Duck and Lift!!!

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Putting Ginnivan aside, if people are honestly serious about protecting the head, then this kind of action MUST be removed from the game.
The players are offered protection through the rules. If they make a conscious decision to exploit those rules for a cheap free kick, they have waived their right to said protection (within reason).


If you give someone a bullet proof vest as protection, and that person then chooses not to wear it while diving in front of bullets constantly, refusing to change their actions, do you take the vest away until they can prove that they're capable of protecting themselves? Or do you just let them continue to behave the same way until they eventually get hurt?
Meanwhile, the people who are watching him get shot are blaming the person who gave him the vest, and instead of encouraging the guy to wear his vest and stop jumping in front of bullets, they are telling the shooter to aim elsewhere.

That goes for the Selwoods, Ginnivans and everyone in between.
You can't protect people from themselves, if they refuse to accept the protection given.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Should have been holding the ball. Ducks in his usual manner which is his prior, then drops the ball like a hot spud. Essendon should be the ones wanting the apology.

 

[Saint]

That photo is not the point of contact:

View attachment 1456129
View attachment 1456131
View attachment 1456134
View attachment 1456135
View attachment 1456138

Arm raises after Redman's swinging arm tackle that was never going to hit anyone on the chest unless they are Aaron Sandilands.

Ginnivans whole technique is exposed here. Why is his arm in the air? It's not a natural movement to being tackled, it's to move the arm up, and he's completely lowered his body and dropped his shoulder. If Redman had stopped and not touched him, Ginnivan would have still gone to ground. He was running into open goal FFS. The first photo shows he's trying to lower his shoulder so the tackler gets his neck.

I do agree that it should have been a free kick for the headlock on the ground, but everything in this series of photos is what shouldn't be a free-kick.

Kid would be dropped if it weren't for this. Needs the umps to get him a kick. Something like 20% of his possessions came from free kicks this year. It's got to be the highest percentage of any player ever.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Things like this don’t do Ginnivan any favours for getting free kicks now, he actively runs into Jake Kelly here with a free kick his only intention.

heck off mason cox.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Who is advocating for Ginnivan to get hurt?

Toump Ass said:
I'm not satisfied that Ginniman is not getting free kicks. I want players to have free license to take his head off as well.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

* off mason cox.

i notice a high proportion on Bomber fans want to talk about Ginnivan this week. wonder why ?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Toump Ass said:
I'm not satisfied that Ginniman is not getting free kicks. I want players to have free license to take his head off as well.

99.9% of his posts are trolls and/or attempts at humour. Not the best example of general sentiment.

 

[Patronus]

I think with some players that is absolutely correct. What makes me angry about Selwood is that he was doing it regularly and getting one two frees from maybe more per week from gullible umpires, who to their defence, were and do read the rules to the umpteenth degree, that leaves the feel for football in the change rooms not where it should be. ON THE GROUND for fairness, some frees are simply not fair.

With Selwood I have no doubt he's a gutsy quality player, but as Power Raid says he could easily have a mark against his name in the history book of football records, for a player, who tried all the time to draw frees , I've said it before I'll say it again to me, its like cheating!

And I reckon , he practiced it too!
In fact I see the Cats as a great club but they too seem to have encouraged in their teams playing for free kicks , to a point that it looks like a cultural thing in the club,they forever appeal for things like Out on the Full , deliberate or at close quarters.

They seem and maybe its just me , but they seem to me, to make appealing for anything part of the run with of their plan.

I know all clubs do it, but they are the champs!

And I'd wonder if statistics were drawn up how many goals has Tom kicked from marks as compared to free kick-goals.

Its like the benefit of the doubt always seems to weigh in the Cats favour most times.

One comment, compare infringements paid to Buddy Franklin over the years for shots on goal,and then Toms stats for
free kicks for the same thing. Bud gets nothing! Tom gets every thing. That is statement of what I see, Tom Hawkins is one
of the best I've seen . I like watching him but hell he gets some frees.

Its like the umpires are almost locked into it by habit and I blame the concrete non feeling rules set up that the AFL have
imposed on the game these days. For reasons unknown, to me?

But footy is something inside the head and the heart and judgements have to be made with a feel for the game.

I would like umpires full time. And to train on and off season with all clubs, to understand that team thing and that tiggytouchwood is NOT PART OF OUR GAME!

BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE STRICT RULES FOR REAL..... I MEAN REAL..... HEAD HIGH INFRINGEMENTS.
But we can't destroy the essence of the game by over umpiring and some times ridiculous rules.

