The 'High Tackle' technique in all it's glory

[Spirit Level]

What if the guy shakes his hips and the tackle slides down around the ankles? Play on? It's a contact sport.

I think you'll find in this case the player would be trying to shake the tackle, not draw a free kick

But good try

 

[StonesThrow]

That's the most obvious drawing of a head high free kick I've seen.

Unfortunately tacklers will have to adapt as best they can because the umpires are too stupid to pick when players are doing it.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Is it suprising that it is largely only eagles and cat's fans who are defending this?

I can understand an argument that a player does this to try and slip out of a tackle. If they succesfully got out of the tackle then fine, play on... no one would care. In fact most would commend them for using their strength to do so.

But clearly players are not doing this to get out of a tackle anymore. You don't buckle your knees and swing your head back if you are trying to dispose of the ball. These players know it wins them a free, and that is why they do it. THAT is what everyone is so pissed off about, and That is what is clearly against the spirit of the game.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

What if he does it and breaks the tackle as Selwood often does or disposes of the ball whilst being strangled. Is it still HTB?

"Strangled"
lol... this site never ceases to amaze

 

[Looney]

Good job avoiding a free, but not a good example of an effective tackle... If there was another saint nearby, then Armitage couldve gotten an easy handball off.
---

Did anyone hear Carey going mental about this on Friday night defending Selwood in this exact situation... Going on and on about him not ducking his head, but saying its the tacklers fault for not being strong enough.

I think there's a couple of things that need to happen.

1.Players need to be stronger in making a tackle: you know someone is gonna raise the arm- be ready for it. Get lower in the tackle, and try to bring their elbows into the body so they dont have the mobility to raise it.

2. I agree with a the growing consensus, that if a tackle Starts legal, but then gets pushed up high, either from a raise arm, or from dropping at the knees, then it shouldn't be a free. Its hard for the umps, but try to make calls on where the primary contact of the tackle was.

3. Dont try to penalise players staging during a match, unless it is blatantly obvious in real time is rare in the heat of battle). If players are doing this to try and slip out of a tackle? Great... Let them do that, just don't award a free for it. But if the MRP determines that a player is clearly staging to get a free (in the case of the head swing backwards) then let the MRP decide the outcome: a warning first, then fines, then a suspension.

Carey may be one of the greatest players to ever play the game, but he certainly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. He really needs to think twice before making such comments. He is practically defending a cheat. We all know what Selwood does. He is cheating. If you are fabricating a free kick that doesn't exist, then you are cheating. Full stop. Don't put the onus of the tackler to not allow this to happen. The onus should be on the player to not cheat.

 

[justbetter]

Nick Suban method of head high tackles:

 

[Looney]

Nick Suban method of head high tackles:

Tell me he didn't get a free kick for that...

 

[justbetter]

Tell me he didn't get a free kick for that...

no he just got to walk off the ground a little wobbly

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Nick Suban method of head high tackles:

I will say I chuckled at that.

Its almost Kosi/Reiwoldt-esque. It does look a lot more like just a complete brain fade and missing the tackle, rather than trying to get a free... and surely he didn't get a free for that.

 

[The 747]

I think if the player with the ball raises his arm when tackled that should count as his prior opportunity. If he doesn't then dispose of the ball properly, pay holding the ball/incorrect disposal as long as the tackle was not high to begin with. If you give the player with the ball a ball up they won't stop doing it but if they start giving away free kicks when they do not dispose of the ball they will stop pretty quickly.

Agree it is a method of taking the tackler on.

 

[Sherrinator]

Daniher was trying to take marks. Christensen was trying to get a free kick. Daniher got pinged for his unrealistic attempts. Christensen got a shot in front of goal for his weak tactic.

If Daniher was trying to take marks, he must have some serious depth perception issues. Daniher didn't get pinged for all of them either.

 

[lusheslewis]

What would happen if they allowed over the shoulder tackles? Too hard to enforce? Too dangerous? Are over the shoulder tackles in some way unfair?

 

[Sherrinator]

It's not relevant. It's just a diversion as they have nothing useful to contribute.

Everyone knows Christensen plays for frees. Scott taught them all the trick. The issue is when everyone is calling him a cheat when there are plenty of other shitty tactics that get allowed.

 

[Vindicater]

What if he does it and breaks the tackle as Selwood often does or disposes of the ball whilst being strangled. Is it still HTB?

Then it is play on because he got the ball away.

 

[Shupe]

Is it suprising that it is largely only eagles and cat's fans who are defending this?

Not surprising as we are probably the only clubs that have actually learnt to tackle properly.

 

[madmug]

I still recon they should penalise the person who is deemed to have initiated the head high contact. Its not an easy game to umpire but at least that gives some hope that common sense would prevail. If you force a tacklers arm up to create a head high incident then it is he that is creating the situation & it should be a free kick for causing the head high contact. As long as the umpire sees it of course.

I hadnt seen the Nick Suban footage before. IMO he should have been reported & warned against such stupidity. In the end he'll be the one who'll want to sue the AFL, at the end of his career, for the brain damage he sustained playing the game. Yet it will be of his own stupid making.

