Collapsing, charging with your head - the AFL are to blame for this crisis

[SuperSub17]

That's what I mean by it still having plenty of grey areas.

With regard to raising the arm, footy players are taught since juniors to raise their arms with impending contact to help free the arms to dispose. Additionally, you'd be outlawing any action to brace against or fend off opponents. Banning those 3 things are absolutely against the spirit of the game. Surely the benefit of the doubt should go to the ball carrier and the onus be on the tackler to lay a legal tackle.

These issues I'm raising are some of the ramifications on rule changes. I have no doubt that if the AFL applied the suggested changes as put forward by Bigfooty, these issues would occur and people would bitch, moan and complain about it.

True and I completely understand these grey areas, that what makes the game so hard to umpire. But I'm not talking about fending off, it's that particular motion where the player tries to sling the arm of the tackler above the shoulder, i.e. the Joel Selwood technique.

 

[Chewy]

Joel Selwood doesn't charge headfirst at players, so you and the OP are way off it.

False

Joel Selwood knocked himself out in the Round 2 game vs Hawthorn last year when he put his head down and ran into Whitecross. He totally contributed to that high contact which is why the charge against Whitecross was thrown out.

This wasn't the only time either. I've lost count of the number of games I've been to (Geel vs everyone) where Selwood kept the head down and used his head as a shield and received a free kick.

Selwood's "bread and butter" is to lift his arm when tackled and hook the tackler's arm up and over his shoulder, but he has a big bag of tricks when it comes to milking free kicks and the head-charge is just another one.

A few different angles are replayed in the clip below. No attempt by Selwood to get around the stationary Whitecross. He just charges full pelt straight into him with his knees bent and his head lowered.



Bonus extras: Chris Scott also does his well-worn "If ya don't mind, umpire" routine in the coaches box.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Crisis alert!!

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

False

Joel Selwood knocked himself out in the Round 2 game vs Hawthorn last year when he put his head down and ran into Whitecross. He totally contributed to that high contact which is why the charge against Whitecross was thrown out.

This wasn't the only time either. I've lost count of the number of games I've been to (Geel vs everyone) where Selwood kept the head down and used his head as a shield and received a free kick.

Selwood's "bread and butter" is to lift his arm when tackled and hook the tackler's arm up and over his shoulder, but he has a big bag of tricks when it comes to milking free kicks and the head-charge is just another one.

A few different angles are replayed in the clip below. No attempt by Selwood to get around the stationary Whitecross. He just charges full pelt straight into him with his knees bent and his head lowered.



Bonus extras: Chris Scott also does his well-worn "If ya don't mind, umpire" routine in the coaches box.

Hey Chewy, how's it going mate? God love ya.

What a disgraceful post by you. It's quite stunning that you feel that incident is evidence of Selwood trying to draw a free kick.

Do you think Joel should receive instruction on how to pick up a footy on the run, using only his feet, thereby not having to lower his head?

The GFC should get the Harlem Globetrotters in for some specialist training, so that we can ease the angst of some bitter Hawks.

 

[PieNSauce]

Unfortunately we have a bit of a catch-22 situation here and continually legislating it never really addresses the problem but simply creates another one. I hope I'm wrong but the only way I can see a rule ever making it black and white enough for consistent adjudication is to legislate tackling out of the game altogether and that would pretty much destroy the fabric of the game as we know it. Look for instance at the way that the holding the ball rule has evolved. There was a time when a great tackle which prevented a player from having the opportunity to dispose of the ball was considered great footy and suitably rewarded. These days, the better the tackle the less likely you are to be rewarded. It never made any sense to me either to legislate out a players right to bounce the ball when tackled because all that meant was that a great tackle was even harder to lay and that gave some balance. Just because one player was so good at it surely shouldn't have meant there needed to be a rule change. I hate the way the rules committee has fiddled with our game over the years to the point it's almost unrecognisable but what I fear most is that those nuffies might start thinking that the game has to be completely risk free. That's when we may as well all go and watch netball.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Selwood ducks a lot to draw frees (and maybe inflict pain) but that was a terrible example. That was a good old fashioned accident. He didnt see what was coming because he was looking right to try and dish the ball off. Whitecross was in the way and didnt have time to avoid contact and nor should he have to try to.

 

[Bosk]

It's pretty simple. If umpires reward players who duck, then players will duck.

 

[Chewy]

Hey Chewy, how's it going mate? God love ya.

What a disgraceful post by you. It's quite stunning that you feel that incident is evidence of Selwood trying to draw a free kick.

Do you think Joel should receive instruction on how to pick up a footy on the run, using only his feet, thereby not having to lower his head?

The GFC should get the Harlem Globetrotters in for some specialist training, so that we can ease the angst of some bitter Hawks.