I bet the umpires are happy about the "duckanlift" being eased it is cheating!

And one thing I 've said for years, some instances because of the Hocking now Scott rule regime they have
set up a game where in certain circumstances a player trying to spoilor defend may as well not even contest.

That is what arm punching etc has done. Its lost the contest partially, give it back AFL. You don't own this game
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO MANGLE SOME OF IT..

Hawkins averages 0.8 free kicks a game over his career. Franklin 1.2 but sure the umpires fall over themsleves to award Tom frees

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Should have been holding the ball. Ducks in his usual manner which is his prior, then drops the ball like a hot spud. Essendon should be the ones wanting the apology.

It should have been HTB from the first action, but then that should've been overridden by a rough conduct free for the continuation of the headlock.
I get that players are get frustrated by him, but you can't do that.
It's a bit of a repetitive circle.
Pay the frees for the initiated contact and players get frustrated and give him a bit extra. Don't pay them for the initiated contact and he's likely to still get a free for the little bit extra on top that the frustrated tacklers give him. Stop paying them and people say 'why isn't he getting the frees?'
Start paying them again and we're back at the start of the circle.

It's not a good look to not pay them when he's getting extra attention after the tackle, but the quickest and easiest way to get that action out of the game is to not pay them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The AFL could say 'if you initiate high contact on yourself, we won't pay any free for you in that immediate passage of play, including a headlock like Redman's, but... tacklers be warned, you are still under the scrutiny of the tribunal/MRO'.
So Ginnivan doesn't get a free in that passage of play, but Redman gets a fine or a week off for excessive/undue rough conduct. Stops both parties from going too far and discourages both actions.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

i notice a high proportion on Bomber fans want to talk about Ginnivan this week. wonder why ?

He's been on my sh!t list since Anzac Day, following that I've watched half a dozen or so other games that validated my feelings.
The news of the crackdown coming days before Sundays game was widely celebrated by Bombers fans.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

It should have been HTB from the first action, but then that should've been overridden by a rough conduct free for the continuation of the headlock.
I get that players are get frustrated by him, but you can't do that.
It's a bit of a repetitive circle.
Pay the frees for the initiated contact and players get frustrated and give him a bit extra. Don't pay them for the initiated contact and he's likely to still get a free for the little bit extra on top that the frustrated tacklers give him. Stop paying them and people say 'why isn't he getting the frees?'
Start paying them again and we're back at the start of the circle.

It's not a good look to not pay them when he's getting extra attention after the tackle, but the quickest and easiest way to get that action out of the game is to not pay them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The AFL could say 'if you initiate high contact on yourself, we won't pay any free for you in that immediate passage of play, including a headlock like Redman's, but... tacklers be warned, you are still under the scrutiny of the tribunal/MRO'.
So Ginnivan doesn't get a free in that passage of play, but Redman gets a fine or a week off for excessive/undue rough conduct. Stops both parties from going too far and discourages both actions.

simply put as usual

 

[Reg Grundy35]

He's been on my sh!t list since Anzac Day, following that I've watched half a dozen or so other games that validated my feelings.
The news of the crackdown coming days before Sundays game was widely celebrated by Bombers fans.

you do realise that only 2 of his SIX came from frees (and both looked legit) on ANZAC, or easier to pretend they all did?

 

[Maze]

It should have been HTB from the first action, but then that should've been overridden by a rough conduct free for the continuation of the headlock.
I get that players are get frustrated by him, but you can't do that.
It's a bit of a repetitive circle.
Pay the frees for the initiated contact and players get frustrated and give him a bit extra. Don't pay them for the initiated contact and he's likely to still get a free for the little bit extra on top that the frustrated tacklers give him. Stop paying them and people say 'why isn't he getting the frees?'
Start paying them again and we're back at the start of the circle.

It's not a good look to not pay them when he's getting extra attention after the tackle, but the quickest and easiest way to get that action out of the game is to not pay them. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The AFL could say 'if you initiate high contact on yourself, we won't pay any free for you in that immediate passage of play, including a headlock like Redman's, but... tacklers be warned, you are still under the scrutiny of the tribunal/MRO'.
So Ginnivan doesn't get a free in that passage of play, but Redman gets a fine or a week off for excessive/undue rough conduct. Stops both parties from going too far and discourages both actions.