 

[trentjac]

Hoops said: ↑

That seems to have shown Selwood

Is that how you teach your wife/partner a lesson?

Geelong poster equating Selwood to a woman, wonders never cease.

Even the Mrs doesn't whinge as much as Selwood

 

[master bate]

Alternatively...

View attachment 137625

We want our key forwards to crash packs like a wrecking ball.
We want our ruckmen to wrestle and smash into one another.
We want every play to risk their health and run back with the flight.
We want every play to execute precision disposal skills.

Yet, we're happy for our players to perform weak, half-hearted tackles.

1. That looks like a tackle out in space not around a pack, much different circumstances
2. A good player gets a handball off
3. A good player then draws a holding the man free kick
4. The tackler is left lying on the ground and not able to impact the next contest

Tackling high and taking the arms is a very useful tackle in a pack situation. It lets the tackler control where the ball is going and stay in the game for the next part of the contest. It's not slinging or holding the man.

The Selwood and Co shoulder roll is a direct invention to counter the higher up standing tackle.

Now the tackler must react by going lower but you can't tackle Selwood in a slinging motion like that because he'll ride the contact and dish a handball to a team mate then whilst you are on the ground he'll run off and get another kick.

To get Selwood around a contest you either have to tackle him before he's had a chance to roll the shoulder and make sure you've got both arms or you have to hit him with such force with your tackle that he's on the ground or fumbled before he's even had a chance.

AFL clearances are like Judo. It takes move and counter move to get the required result.

Just like you can't let Lewis Jetta get goal side, Franklin run on his left foot or Howe get a run and jump at the ball etc you have to know your opponent.

 

[Pusswah]

I still recon they should penalise the person who is deemed to have initiated the head high contact. Its not an easy game to umpire but at least that gives some hope that common sense would prevail. If you force a tacklers arm up to create a head high incident then it is he that is creating the situation & it should be a free kick for causing the head high contact. As long as the umpire sees it of course.

I hadnt seen the Nick Suban footage before. IMO he should have been reported & warned against such stupidity. In the end he'll be the one who'll want to sue the AFL, at the end of his career, for the brain damage he sustained playing the game. Yet it will be of his own stupid making.

He wasn't trying to draw a free kick, he was being unco.

 

[Furn2]

Why is it 90% Eagles and Cats defending this ?

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Not surprising as we are probably the only clubs that have actually learnt to tackle properly.

 

[Sherrinator]

Debatable but what I am saying is the act of raising the arm while you have the ball is an option taken instead of disposing on the ball and therefore, in order to stop the practice, should be deemed prior opportunity which would force a legal disposal or a free kick. That will stop the practise very quickly. Probably in a couple of weeks. Players won't wait for the tackle and play for the free they will be looking to dispose before the tackle or risk having the arms pinned and being penalised. If it's just play on then there is no disadvantage to doing it so it won't stop. The player will "earn" a ball up.

I think you are going the wrong way about it. The player first to the ball should be given more of a chance to get a clean disposal away and lifting your arm like Christensen is a way quicker action than glancing and handballing.

The tackle should be called play on and if Chappy was able to tackle him properly after that then yes, Bundy should be pinged.

 

[telsor]

They are CAUSING contact to the head. That should be a free against the person CAUSING the high contact, it doesn't matter if it's your own head.

Agree with this, but would also point out that it's pretty hard to be certain about it (to a degree where all the umpires will share the same interpretation) when it happens in a split second. It would also require a rule change, because currently, it's a legal technique for dealing with a tackle, and I'm curious how it'd be defined (clearly and unambiguously) Vs other attempts to break the tackle.

 

[davis_756]

Tackle him under the arm. Which then leads to a further issue because the player can then dispose of the ball.

But seriously, stop advocating for the rules to change. Players improve tackling technique, other players then improve the ability to dispose of it in the tackle, then players refine tackling technique by getting the arms, so other players then develop this technique. And if they leave it alone, some players will work out a way to counter this technique.

Put your arms down next to your body and look where your elbow lines up, around waist height. Tackle any lower then this and its a trip, tackle any higher and they use this technique to draw a high tackle.

In simple terms there is no way to legally tackle these players, they are cheats and the rules need to change. There will never be a way to counter this under the current system.

 

[MarkT2]

I think you are going the wrong way about it. The player first to the ball should be given more of a chance to get a clean disposal away and lifting your arm like Christensen is a way quicker action than glancing and handballing.

The tackle should be called play on and if Chappy was able to tackle him properly after that then yes, Bundy should be pinged.

I generally agree that the player playing the ball deserves some latitude. When he then deliberately plays for a free kick when originally tackled legally instead of disposing of the ball he's had his latitude if he hangs onto the ball and waits for a free kick to be paid - which is exactly what is happening. If he disposes then fair enough, play on but you can't give him a ball up for not attempting to dispose of the ball when tackled when he has played for a free kick. I don't want to discourage him going for the ball but I do want to discourage him from playing for a free kick and not disposing when tackled.