Selwod was 3 metres away from a stationary Whitecross when he took possession. Watch the side-on reverse-angle replay again. If only Selwood showed the same evasive moves as you do, Doris, he might've save himself a few brain cells. You can see Selwood's eyes fix on Whitecross and then he shapes to handball inside. He is not blind-sided. He makes zero attempt to avoid contact. He just runs straight into him! Strange move for one of the quickest thinking centremen in the AFL!!

You are clearly biased and incapable of any rational discussion on this subject. Your contribution to this thread discussion is to make biased denials and hurl childish insults such as "bitter Hawks". It's not just Hawk fans. 90% of the football world acknowledge that Selwood plays for frees and he is fully prepared to wear a head knock to get a free kick. This is the thread topic, mate. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should stick to the Geelong Board.

 

[Catfish Alley]

I don't think he stages. He genuinely gets smacked in the head. Yes, he puts himself in that situation, but I would prefer a player to go in hard with eyes for the ball. If any player is willing to take the hit them I'm happy for them to get a free.

 

[Chewy]

I don't think he stages. He genuinely gets smacked in the head. Yes, he puts himself in that situation, but I would prefer a player to go in hard with eyes for the ball. If any player is willing to take the hit them I'm happy for them to get a free.

What does "staging" have to do with anything?

We are talking about players who bend down to gather possession of the ball and then keep the head down as a way of drawing head-high contact and a free kick.

The purpose of the rule is to protect players from getting hurt. What we're seeing is tough professional footballers who don't mind copping knocks to the head if it means they get a free kick.

I don't think it's a linear thought-process by Selwood in the incident above ("Oooh, I think I might try to draw a free kick here") I think it's an ingrained habit of his that has evolved over his 15-20 years of playing footy.

If the umps didn't penalise/reward such high contact, we would probably see a lot less of it.

That's the Catch 22

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Selwod was 3 metres away from a stationary Whitecross when he took possession. Watch the side-on reverse-angle replay again. If only Selwood showed the same evasive moves as you do, Doris, he might've save himself a few brain cells. You can see Selwood's eyes are fixed on Whitecross. He is not blind-sided. He makes zero attempt to avoid contact. He just runs straight into him! Strange move for one of the quickest thinking centremen in the AFL!!

You are clearly biased and incapable of any rational discussion on this subject. Your contribution to this thread discussion is to make biased denials and hurl childish insults such as "bitter Hawks". It's not just Hawk fans. 90% of the football world acknowledge that Selwood plays for frees and he is fully prepared to wear a head knock to get a free kick. This is the thread topic, mate. If you can't handle it, then maybe you should stick to the Geelong Board.

I won't be the only one laughing at you about this, don't worry about that. His eyes fix on Whitecross when he shapes to handball inside...so he's trying to execute a lookaway handball to nobody, yeah?

What a joke. Anyone who takes a look at your posting history will crack up at you calling me biased.

Still waiting for actual evidence, that offer is open to anyone.

 

[Catfish Alley]

What does "staging" have to do with anything?

We are talking about players who bend down to gather possession of the ball and then keep the head down as a way of drawing head-high contact and a free kick.

The purpose of the rule is to protect players from getting hurt

What we're seeing is tough professional footballers who don't mind copping knocks to the head if it means they get a free kick

Just engaging in conversation on a forum. No need for eye-rolling. I guess it's to their detriment and like boxing or any frontal contact sport. Very tough to regulate. I honestly don't see many incidents of players running directly at opposition with head down when in the clear though. It's usually in a pack situation with head down and eyes on the ball. That's been going on for ages and how I remember being trained as well.

 

[Chewy]

I won't be the only one laughing at you about this, don't worry about that. His eyes fix on Whitecross when he shapes to handball inside...so he's trying to execute a lookaway handball to nobody, yeah?

What a joke. Anyone who takes a look at your posting history will crack up at you calling me biased.

Still waiting for actual evidence, that offer is open to anyone.

Selwood gathered the ball and took three steps towards the stationary Whitecross who propped right in front of him.

He makes no attempt to protect himself or avoid getting hit.

[edit: Selwood creates the collision, he is the moving object. Whitecross just stands there]

It's a good example of how Selwood is prepared to "stick his head over the ball" and does not care about taking a knock to the head.

 

[Catfish Alley]

It's the perfect example of how he is prepared to "stick his head over the ball" and does not care about taking a knock to the head.

This has always been a trait that you want with midfielders.

 

[catters05]

Selwod was 3 metres away from a stationary Whitecross when he took possession.

Oh please, that video is a poor example. He had two steps once he grabbed the ball with Rioli on his tail. What was that about a second...? Yeah it all looks avoidable in slow motion. That was an accident and thats it.

Not sure why a lot of people feel these players can just change direction in a milli second, especially the ones in flight...etc etc. Are you apart of the MRP by any chance...?

Biggest mistake in this video is Christensen just not throwing it on his boot.

