RM,
If you really need to ask that question you can't be watching the football much. The AFL has an unequivocal attitude towards head high hits of Freo players. It's acceptable.
I remember one game against WB at Etihad where Pav was intentionally hit high after completing a mark and taking 3 long strides. He was forced out with concussion.
Shortly thereafter, Walters was taken in the head while having his head over the ball that was running along the ground. He was taken out of the game with concussion.
The MRP 'claimed' (falsely) that Pav was injured in an unavoidable marking contest. This ruling completely pretended that the hit came from a player 'after' Pav had completed the mark and taken 3 strides and the WB player left the ground and aimed at Pav's head.
The Walter's hit was written off as being caused by Walter's changing direction leaving his attacker no time to avoid him, even though Walters was moving in a straight line and the bloke who collected him changed direction that coincidentally avoided Walter's body and took him in the head. Mind you, doesn't that rationale by the MRP exactly describe Dawson's bump but I guess he wasn't hitting a Freo player.
Of course we all know that an intentional elbow to the face of Freo player that only requires 5 stitches is 'insufficient force' to warrant the AFL protecting that head.
Clearly, the rules are that some heads are sacrosanct and some are legitimate targets and it the appears the colour of your guernsey is the deciding factor
