussions. That has been proven.

Incidental contact. As for the concussion argument, the jury is out, but this is not my point. Free kicks like those that affected last nights match do not end in concussions. I think added padding to the upper and side of the head could protect against sling tackle concussions.

Secondly, introducing helmets will only lead to more players driving with the head, as they've got more sense of security. So the problem then becomes worse.

Lowering the head and ducking forward has already been reinterpreted to place onus back on the player creating the contact, after a farcical couple of seasons where players did just that and were rewarded time and again. Hodge was a massive culprit in particular. Bending knees and shoulder shrugs are much harder to interpret.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I don't want this to be hijacked by interpretation of the existing rationale.

I want to see this type of controversy removed from the game altogether.

Is it time?

 

[mehow2g]

More things to call free kicks the more control.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

There is not a person on BF who has played the game that has not ducked, weaved, dropped their knees, shrugged, wriggled or whatever when they have the ball and they are being tackled.
It is human instinct to do whatever to get out of the tackle.
It seems pretty clear now that the modern supporter wants all the onus on the player with the ball now so in answer to the OP the players will need serious head protection as head high contact will rise and continue to rise.
The AFL are giving the green light for head high contact. It s already happening as I have not seen a season where so much head high contact is not penalised.
You watch what happens this weekend, all high tackles will be called play on.
What an unnecessary mess they have made this.

 

[El_Scorcho]

There is not a person on BF who has played the game that has not ducked, weaved, dropped their knees, shrugged, wriggled or whatever when they have the ball and they are being tackled.
It is human instinct to do whatever to get out of the tackle.
It seems pretty clear now that the modern supporter wants all the onus on the player with the ball now so in answer to the OP the players will need serious head protection as head high contact will rise and continue to rise.
The AFL are giving the green light for head high contact. It s already happening as I have not seen a season where so much head high contact is not penalised.
You watch what happens this weekend, all high tackles will be called play on.
What an unnecessary mess they have made this.

This reaction had to happen though. The AFL announce more than a decade ago that the head is sacrosanct and any incidental contact is a free, and we get 15 years of diving, ducking, burrowing into packs and more recently, the shrug.

I hate the concept that you "win" a free kick. A free kick is something that is given away because of an infrigement, not won by good play.

We've spent too much time incentivising the ball carrier to take contact to the head and neck, now we need to change the way players think a bit to stop that from happening. As i've said in other threads, i'd stop paying incidental contact over the shoulder as a high tackle at all. I wouldn't have frees paid unless a tackle starts high or undue force is applied to the head or neck.

Paying free kicks for tackles that slip up to the shoulder doesn't protect anyone's head.