We’ve had this debate before, right? Well, sort of. Remember two years ago when the AFL changed the laws on bumping. It took some adjusting but it has changed the way the game is played. Nowadays, it appears the AFL are on a similar mission with sling tackles.
It’s all part of the AFL’s move to sanitize the game and you can understand their efforts to do so for the growth of the game in the modern era.
The image the code doesn’t want is for it to be seen as a gladiatorial sport where neck and back injuries are simply unfortunate events which occur as part of the game.
That’s hardly going to encourage parents in expansion regions of Australia to let their kids play Aussie Rules footy on the weekend, for fear of serious injury.
Nevertheless, that gladiatorial image of Australian Rules footy is what makes the code so captivating for many viewers and for that reason there’s many who are argue against the AFL’s rule changes. We’ve all heard the gripes that footy is becoming ‘soft’.
In many ways, the AFL’s expansion effort which coincides with their move to sanitize the game are a source of anger for those who oppose the rule changes.
It may appear that the AFL are trying to sanitize footy to make it more attractive to the masses, at the expense of the game as the traditional fans have known it for decades.
However, in a week when Adelaide’s 29-year-old defender Scott Stevens had to call an early end to his AFL career due to the cumulative effects of numerous concussions, something has clearly been forgotten.
The big point of conjecture this week has been the inconsistency by the AFL’s Match Review Panel on penalties handed down on three ‘sling tackles’ cases involving Joel Corey, Shane Mumford and Justin Koschitzke.
All three tackles appeared to be similar, however the big men copped two-week suspension due to the impact they made on their opponents, while Corey is free to play next weekend.
There’s no doubt that’s confusing and I tend to believe Corey got lucky. However the reality is anyone arguing if Corey gets off, then they should all get off, then they’re mistaken.
All three tackles were poor and unnecessary. AFL devotees will say it was good aggressive footy but they were all dangerous tackles and had the potential to inflict serious injury on their respective opponent.
You might argue that’s part of the game?
But it’s not, as there is a point during all three tackles where the tackler decides to dump their opponent to the ground. It’s an unnecessary instinctive decision made by the tackler.
Yes, AFL players are taught to be aggressive and these acts therefore become instinctive over time, but there’s got to be a threshold to that aggression.
Indeed, the AFL’s attempt to curb that behaviour is to introduce suspensions on these tackles.
It’s worked fairly well with bumping and as Essendon coach James Hird said earlier in the week, it’ll probably work with tackling.
Some might argue, it’s tinkering with the game to ‘soften’ it even more, but in the modern game where big clusters of players surround the footy and tackling has become so important, it’s a necessary move.
The AFL are tinkering with the rules, but it’s about changing instinctive and unnecessary behaviour to protect the game. Just ask Scott Stevens.
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.
With the national competition, the premiership-winning coach says some games it was hard to feel the occasion such as ANZAC Round - and it's…
Eight weeks is usually the point where the AFL ladder has taken its shape for the season - and thanks to Opening Round, that's…
There's some high standards at Sydney!
Wouldn't want to be Jack Scrimshaw right now!
Jack Petruccelle gave up a 50m penalty and a goal to young Sun Will Graham, after spoiling the ball away after it had gone…
Dimma was not happy with this kick out of bounds on the full from Touk Miller!
