- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Joel Selwood is a courageous player. He puts his head in places on a football field I would be afraid to put my little finger.
While I admire Selwood and others for their courage, the increase in the number of players who exhibit a fearless attack on the ball without any regard for their own safety is a worrying trend, which should prompt the AFL to rethink its approach to head high contact on the field.
In recent years the AFL has made it clear that any contact with the head will be looked upon poorly by the officials and the tribunal. Incidental or low grade contact while attempting a tackle results in a free kick on match day. More serious contact to the head results in a suspension.
Players are aware of the fact that head high contact results in a free kick, and now use this fact as a tactic to gain possessions. Whereas in years past players would turn side on as they approached a ball in dispute (so as to limit the likelihood of contact to their head), nowadays players are aware that any contact to the head will be rewarded with a free kick.
Players are therefore being encouraged to plunge head long into a contest, knowing that they will either win the ball, or get collected in the head – both resulting in a possession.
I am all for protecting the player who puts his head over the ball, but also feel that there is an onus on all players to make reasonable efforts to protect themselves when they attempt to win a ball in dispute.
It is conceivable that elite juniors may no longer be taught to protect their body as they approach a contested ball in order to increase the likelihood of winning a free kick, which will lead to an increase in the amount of head trauma sustained by players.
Players who put their head over the ball should always be protected, but the AFL needs to consider ways to ensure players aren’t rewarded for reckless disregard for their own safety.
On a related point, the suspension of Melbourne’s Jack Trengove for three weeks for executing what has been described as a perfect tackle on Adelaide’s Patrick Dangerfield was puzzling. The penalty was heavy because Dangerfield’s head made heavy contact with the ground during the tackle, resulting in him suffering concussion.
Trengove was criticised for pinning Dangerfield’s arms, despite the fact that this is a perfectly legitimate and effective way to ensure the opposition player does not dispose of the ball effectively.
Why did Trengove get penalised for executing a perfect tackle then? The argument goes that Trengove had a duty to protect the head of the opposition player, even if the heavy contact is made indirectly between Dangerfield and the ground (rather than due to direct contact from Trengove to Dangerfield’s head).
Given the AFL’s keenness to suspend players who make reckless contact with the head of an opposition player, what happens in the following situation…
In two weeks’ time, Trengove will be back in the Melbourne side to face the Bombers.
In the second quarter of the Friday night game Trengove streams through the midfield with ball in hand towards the Demons forward line. Liam Jurrah, the exciting and athletic Melbourne forward, is poised deep in the goal square. Jurrah sees Trengove kick the ball long to the top of the goal square and takes a running leap at the ball which sees him fly high onto the shoulders of Essendon fullback Dustin Fletcher.
Jurrah takes a spectacular mark, but in the process knees Fletcher in the back of the head. Fletcher is immediately knocked unconscious by the impact, and falls lifelessly to the ground before his head slams into the MCG turf.
Fletcher is stretchered from the ground, and scans after that match reveal he has a broken jaw and will miss eight weeks of football.
What happens next?
Trengove was penalised for executing a textbook tackle because he did not take due care in ensuring that no contact was made to Dangerfield’s head. Should we expect Jurrah to also be penalised for the head high contact made on Fletcher, despite the fact he executed a perfect mark?
If not, why not? Trengove executed a textbook defensive effort in tackling Dangerfield, whereas Jurrah executed a perfect offensive act in taking a mark.
Both actions resulted in an opposition player sustaining a head injury.
In fact, in this hypothetical situation, it can be argued that Jurrah’s actions are more reckless than those of Trengove given that Jurrah’s knee made direct contact with the opposition player’s head, whereas the contact to Dangerfield’s head was secondary to the tackle made by Trengove.
It’s time for a few grey areas to be cleared up when it comes to making contact with players’ grey matter.
Follow Michael on Twitter @michaelfilosi
Who’s in your ultimate team? Pick the best team and compete with other fans for daily prizes on Draftstars. For the best odds on the game try out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Think. Is this a bet you really want to place? Set a deposit limit.
Things getting spicy in Adelaide!
Tex had plenty to say to Sam Berry after kicking the Crows' second goal.
"Wasn't meant to go there!"
Brisbane coach Chris Fagan has defended the AFL Tribunal's controversial decision to overturn star forward Charlie Cameron's one-match suspension for a dangerous tackle, as…
Chris Fagan took issue with repeat questions about the Lions' Tribunal defence of Charlie Cameron, which saw the star forward controversially reprieved.
