The crackdown on dangerous tackles was supposed to protect AFL players, but it's left them confused

Sydney Morning Herald

28-05-2025

Players say they are confused by the AFL's adjudication of dangerous tackles and have called for the league to be more consistent in its application of rules at a time when fines are set to surge to another record this year.
The lack of understanding among players over what constitutes a dangerous tackle was laid bare in data collected by the AFL Players Association for their annual Insights and Impact Report, released on Wednesday night.
While support has increased among players for the AFL's intent to reduce head knocks, only 12.5 per cent of player delegates surveyed rated their understanding of the dangerous tackle rules as high, according to the AFLPA data.
The surveys were conducted last July around the time Brisbane's Charlie Cameron and Greater Western Sydney's Toby Bedford had bans for dangerous tackles overturned. The issue has remained a talking point this season after North Melbourne's Paul Curtis was suspended for three games for a run-down tackle which left Port Adelaide's Josh Sinn concussed.
The Kangaroos chose not to appeal the tribunal finding despite their disappointment with the decision. However, North players were bemused, including veteran Luke Parker – who clipped the league in a social media post suggesting the game had become touch football, accompanied by the hashtag 'nomoretackling'.
Loading
Parker's response was consistent with the feedback given by his peers to the AFLPA. More than 60 per cent of respondents said they had low belief the match review officer or tribunal showed consistency in assessing a dangerous tackle.
A score of one to three out of 10 was considered 'low', four to seven as 'moderate' and eight to 10 as 'high'.
'Players expressed confusion about what constitutes a legal tackle, and concern that rulings are increasingly based on the outcome of the action rather than the action itself,' the report said.