Tackle law - AFL rules needs to change. What should the new rules be?

[lockheed]

I love watching replays of the 90s and earlier, when we see stalwarts such as King and Pickett demolish their opponents in a tackle. Sadly, and thankfully from the perspective of player safety, those days are gone. The game is blander for the change, but safer for players.

The evolution needs to continue. We're all aware of the tsunamai of concussion cases coming before the courts - Former AFL stars’ concussion lawsuits may merge as 100 more players seek advice. I reckon that the AFL needs to clarify what tackles and bumps is and isn't legal.

I take this to be a statement of the obvious, but no doubt, this being Big Footy, many will disagree.

My question is, what should these new rules be. Banning front on contact with an opponent when the charging player has their feet off the ground? Not bringing an opponent to ground if one arm isn't free to brace for impact? All bumps to the head will automatically bring a free kick and a one match suspension? Is it even possible to frame some additional rules to prevent, let's say, 80% of the preventable concussions?

How would these rules change the game? Would there be more emphasis on corralling a player rather than tackle them? Will the bump disappear?

No doubt, umpires will struggle to umpire consistently, whatever rules are brought in.

What do you think?

 

[shintemaster]

I think there is an argument for strict, black and white determination on holding the ball. No prior opportunity, no "knocked out" in the tackle - essentially you must clearly and unequivocally dispose of the ball via a kick or handball irrespective of prior opportunity. This could potentially help remove the requirements to bring players to ground so much when tackling (as stopping the subsequent play from a spilt ball is less of an issue). Whether that would make the game unappealing from a play POV I have no idea and generally you wouldn't know the impacts without proper and long term trials. It would mean possession potentially is more dangerous so taking the ball in congestion would be for players with the means and confidence to make their way through traffic either way.

Edit: BTW it may also mean that players being tackled have less incentive to allow themselves to be brought to ground a la the Lmac style - ultimately if your only option is to legally dispose of the ball you do so or are penalised. There is no incentive to try and be brought down and force a stalemate, nor get the ball to somehow "spill" from the contest.

 

[The Butcher]

First. What are all the rules, as written, that apply to all takle like situations right now? What were they previously? What are they in similar sports? Which are concerning to the league legally and which aren't. Will the league think they know how gameplay will change after rule changes? Will they juggle player welfare, legal liability, spectator enjoyment and the idea that they only temporary custodians of a game 150yrs old, or will they pick one ring to rule them all. Where are the boundaries for how radical a change is possible/acceptable? What minimal tweaks have been tested already in courts? Would a long term planned evolution of rules be sufficient or is a major overhaul needed right now. Does the game and tackler really need any indirect, rules based, umpire determined, easilly in error benefit from the tackle, why can't stoping the oppo doing what they wanted and getting a chance to regain posession be enough? Because if the only outcome from a tackle is a ball up, it makes sense to move to touch? Maybe, better re-instate illegal disposal, but oh no what is illegal even. Blah blah.. boring. BALL!!!!!!!

I think the "have whatever sexual preferences you want" round should be replaced with the Gay-Lick round, to be played under the contact rules of Gaelic footy. Nah stuff, it. Lets just skip twenty years of woffle, merge all the rules with the spud loving softies and start watching mens netball GAfl right now. Our northerners already know the name. International matches every other year.

 

[The Butcher]

and another thing. Gaafl means no more watching Lmac go to ground 699 times a game. thank about that

 

[czero]

Rather than change the game, I'd rather move to black or team coloured padded helmets.

We would get used to how that looks in hardly any time, and we would protect the head far better than any game change.

This is the only way this ends without our game becoming a completely different one.

 

[lockheed]

Rather than change the game, I'd rather move to black or team coloured padded helmets.

We would get used to how that looks in hardly any time, and we would protect the head far better than any game change.

This is the only way this ends without our game becoming a completely different one.

My understanding is that helmets work mainly to prevent fractures, but do very little to protect against concussion.

 

[The acurate one]

I’m not saying I have all the answers but normally I do.

Be selective in who we draft in the AFLs .



Some people are less prone to the concussion.
Think about that for a second

 

[czero]

My understanding is that helmets work mainly to prevent fractures, but do very little to protect against concussion.

Yeah just did some reading. 20% more effective than not wearing a helmet when it comes to concussion. The soft helmets are arguably slightly more protective against concussion than that but its fairly similar. Its a shame there isn't more research.

Also now understand why the sling tackle is so much worse, due to the rotational effect.