Protecting the head - glaring oversight

[The Falcon Strike]

The AFL have been very strong on head high contact for a while now - and the concussion protocols are stringent

I think people accept that head high contact can’t be avoided entirely - it’s about mitigating the risks.

as such I’d argue the biggest risk is still being allowed. That is, players themselves leading with their own heads

if a worker outside of footy continually put themselves at risk - they’d be sacked

yet in afl - it’s simply overlooked

reflecting on an incident last night where Stephen Hill approached a footy perfectly - low, side-on and hands on the footy

the swans players came in head first and nearly broke his neck

in this scenario the only player who has undertaken risky behaviour is the swans player. Not only will the MRO not look at it. - the rules of the AFL are such that he gets rewarded for it with a free kick

at what point- if the afl is serious about mitigating risk -are these actions called out ?

 

[DaTBird187]

The AFL have been very strong on head high contact for a while now - and the concussion protocols are stringent

I think people accept that head high contact can’t be avoided entirely - it’s about mitigating the risks.

as such I’d argue the biggest risk is still being allowed. That is, players themselves leading with their own heads

if a worker outside of footy continually put themselves at risk - they’d be sacked

yet in afl - it’s simply overlooked

reflecting on an incident last night where Stephen Hill approached a footy perfectly - low, side-on and hands on the footy

the swans players came in head first and nearly broke his neck

in this scenario the only player who has undertaken risky behaviour is the swans player. Not only will the MRO not look at it. - the rules of the AFL are such that he gets rewarded for it with a free kick

at what point- if the afl is serious about mitigating risk -are these actions called out ?

Take a look at what Hartlett was charged with this week.

 

[Full Wingspan]

I agree broadly with your sentiments however I note the following.

The AFL have repeatedly shown that their primary concern is not the protection of the head or the welfare of players, but rather the appearance that they hold this concern and are taking steps to mitigate the risks.

Punishing players based on outcome rather than the action itself does not provide a true incentive to change behaviour or technique.

Head high contact (or an action resulting in head trauma i.e. sling tackles) should be penalised irrespective of the injury sustained. This would demonstrate a genuine concern for the risk of head injury by attempting to change behaviours and techniques that put the head at risk.

As for the onus on players to take steps to minimise their own harm, the AFL tried to address this by introducing the rule deeming a 'duck' to be prior opportunity. This interpretation does not seem to be enforced all that often though and is only ever used to prevent a free kick being paid for high contact.

Players still have the right to put their head over the ball to win possession, however if they go on to lead with the head further or make another (unnecessary) ducking action, they are only putting themselves at risk. Umpires should enforce the above interpretation and actually award a free kick against the player who chooses to duck (as it will be deemed prior opportunity).

Generally, we need to accept that there will be times where head knocks can (and will) occur in the course of a fair contest between players. However, the AFL has a duty to minimise the risk where possible. The league has done a great job in recent years to change behaviours right through to grassroots level. Unfortunately, this good work is partially undone when outcome/situational based penalties compromise the integrity of the rule e.g. the Cotchin bump on Shiel in the 2017 PF.