And to be honest I believe umpires have been a bit better this year with this including not giving the frees to Selwood, but they have a new one to frustrate us, this whole sliding, touching legs, second to the ball gets a free kick.........whatever the hell you want to call it.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Selwood gathered the ball and took three steps towards the stationary Whitecross who propped right in front of him.

He makes no attempt to protect himself or avoid getting hit

It's the perfect example of how he is prepared to "stick his head over the ball" and does not care about taking a knock to the head.

So you've reduced it right back to this, in order to make your woeful interpretation more palatable.

Let's analyse this new, minimalist statement of yours. Where in the rules does it state players have to avoid getting hit? Surely a player's responsibility is to get the footy and use it as best he can to the advantage of his team? Why does Selwood have to endanger that goal, to avoid contact?

If you won't take it form me, Timmy, who is no fan of Geelong or Selwood, has explained it for you:

That was a good old fashioned accident. He didnt see what was coming because he was looking right to try and dish the ball off. Whitecross was in the way and didnt have time to avoid contact and nor should he have to try to.

 

[Chewy]

Lenny Hayes is another example of a tough footballer whom everybody respects, but who thinks nothing of taking a hit to head. He is another footballer who is prone to gathering possession and then spearing his head into the oncoming tackler and receiving a free kick for his "courage"

A number of footballers do it. More and more with every passing year. I'm not sledging Selwood or Hayes, just pointing out the 2 best examples of what this thread is about. The umpires reward them (and others) for taking the knocks and so players will keep on doing it. It's not necessarily a conscious act to get a free kick. It's just an evolved method of playing hard that works in their favour. The umpires assist them in losing brain cells

Umpires need to pay more attention to the tackler and penalise their actions (if they see fit to do so) rather than simply "protecting the ball player" and reacting to any high contact they see. This would require ADVANCED umpiring, but I'm not sure the AFL, Jeff Gieschen and our umpires are up to it.

The OP is correct. One day an AFL footballer will be paralysed because of this evolution in our game. In the meantime, these AFL warriors will continue to lose brain cells and receive concussions. Small price to pay for for anther inside fifty.

it's just ironic that the AFL change the rules and try to soften the game to minimise the number concussions, but their method of penalising all high contact actually creates the opposite effect. Do you think Gieschen or Demetriou even realise this?

 

[Lord Eddard]

That move has been going on for decades, and it's an effective way of coming to a clean stop while your oppositon player's momentum carries him past . . . it's only by the cynical tactics of others that this is now seen as ducking your head.

Nope Cyril ducks with the best of them.

 

[jezaroo]

Even charged headfirst at Bartel today in his desperate attempt to get a cheap free. It worked.

I remember this, Selwood charged headfirst straight into Bartel and got a "Too High" free, all the close by Roos players looked bewildered the free was paid. Was farcical

 

[Catfish Alley]

it's just ironic that the AFL change the rules and try to soften the game to minimise the number concussions, but their method of penalising all high contact actually creates the opposite effect. Do you think Gieschen or Demetriou even realise this?

Have their actually been a lot more head/neck injuries since the rule? I don't get to catch many games.

 

[Chewy]

This has always been a trait that you want with midfielders.

Yes, but why do we give them free kicks for doing so?

Free kicks are supposed to be given as a penalty for infringements. Not as a reward for being brave & foolhardy

It's the professionalism of modern-day crafty footballers. I reckon 50% of all free kicks are simply a matter of one player being more in control the situation and duping his opponent and the umpire. In many instances, the guy who gets the free kick, is the guy who played for the free kick and the penalised player is the stooge.

 

[Jurgen]

Sorry Chewy that is a bad example but i get what you're saying.

It comes down to bad technique from players, they lead with their heads rather than go with their hips/shoulders to protect themselves from contact.
this is a better example, Selwood goes head first, Ray goes in sideways.

guess who comes off better.

the kids look up to Selwood too much so he needs to make a change because they go for the ball in the same stupid (sorry courageous) way. the sooner players start looking after themselves the better.

problem is that you get a free for going in head first and the other player gets a suspension for leading with a hip.

Go figure. . .

 

[Chewy]

Have their actually been a lot more head/neck injuries since the rule? I don't get to catch many games.

What do you mean by "since the rule" ? It's one of the oldest rules

None of this new. Tough hard players have always gone into contests at full tilt, kept the head down and drawn a free kick. We're simply seeing it more and more these days. It's not just one or two players doing it once or twice a game, but four or five players on each team doing it half a dozen times per game

 

[Catfish Alley]

Yeah, sorry. Not a new rule but I know the AFL stated they'd have tougher penalties for head contact.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Another great example of Selwood doing absolutely nothing wrong. Taps the ball to his side's advantage, and Ray, who was never getting to the footy first, doesn't do much of anything.