SonofScray
15-07-2015, 06:34 PM
".... the AFL has this week introduced guidelines for rough tackles by sanctioning players who pin an opponent’s arms and take them to ground with force." via Fox Footy
Put aside the absolutely ridiculous wording and consequences if you like but...
I am really concerned that the "head is sacrosanct" campaign has really expanded its sphere of influence over the game. We've seen it spread along this continuum, not all instances result in suspensions but the disciplinary gaze has certainly turned on them:
Deliberate strikes to the head. (but created "jumper punches" which seem to go unnoticed)
Incidental contact to the head caused by choosing to create a collision instead of going for the ball.
Incidental contact to the head caused by a collision even when going for the ball. (unduly rough play)
Instances where the impact has caused a player to hit the ground, causing injury. Extending now to this reframing of tackles towards "sling tackles" and trial by outcome.
I'm wondering, once we have this confusing and really broad application of the tackling rule applied (true to form, inconsistently)... what next? Knees to the back of the head in a marking contest? Serious question. It is application of force to the head by an opponent that doesn't have to occur, the player has an opportunity to not do it.
I understand we want the game to be as safe as possible and no one wants to see serious injuries in the game. However, there is an inherent risk of injury purely by participating in a sport that allows tackling, bumping, jumping, jostling, spoiling etc, physical contact. I'm aware this is not a popular opinion, but I have a real concern that the OHS lens / risk management framework being applied to the game is going to take us much further down the path than we'd really prefer.
Apologies if it sounds ridiculous, or that I am advocating for people to be injured. I just am interested to hear peoples' thoughts beyond what the media are pushing at the moment.
Put aside the absolutely ridiculous wording and consequences if you like but...
I am really concerned that the "head is sacrosanct" campaign has really expanded its sphere of influence over the game. We've seen it spread along this continuum, not all instances result in suspensions but the disciplinary gaze has certainly turned on them:
Deliberate strikes to the head. (but created "jumper punches" which seem to go unnoticed)
Incidental contact to the head caused by choosing to create a collision instead of going for the ball.
Incidental contact to the head caused by a collision even when going for the ball. (unduly rough play)
Instances where the impact has caused a player to hit the ground, causing injury. Extending now to this reframing of tackles towards "sling tackles" and trial by outcome.
I'm wondering, once we have this confusing and really broad application of the tackling rule applied (true to form, inconsistently)... what next? Knees to the back of the head in a marking contest? Serious question. It is application of force to the head by an opponent that doesn't have to occur, the player has an opportunity to not do it.
I understand we want the game to be as safe as possible and no one wants to see serious injuries in the game. However, there is an inherent risk of injury purely by participating in a sport that allows tackling, bumping, jumping, jostling, spoiling etc, physical contact. I'm aware this is not a popular opinion, but I have a real concern that the OHS lens / risk management framework being applied to the game is going to take us much further down the path than we'd really prefer.
Apologies if it sounds ridiculous, or that I am advocating for people to be injured. I just am interested to hear peoples' thoughts beyond what the media are pushing at the moment.