Disagree that the 1st action should be classed as play on. The movement is slight not dramatic....basically head high will be rarely paid if you go to your call. Watch the poor Redman technique and ask if you want that rewarded. We're getting into Gray areas that will effect a final. Fisher got 2 goals, 2 weeks ago with identical technique and both were high tackles. Ask yourself, if a Carlton player gets tackled like that in a final....do you want it called play on or holding the ball?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

simply put as usual

What a pointless reply. Surely it would've been easier to ignore it?
This isn't Twitter. There's no character limits. I can make my comments as long or as short as I want. Feel free to scroll if you're incapable of reading more than one sentence at a time.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Disagree that the 1st action should be classed as play on. The movement is slight not dramatic....basically head high will be rarely paid if you go to your call. Watch the poor Redman technique and ask if you want that rewarded. We're getting into Gray areas that will effect a final. Fisher got 2 goals, 2 weeks ago with identical technique and both were high tackles. Ask yourself, if a Carlton player gets tackled like that in a final....do you want it called play on or holding the ball?

The reason it's subtle (don't agree with that though) is because it's not just one action.
It's lowering the hips, leaning toward the tackler, bending the knees, dropping the shoulder, raising the arm and crumbling into the tackler in almost one seamless action.
Head high will rarely happen if these deliberate actions stop.
Redman's action wasn't poor. He was just doomed the moment Ginni sized him up.

As for Fisher, I've addressed that previously in a few posts in multiple threads. I hated it and called him out for it. He seems to have dropped it from his repertoire already.
How would I want it called? Play on. It felt like cheating when Fish got his couple. It would feel worse in a final. I'd rather win on skill and merit.

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

you do realise that only 2 of his SIX came from frees (and both looked legit) on ANZAC, or easier to pretend they all did?

You do realise I've watched no less than 8 of his games this year? Just go away with your trash attitude

 

[HirdsTheWord]

i notice a high proportion on Bomber fans want to talk about Ginnivan this week. wonder why ?

Why would that be? He didn't do s**t against us rofl

he's just a dweeb stager

 

[Maze]

I've done no such thing, but I can understand how you might think so, because you are overly emotional and your comprehension skills in here have been utterly woeful.
How have I painted Redman as the victim?

I think he has more suggested that your letting Redman off for poor skill. He comes in high and makes little attempt to stay down in the tackle. This argument goes round and round and my end point is simple. The laws of the game state 2 things in regard to this. The spirit of the game states the ball carrier gets protected. Secondly, that a legal tackle is below the shoulder and above the knee. The AFL has errored in maintaining this. Matthews comments are accurate in that these basic afl premises have been neglected

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I've done no such thing, but I can understand how you might think so, because you are overly emotional and your comprehension skills in here have been utterly woeful.
How have I painted Redman as the victim?

"He was just doomed the moment Ginni sized him up"

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Why would that be? He didn't do s**t against us rofl

he's just a dweeb stager

April 25 wasn't that far back was it? even for you to remember? Thats the real reason the Bomber fans have sand in the crack

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You do realise I've watched no less than 8 of his games this year? Just go away with your trash attitude

you claimed anzac day was the reason for your obsession. I just pointed out that it wasn't frees that day - its was a 6 goal triumph. I guess you feel Parish was robbed despite zero impact on game?

 

[Alberto_Magnifico]

you claimed anzac day was the reason for your obsession. I just pointed out that it wasn't frees that day - its was a 6 goal triumph. I guess you feel Parish was robbed despite zero impact on game?

Go bark up another tree, I don't post here to get into pissing contests with people that are rude just because they disagree

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Go bark up another tree, I don't post here to get into pissing contests with people that are rude just because they disagree

been a tough few days for you , i understand. In the fullness of time you will see the folly and injustice in this witch hunt as more and more commentators now are. Doesn't pay to dig yourself in too deep sometimes mate.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

"He was just doomed the moment Ginni sized him up"

Ah ,so it was poor comprehension.
That's referring specifically to the initial contact in the tackle. He reached across when Ginni's shoulders were at the height of his arms. You could argue that it was too high to start, but it was legal height. From there, Ginni dropped a full head height and put his neck level with Redman's arms.
That doesn't mean I'm making Redman a victim. Just that he had little hope of starting the contact at a legal height when Ginni's sole intention was to make sure it went high.
That also doesn't absolve Redman from his actions during the follow through.

You're so desperate to make this Collingwood vs the world, that you are ignoring previous comments and context.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Ah ,so it was poor comprehension.

more poor expression but i expect youre incapable of seeing anything but your own "brilliance"