-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
Protect the person going for the ball at all times. That's what they say.
In view of what happened to Blake Caracella on the weekend, and the horrific consequences of what could have happened, I've been giving much thought to what happened. It's often stated that the head is a protected region, hence the above the shoulder rule or any contact that results in any head contact is rewarded with a free kick, discouraging any head hunting... supposedly.
Yeah, we hear it from the umpires and the AFL that the player going for the ball is protected, but the reality is that they're not. I'm not saying Notting deliberately went to Caracella's head, but his approach was aggressive, possibly reckless, resulting in a forceful contact.
If a player is bent forward going for the ball, simply do not allow *any* contact from the front. You can't just run to a contest just to collide. That's what Notting did. Little did he think that the ensuing collision would leave Caracella nearly crippled. No fault of Notting's though, but a fault of the system that allowed him to do so.
What better way to encourage going for the ball than to *truly* give the player going for the ball protection. If you're bent over going for a ball on the ground, then you can't touch them. Or if you do something that is dangerous, like Steven King's kick to Jeff White's head last year, then that should be considered reckless too.
If a rule change prevents a serious injury to the neck or head, then I'm all for it. Even a rule change in that direction would be welcome, or even the umpires actually enforcing their so called protection of the person going for the ball would be welcome. Just don't put it down to bad luck. It's not. It's a failure of the rules to protect the player going first for the ball.
Good Luck Blake, and may we see your sublime skills back on the ground.
Fudge
In view of what happened to Blake Caracella on the weekend, and the horrific consequences of what could have happened, I've been giving much thought to what happened. It's often stated that the head is a protected region, hence the above the shoulder rule or any contact that results in any head contact is rewarded with a free kick, discouraging any head hunting... supposedly.
Yeah, we hear it from the umpires and the AFL that the player going for the ball is protected, but the reality is that they're not. I'm not saying Notting deliberately went to Caracella's head, but his approach was aggressive, possibly reckless, resulting in a forceful contact.
If a player is bent forward going for the ball, simply do not allow *any* contact from the front. You can't just run to a contest just to collide. That's what Notting did. Little did he think that the ensuing collision would leave Caracella nearly crippled. No fault of Notting's though, but a fault of the system that allowed him to do so.
What better way to encourage going for the ball than to *truly* give the player going for the ball protection. If you're bent over going for a ball on the ground, then you can't touch them. Or if you do something that is dangerous, like Steven King's kick to Jeff White's head last year, then that should be considered reckless too.
If a rule change prevents a serious injury to the neck or head, then I'm all for it. Even a rule change in that direction would be welcome, or even the umpires actually enforcing their so called protection of the person going for the ball would be welcome. Just don't put it down to bad luck. It's not. It's a failure of the rules to protect the player going first for the ball.
Good Luck Blake, and may we see your sublime skills back on the ground.
Fudge