World Footy News

One topic that is always guaranteed to stir passionate debate is whether the AFL's rules regarding high contact are an improvement to the game. In the past decade there has been a crackdown on contact to the head, which is variously seen as vital to player welfare and encouraging parents to allow their kids to play the sport, through to an attack on the toughness and spectacular collisions that are part of the sport's great appeal.

Both sides have worthwhile points, but there is little doubt that to maintain a wide supporter and player base, Australian football has needed to change. The cowardly hit to the head was for too long tolerated, with seriously injured players having to accept the assault as "part of the game". In the 1970s it was common for a player, when delivering a hip and shoulder, to jump into the air, such that it was their hip and shoulder, but the other player's head. These days the majority of fans and commentators accept that a tighter interpretation of the rules, protecting against high contact, is worthwhile.

However the rules have been refined further, condemning any player who chooses, rather than go for the ball, to make body contact which ultimately results in high contact and injury. That includes unintentional high contact, even if it was caused by unexpected behaviour from that other player. But have the changes put the game on course to cause increasing numbers of serious injuries throughout all levels of the sport?

This author has been enthusiastic about the reduction in head high contact through players lifting their elbows or jumping into opponents. The enthusiasm drops when increasingly "regular" hip and shoulders have begun to fade from the game. And now the new interpretations are seriously disturbing me, as I see a sickening trend emerging, and foresee injuries such as major neck and spinal damage occurring - I don't say that lightly.

In defence of their new rules the AFL has, quite reasonably, regularly cited reducing injury tolls. And again, up until recently, I've been supportive of the changes. But the rules are now being interpreted that if two players are running at the ball on the ground and one player throws himself face first at the ball, it becomes the other player's duty to avoid high contact. That player, often travelling at speed, may have less than one second to respond and somehow change their approach - a manoeuvre that would have to defy human mechanics and the laws of physics.

Worse is that AFL players are increasingly exploiting the rules by throwing themselves head first at the ball. Their reward is a free kick... and the high risk of injury.

Put it this way - if two players are running head on towards a ground ball, what is the safest way they can approach it? Is it:

A. both players execute a classic hip and shoulder, turning side on and bracing (in vogue for a century), or
B. both players dive head first at the ball (the new way effectively being encouraged)?

Sometimes the outcome of B will be a near miss and no damage. But the reality is that heads will clash or one player's chest or knees will hit the other's head. Worse, if one player makes a late move to this position, the other player may not have the chance to do likewise and hit them with shoulder, hip or knees.

This is not the case of bumping a player who is already on the ground or bent over the ball and must be protected. This is when two players are meeting for the same ball almost simultaneously. For a century the onus was on both players to have a duty of care to themselves.

The increasing incidence of players creating dangerous situations for themselves was seen again in the AFL on the weekend. In the match in Perth, as Port Adelaide's Paul Stewart approached the football he suddenly bent at the knees, and West Coast's Shannon Hurn, who had clearly already committed to defending himself in the impending collision with his shoulder, was then marked as the offending player. Stewart was collected high and injured, whilst Hurn gave away a free and has been suspended for 3 matches (2 if he does not contest the charge).

In Adelaide, the Crows' Jahran Jacky similarly threw himself at the ball. It was both brave and foolish, and he was stunned by the collision. But again, he was awarded a free, encouraging the behaviour to continue. These were just two examples of many that occurred over the eight AFL matches in Round 2; it's a growing epidemic of self-inflicted dangerous play.

Particularly disturbing is considering how this will play out across the hundreds of leagues below AFL level across Australia and the world. If this interpretation is consistently applied then players will be endangering their heads, necks and spines every game. And those players will generally not be equipped with the same strongly develop back and neck muscles.

I don't criticise this trend due to nostalgia for the past. It is a heartfelt concern that very very serious injuries will become part of our great game, something that has been very rare in the past. Such collisions resulted in many deaths in American football, to the point that a US President threatened to ban the sport and helmets were introduced. And the irony is that there is no doubt the AFL is acting with the best of intentions, trying to reduce head injuries. Hopefully the interpretation is changed before this dangerous trend becomes embedded in Australian football at all levels.