How sacrosanct is the head?

[CyberKev]

The AFL has made much of the 'head being sancrosanct' in recent times and is only too happy to out players for soft offences as a means of illustrating its commitment to this, but it readily lets numerous instances pass each week.

If the head was truly, absolutely, unconditionally, off-limits, then Jude Bolton would be spending some weeks on the sideline for barrelling through a stoppage on Saturday night and recklessly collecting Kieran Jack high and hard in the process. Reckless high contact should be reckless high contact, regardless of who you connect with. Would have got several weeks had he nailed an opponent instead of a teammate.

On any given week we will also see examples of contests for ball at centre bounces and in marking contests that put players heads and necks at risk, but the AFL would not contemplate taking action in these situations, simply because it would compromise the very game itself.

It also need be noted that the only VFL/AFL player to have ever been paralysed playing at the elite level, was the unfortunate Neil Sachse in 1975. There was no malicious or heavy contact in Neil's case, he was simply unfortunate enough to trip while on the run and find himself propelled forward into an opposition player's legs. Neil acknowledged this himself some weeks ago, when he wrote of his concern about some contemporary players willingly choosing to dive into an opponent to draw a free kick for head high contact. One player, in particular, has made an art form of this, but it is essentially recreating the conditions that led to Sachse's terrible injury.

And yet, the worst thing that happens to these players, is that the umpires sometimes call play on, with an explanation that "nah, you ducked into it!". If the AFL was generally serious about the head being sancrosanct, they'd be taking harder action against players diving into opponents and putting their own heads at risk.

They won't, of course, as its all too hard basket... Far easier to nail players for simple and straightforward instances of contact, even though these instances barely have any impact on the players connected with and are about a 1 in 10,000 chance of causing any real injury of note.

 

[Twizzle]

Well its no secret in AFL that whether you get nailed or not, depends on which end of the ground you are playing, 9 times out of 10 the defender merely has to duck his head and the ump will oblige and give him the ball.

There was an instance on Sunday when an Adelaide player was stuck for options and as the Geelong forward was coming at him and waited till the right moment and simply put his head down and literally head butted his opponent in the chest, and of course the umpire obliged.

Forwards literally have to get their heads ripped of to get the same attention form the umps, one of my pet hates of the game.

Getting back to the topic, you only need to see what happened to Bartell the other week and that was friendly fire.

If the umpire and the AFL were serious about dealing with this problem they should begin penalizing players for purposely ducking their heads and putting themselves in a dangerous position just to get a free kick. Its pointless penalizing the tackler if a player purposely ducks his head as the tackler is not at fault and thats the problem that we have at them moment and its not working in my opinion.

 

[CyberKev]

I'm quite certain that if the AFL took to reviewing footage each week to look at all high contact frees paid, and started handing out $1000 fines to players, where it was confident that they initiated the high contact, we'd see a marked reduction in these frees occuring.

We already have something of a precedent, whereby players are fined for making contact to umpires, accidental or otherwise.

I also think that the AFL needs to do away with blanket penalty for soft offences, and start handing out penalties to players where the contact results in clear injury.

Some people have been up in arms about Joel Corey escaping suspension for a sling tackle, principally because, in his case, the opposition player wasn't injured. I think this is the only reasonable way to deal with any head/neck related incidents. I've never been a fan of the 'attempting to strike' rule, as for me, you either strike someone and cop your wack for making impact, or you miss and have no case to answer (as the opposing player wasn't contacted or inconvenienced). Similarly, you either contact a player high and hurt him , or you don't.

Of course, the tragics would be up in arms in masive numbers at the mere prospect of this. To say nothing of the same principle being extended to marking contests.

The worst neck injury we've seen in recent years occured when young Hawk Jordan Lisle took out Richmond's Daniel Jackson in a marking contest. Lisle was on debut, had no malicious intent and was always focused on the ball, but nevertheless made clumsy and heavy contact with Jackson's neck and put him out for some weeks.

If you were really, really serious about protecting the head and neck you would have outed Lisle for a couple of weeks to encourage him to take extra care in future contests.

But it won't happen, as wild and extravagant marking attempts are a major part of the sport's fan appeal, and to start penalising players in this area would, as I indicated in my previous post, compromise the aesthetic integrity of the sport.

So there's no point in the AFL arguing that the head is unconditionally sancrosanct. By their very actions, and out of necessity, the reality is that transgressions against the head are sometimes to be penalised, but only in situations where it is convenient for the AFL to do so.

 

[Twizzle]

I agree about the sling tackles, how Joel Corey got away with that I do not know but like you say the player never got injured.

Players have been suspended for less if the tackled player gets hurt but......................isn't the idea to stop them from being hurt ?

Thats makes this a reactive report, and if they dont get hurt, then no reaction from the AFL which makes the rules irrelevant as they only react when some one gets hurt.

This all need a rethink.

 

[CyberKev]

A rethink would be required if the AFL genuinely wanted to legislate against all head contact in future.

They certainly don't want that.

Its likely that, at some point, a player will receive a very nasty injury from diving into an opponent, or being at the wrong end of a marking contest (incidents which the AFL 100% condones in every game of every season).

In response to this, the AFL will describe it as an unfortunate accident and point to their record in selectively suspending players for unrelated and low impact head contact as evidence of how they've been going above and beyond to protect players.

I can see why they are operating as they are in this area, but it irks me chronically whenever I hear an AFL mouthpiece banging-on about how they've made the head totally sancrosanct, when they haven't done anything of the sort.