Does the head high-rule need "tweaking", as the AFL is considering, or will that make an already difficult rule even harder to officiate?

Collingwood coach Nathan Buckley fears that making any further changes might only "muddy the waters".

"We've got to stop introducing new slants on different rules. Just leave it basic," he said.

"I think because there is so much media and so much focus we just get caught up on it so heavily."

Supporters and clubs are frustrated with the inconsistency of the interpretation. So will adding another layer to the adjudicating make things even more confusing and inconsistent?

Most coaches who have spoken on the topic this week say the theory behind the rule has been made clear to them and the players, as Geelong coach Chris Scott explained on Tuesday.

"Players that are at full height and they duck their head into the tackler, then they get no protection at all," he said.

"But if a player going for the ball goes low, drop their body but keep their head up, then the onus is on the tackler.

"So there is not a whole of confusion there."

That said, there is definitely some "grey area" that needs to be explored, which is exactly what Wayne Campbell and the umpires department are doing now – even labelling it the "biggest on-field issue in the game at the moment".

"There are definitely some marginal ones where players do a bit of both – drop their body and drop their head. That is the tough one to umpire."

Scott said he had observed an increase in incidents this year that have created that "grey area" for umpires.

"I think there have been a few examples recently where mistakes have been made, or they have been really difficult decisions to adjudicate," he said.

The question is essentially this – exactly when is it poor technique from the tackler which deserves to be punished, and when do the actions of the player with the ball turn a good tackle technique into a free kick unjustly?

That's the issue the AFL wants to clarify for, as Scott pointed out, "the supporters as much as anyone".

Up until now, the benefit of the doubt has gone to the man with the ball.

Most seem to agree that, as a principle, that should remain.

Collingwood gave away seven head-high free kicks against Richmond on Sunday that Buckley said had a significant impact on the result. He assessed each one and did not have an issue with any, ultimately surmising that: "I think we've got to keep rewarding the player to go win the ball and if he manages to draw head-high contact because of poor technique from the opposition, well that's fair play.

"We'll go away and say that we needed to tackle better and that our technique was poor and we need to improve on that."

But there does seems to be a changing of the tide in terms of where the line for the benefit of the doubt should be drawn, according to Melbourne coach Paul Roos.

"I think that's what we need to get to the bottom of - is it a natural action for the player in taking the ball," he said.

"I think if you are going to change your level of height based on getting a free kick, then I don't think that should be a free kick.

"I think if you have taken it and gone down, then that's your [decision]. That's the way I thought they were going to umpire it."

Confusing the issue is the fact that players are being coached to pin the ball carrier's arms when tackling, for most are adept at executing a handball to release a teammate from congestion when just tackled around the waist.

The counter-tactic is for the player with the ball to, when low, explode up and in essence "hook" their neck and head underneath the arms of the player tackling them.

The other option, as Buckley explained on Monday night, is for the ball carrier to brace himself for contact and put their arms in positions where "if you come in too hard, that it's going to slip up to my head and I'll get a free".

That is a part of professional sport.

"The game is well coached these days, there is a lot of resources at footy clubs and players are getting smarter and smarter," Scott observed.

"So whenever there is a slight possibility to use the rules to their advantage, players are going to be pretty quick to pick up on it."

There was a time, Buckley remembered, when it used to be considered a "talent".

But Scott said he believed the industry was now united in, for lack of a better term, saving the players from themselves.

"We don't like players trying to draw free kicks by using their head. Because we have a duty of care as a code to protect the head and the rule should complement that," he said.

"If the players think they should exploit it by putting themselves in harm's way, then we have a problem."

And if there are so-called "droppers", then Buckley said the umpires' mandate from now on will be to catch them.

"They will be looking for guys who have done it," Buckley said, before concluding: "but sometimes they are so clear that you've got to give them [head-high free kicks]".