David Mackay won the battle, but the AFL intends to win the war

I'm a bit over the constant tinkering with the game and its rules. I'm sure every change the AFL bureaucrats contemplate is well intentioned, but they should remember they are tinkering with one of the oldest organised sporting codes in the world. The game deserves respect. Do they ever consider what the game might look like after all this tinkering? To hear that a great of the game has actually suggested they remove tackling astounds me. Why don't we just follow Netball? I'm all for improving player safety, but let's not forget that this game is after all, a body contact sport, and that's one reason we watch it. There's some hypocrisy from some on this. At every club and in the media they is an unrelenting focus on contested ball. Its viewed as the most vital key to success. Each player and every team has their pressure intensity under a constant microscope. The media have even created a thing called the pressure meter. A hyper intensity culture has been created, increased further by superior levels of speed and strength in the modern player. I guess my point is, rather than a couple of ex players tinkering with things piecemeal each year, what is the vision for this game? What do they want it to evolve into? As the saying goes, a Camel is a Horse designed by a committee.

They brought in rules to outlaw two players clashing when competing for a loose ball? Given that would've been a knock-on in league your argument is demonstrably nonsense. Different games dude, different circumstances.

The difficulty in comparing rugby and Aussie rules is that rugby essentially operates as two parallel lines of players in opposition to one another, in which the ball is almost always in the possession of one team or the other, and the ball-carrier has a fair idea of where a possible tackler is coming from. Aussie rules in contrast operates like a high-speed breakdown a good portion of the time, and one in which opposing players can come from any direction. It's far more difficult to predict the movement of opposition players, and far more difficult to mitigate against accidental head contact. That doesn't mean that the governing body should give up on trying to minimise the risk, but it's far more difficult to deal with than it is in rugby.

Please explain? Just looked at slo-mo of that mark.Riewoldt took the ball cleanly. He made no reckless charge that endangered anyone’s head and no ones head was hit. His legs bashed into a Crow’s player’s side and that opponent probably had sore ribs. So what? You don’t get brain damage from sore ribs. No rule change being discussed ( and no text has been released) would make that mark illegal. It’s wild and unfounded conjecture like this that prevents a sensible debate on a crucial issue.

ABRP’s argument is demonstrably nonsense. Rugby in January bought in rules that outlaw exactly the kind of head high contact in the McKay case. The super rugby Aoteoroa comp this year under those rules was by wide acclamation the most high speed and skilful provincial competition in memory.. The rugby wasn’t any less gladiatorial. The rule change was not crippling nor even very relevant to the game style. The improvement was about evolution of the game. Faster players. More skill. Just a ban on head high play. Which is exactly the point. Preserving the head and improving the game are completely compatible.

I aver we, AF, started a long time ago. RL is a relative newcomer. ------ It's the Insurer's, and their Lawyer's, who are increasingly the one's who are making the laws of the game; all games in fact. Ultimately RU, RL & AF will be the same and they will combine under the name "Procession Ball". In this combined game Rose Petals will flutter down on the ground to escort the ball to the scoring end. Scoring will be thru a 5m Diameter White Hydrangea and Pink Bougainvillea Garland. The scorer will be sprayed in the finest Eau de Cologne squeezed from the teats of Yaks by Tyrolese Monks ------- There will come a time when Football, the World Game, will ban heading.

Thanks Clinton. I hate getting facts wrong and relied on an early and inaccurate report of the Tribunal on the time gap cited by McKay’s counsel. You’re right McKay claimed it was .04 seconds. My apologies. I think that changes the picture a little - in that the the late player had less time to adjust. I stick to my main point however. The AFL will change its rule because it has to. It cannot stand by in the face of such head high injury. Football ( soccer) in 2006 internationally introduced a rule which made it an automatic red card where two players were jumping simultaneously to head a ball but one allowed a flailing arm or elbow to hit the head of the other. Even accidentally. Analysis from the Bundesleague shows that rule alone reduced concussion by almost 30%. A huge drop for a single rule change. And despite the doomsayers there’s no threat to the integrity of the game. In January of this year Rugby Union changed its rule for high contact. Even accidental high contact in a contest is now illegal and the definition of the more serious ‘reckless” category is much tougher. ….” if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway”. That exactly captures the Mckay /Clark collision. And in rugby Union “reckless” brings a yellow or red card. Words of that nature will be adopted by the AFL. Nor will they fundamentally undermine the game, any more than they have done in the other codes.

Under the proposed change Riewalds probable mark if the year would have got him suspended. How embarrassing

The NRL is slowly taking the hard stuff out of the game and it’s slowly killing the sport and now the AFL is about to do the same. Yet again the sports administrators don’t understand why people watch sport. There’s an animalistic desire to watch people hurt each other; that’s why boxing and MMA are still around, that’s why people watch contact sports. This will never change. You take the contest, the tribalism, the rivalry out of sports and you’re left with a soulless product. This change seems to me to be because of the threat of legal action just like in America. This is ridiculous; we don’t have the same legal system as them, this isn’t like for like. The AFL can protect itself legally.

Never again, that's charging now. Intentional rough conduct, weeks

For the good old days of the little guy (Sheedy) driving his shoulder through the solar plexus of the big guy (McKenna). Footy ain't what it used to be. [sob]

Its completely changing, I still swear we are the only game in the world that changes there rules as much as we do especially ones that completely change the game. Oh my bad as well but yeah just the physicality of the international series not the other rules but then hey who knows with hocking.lol.

My bad i should of worded that better but in regards to the physicality of the international rules not the actual round ball and other rules if that makes sense.lol.

%100 but the physicality of that game is what it seems to me they want. I remember something back then about us tackling too hard or something and we had to tone it down.

It's a big worry, feel like I'm be made to adapt or perish a bit. International rules, what the?

Sumoball

My second grade teacher said it. That’s when I decided to leave skool and become an AFL player. It still doesn’t explain your hate for Geelong or obsession with Yattz :happy: each to their own

Who said you can't read? Thanks for the correction, doggie.

The 'floating' soccer-ball would annoy me as the prolate spheroid is a much better ball to mark.

Say*