News Injuries & Suspensions
- Thread starter PC
- Start date
It's a 360 degree sport so collision contact is bound to happen.
Mackay had eyes for the ball at all times so not sure what he is supposed to do , stop in a split second and let the opposition get the ball ?
Obviously feel sorry for Clark and the injuries he suffered , I guess if they are 110% about head injuries time they made it compulsory for players to wear helmets with facial protection.
Mackay had eyes for the ball at all times so not sure what he is supposed to do , stop in a split second and let the opposition get the ball ?
Obviously feel sorry for Clark and the injuries he suffered , I guess if they are 110% about head injuries time they made it compulsory for players to wear helmets with facial protection.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 38,958
- Likes
- 126,621
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Helmets being compulsory will make little to no difference to the amount of concussions recorded and could have the adverse effect, as players will foolishly believe they are immune and attack the ball more recklessly. A better prevention technique would relate to coaching on techniques for tackling/attacking the ball.
View: https://twitter.com/nrlphysio/status/1109579947343962113
View: https://twitter.com/nrlphysio/status/1109600341840949248
View: https://twitter.com/nrlphysio/status/1109579947343962113
View: https://twitter.com/nrlphysio/status/1109600341840949248
I'm still not sure if Mackay breaking someone's jaw on a hardball contest or Andrew Gaff breaking someone's jaw at all are the most unfathomable thing to happen in the past 15 years of football.
The worst part about all of this has been the utterly misdirected focus on what actually caused this incident. Everyone has focused entirely on Mackay and completely ignored that this never happens if Clark doesn't lead with his head at the contest.
Honestly, the AFL has gone down the NFL path of "trying to do the right thing" and actually making the situation immeasurably worse. They've made the head so protected as to the point of incentivising players to put it at risk. The NFL has the same problem with helmets.
If I'd gone at the ball as a junior at training the way Hunter Clark did my coach would have told me to jog 2 laps to think about whether I want to be a paraplegic because it completely went against how we were taught to go at the contest, you went shoulder first through the ball to protect your head and neck.
Sadly we've got a generation of players coming through now who "want to be like Joel" and I'm not questioning their courage one iota, they're courageous to the point of recklessness but the AFL has created this system.
If they really wanted to do something about it they'd remove all free kicks where a player leads with his head, they'd make leading with the head prior opportunity in all ways (ducking, crowning, shrugging, etc), they'd not reward any situation where the player puts their head at risk instead of protecting it. Right now we've got a rule system that encourages and rewards players for sticking their head in harm's way.
Simple fact is if Hunter Clark hit that ball the same way that David Mackay did your worse case scenario becomes a broken collarbone or a shoulder injury instead of a head/neck injury. The reality is that Clark is lucky to escape with a broken jaw.
To be clear, I'm not blaming Clark, he went at that ball in the fashion the AFL has created as the most likely way for his team to end up with the ball but that runs counterintuitively to the safest way of winning that ball.
As someone who has played American Football the helmet (and see rant above) does the exact opposite of protection. You weaponise the head and it becomes even worse in that you can't teach (responsibly) players how to actually even use the helmet effectively so both players are at increased risk.
I'd bet every dollar I have that the physicality level of American Football would drop significantly overnight if you removed the helmets because you'd be taking away the weapon on peoples heads but also the protection that makes them think they can use it as a weapon. Spoken as someone who often used it as a weapon...
As someone who has played Rugby Union, AFL and American Football all at a relatively high level I can tell you that the sport that hits the hardest by a considerable margin is American Football and that's factoring in the "protection" the pads/helmet provide. FWIW Rugby is 2nd and AFL 3rd but they're also in the exact opposite order for the endurance requirements making them all fairly equally "hard" sports to play.
The worst part about all of this has been the utterly misdirected focus on what actually caused this incident. Everyone has focused entirely on Mackay and completely ignored that this never happens if Clark doesn't lead with his head at the contest.
Honestly, the AFL has gone down the NFL path of "trying to do the right thing" and actually making the situation immeasurably worse. They've made the head so protected as to the point of incentivising players to put it at risk. The NFL has the same problem with helmets.
If I'd gone at the ball as a junior at training the way Hunter Clark did my coach would have told me to jog 2 laps to think about whether I want to be a paraplegic because it completely went against how we were taught to go at the contest, you went shoulder first through the ball to protect your head and neck.
Sadly we've got a generation of players coming through now who "want to be like Joel" and I'm not questioning their courage one iota, they're courageous to the point of recklessness but the AFL has created this system.
If they really wanted to do something about it they'd remove all free kicks where a player leads with his head, they'd make leading with the head prior opportunity in all ways (ducking, crowning, shrugging, etc), they'd not reward any situation where the player puts their head at risk instead of protecting it. Right now we've got a rule system that encourages and rewards players for sticking their head in harm's way.
Simple fact is if Hunter Clark hit that ball the same way that David Mackay did your worse case scenario becomes a broken collarbone or a shoulder injury instead of a head/neck injury. The reality is that Clark is lucky to escape with a broken jaw.
To be clear, I'm not blaming Clark, he went at that ball in the fashion the AFL has created as the most likely way for his team to end up with the ball but that runs counterintuitively to the safest way of winning that ball.
As someone who has played American Football the helmet (and see rant above) does the exact opposite of protection. You weaponise the head and it becomes even worse in that you can't teach (responsibly) players how to actually even use the helmet effectively so both players are at increased risk.
I'd bet every dollar I have that the physicality level of American Football would drop significantly overnight if you removed the helmets because you'd be taking away the weapon on peoples heads but also the protection that makes them think they can use it as a weapon. Spoken as someone who often used it as a weapon...
As someone who has played Rugby Union, AFL and American Football all at a relatively high level I can tell you that the sport that hits the hardest by a considerable margin is American Football and that's factoring in the "protection" the pads/helmet provide. FWIW Rugby is 2nd and AFL 3rd but they're also in the exact opposite order for the endurance requirements making them all fairly equally "hard" sports to play.
Great insight - often wondered into how the three sports compared. As someone who has only played rugby union I see AFL as a much more dangerous sport due to the 360 degree nature of the contact - it can come from anywhere and the player is often totally open. In rugby contact is usually front on and you can brace for it. I’m often in awe at the courage of AFL players.
