Is the AFL learning?

Most will recall the announcement from the AFL that “the head is sacrosanct” — another in the line of zero-tolerance responses that to some degree failed because they didn’t acknowledge circumstance, nuance and context.

 

This week there was the first explicit acknowledgement that AussieRulesBlog can recall that the zero-tolerance approach to high contact was a mistake. Jeff Gieschen tells the Your Call segment on the AFL website that Cyril Rioli running head-first into a stationary Dean Polo should not have drawn a free kick for high contact.

 

Conditioned by the AFL’s track record, in the wake of the Adam Goodes slide tackle and suspension, nearly everyone piled into Lindsay Thomas over the incident in which Gary Rohan’s leg was broken. Any more than a cursory glance was sufficient to realise that Thomas’ actions were quite different to Goodes, but the community expected a zero-tolerance response.

 

The AFL today clarified its approach to slide tackles, putting the onus back on the sliding player to exercise a duty of care toward other players on the field.

 

“It is not illegal to slide to contest the ball, but players must be aware of the potential for injury if they slide into an opponent’s knees or ankles,” said Adrian Anderson.

 

It’s about time that some room for nuance and judgement was allowed. Zero tolerance works just fine — just as long as every incident is exactly the same. Introduce just one variation and the zero tolerance approach doesn’t cut it.