Head High Contact - Worth it for a Free Kick?

[The Devils Advocate]

Here's what bothers me, the AFL steps in and says "Okay, head high contact is now a free kick, because CTE is awful, we want to look after our players".
Nekminnit, you have players intentionally taking head high contact to milk free kicks.

Which is it? Do you want your head protected, or do you want to ruin the fabric of the game.
This diving s**t is soft, it's made soccer nearly impossible to watch for me, don't do it to footy too.

Selwood, Ginnivan and Weightman, we're looking at you.
Discuss.

Ginnivan, The Milkman

 

[Fitzey]

Here's what bothers me, the AFL steps in and says "Okay, head high contact is now a free kick, because CTE is awful, we want to look after our players.
Nekminnit, you have players intentionally taking head high contact to milk free kicks.
Which is it? Do you want your head protected, or do you want to ruin the fabric of the game.
This diving s**t is soft, it's made soccer nearly impossible to watch for me, don't do it to footy too.
Discuss.

There’s only a few players that do it regularly. Take away the free kick and they won’t have much of a future in the AFL

 

[Jeff76]

Yeah poor form from Duckingwood today, even Pendles lowered himself and joined in.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Devils Advocate]

There’s only a few players that do it regularly. Take away the free kick and they won’t have much of a future in the AFL

I don't want the free kick removed for head high contact, I want free kicks or fines for diving - it will VERY quickly sort it out.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

even Pendles lowered himself and joined in.

Literally.

 

[Fitzey]

I don't want the free kick removed for head high contact, I want free kicks or fines for diving - it will VERY quickly sort it out.

Ginnivan and Weightman won’t have AFL contracts though after that, that’ll be a massive loss to the game

 

[Hollow Knight]

Yeah it’s really simple. Punish the player whose deliberate action most put the head at risk. If it is the crude technique of the tackler, so be it, if it is the head-ducking of the tacklee so be it.

People respond to incentives. Currently there is a juicy incentive to duck the head. If players want to duck and weave their way out of a contest, that is their prerogative, but if it unfairly draws a free from a tackler whose intent and technique was otherwise effective, it shouldn’t just be play on, it should be prior.

Remove the incentive.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

For 15 years the AFL has not only condoned, but actively encouraged it. Until that changes players will continue doing it.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

For 15 years the AFL has not only condoned, but actively encouraged it. Until that changes players will continue doing it.

How do you feel when you see players like Scott Pendlebury doing it?

 

[JyeDye]

It's literally already meant to be play on.

Start of 2017 then umpires boss Peter Schwab clarified the high rule:
“What we’re trying to do there is if the players’ legitimate attempt to tackle appears to be correct and that the high contact is caused by the player ducking into the tackle, dropping his knees or trying to shrug it off, then it will be a play-on call,” he said.

The umpires are just idiots and until they actually stop paying them as high players will keep doing it. I mean why would Ginnivan not do it when it nets him goals. Complete onus on the umpires here not the players.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

How do you feel when you see players like Scott Pendlebury doing it?

Happy that our club has finally taken advantage of it after all these years. Tired of being at a disadvantage.

There's absolutely no reward for taking a moral high road.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

There's absolutely no reward for taking a moral high road.

The reward is a watchable product. As a neutral todays game, I was left very disappointed.
I wanted to celebrate your good comeback, but the only thing I could feel was salty about your lads diving.
I'd rather watch North Melbourne play and lose admirably, than a team dive to victory.

 

[Chism]

Ginnivan as soon as he takes possession he has no intent to move it on or find a teammate as it is straight to the knees and ducking while having raised arms in the process to make the tackle go high drawing head high contact to himself.

Terrible look for the game and these incidents are not 1 offs it is literally every time he takes possession trying to milk free kicks.

Other players do it from time to time but Ginnivan is literally 100% of the time when he gets the ball.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

Ginnivan as soon as he takes possession he has no intent to move it on or find a teammate as it is straight to the knees and ducking while having raised arms in the process to make the tackle go high drawing head high contact to himself.

Terrible look for the game and these incidents are not 1 offs it is literally every time he takes possession trying to milk free kicks.

Other players do it from time to time but Ginnivan is literally 100% of the time when he gets the ball.

He's got a choice, he could make the most of his talents and be a fantastic footballer.
Or he can take the path he's taking at the moment.
It's his legacy - I know Matthew Lloyd in the past has spoken about wishing he'd never done it and that it was his only regret.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

The reward is a watchable product. As a neutral todays game, I was left very disappointed.
I wanted to celebrate your good comeback, but the only thing I could feel was salty about your lads diving.
I'd rather watch North Melbourne play and lose admirably, than a team dive to victory.

Moral premierships do not exist.

Collingwood has no obligation to you in making the game watchable.

 

[JyeDye]

Another one is the in the back free in the tackle. I honestly think this rule should just be scrapped at this point. 90% of them are just the players diving forward. Are we expecting the tackler to deadlift them back up? To let go of them? This one I think should just be removed.

 

[Rob]

The problem is that umpires get it wrong. A tackle that starts legal and goes high as a result of actions of the player being tackled should be play on.

I saw a good example of this on twitter:



You can see from image 2 that the tackle starts legal. It goes high - why? Because Ginnivan drops his knee and lifts his arm. He causes the tackle to go high, so the correct call is play on. Or rather by choosing to drop his knees and lift his arm, that it his prior and it should be paid holding the ball against him.

Instead a free was wrongly paid to Ginnivan. Whilst these frees continue to be paid, players will continue to do it.

 

[Micksy]

If players keep ducking, start bumping.

 

[ManInWhite]

WATCH | Is Ginnivan teaching Magpies teammate tackling technique?

 

[Lockyer24]

We need some urgent clarity now that umpires are picking and choosing. It’s untenable and open to bias.

The ruck rule interpretations are also very poor and open to bias.

 

[Bunnings]

There’s only a few players that do it regularly. Take away the free kick and they won’t have much of a future in the AFL

Only a few? I see more than a few in 9 games every week


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[CrowToon]

The issue is bigger than Ginnivan.

What do we want the game to look like? Is it players playing for frees? If it is fine, let the Ginnivans and Weightmans and Rowes of thr world do their thing but if it isn't then the AFL must act.

I want to really highlight this has nothing to do with individuals, they are simply exploiting rules.

But things start slow and then explode in popularity.

In football (round ball) the art of milking a penalty is now very engrained. People don't like it but the governing bodies took too long to deter it.

In our game another example is kicking around the corner for goal. 10 years ago it was Stevie J. Now it's anyone on an angle. Hell, even a few with no angle still prefer it.

Dropping for frees is a total blight on the game and needs to be stamped out. When Ginnivan got pinged today I felt it was a whistle that meant more to the code as a whole than the game itself in isolation.

 

[Bianconeri]

It’s up to the tacklers to change their approach.

 

[kickazz]

In general I agree,

It’s up to the tacklers to change their approach.

Players have been in modern times taught to tackle higher in order to pin the arms. With that comes the risk of the tackle going high.

A player with the ball is allowed, indeed should try to, make themselves difficult to tackle legally. I have no problem with that.

Even the whole idea of it being ok if if the tackle starts low and slips high - this will encourage reckless tackling.


I just think we need some clarification on how we can assess when the tackled player is like 80% (just for arguments sake) responsible for the high tackle, and focus on those.

In some cases, a player is not really entitled to easily tackle fairly. Especially front on when a player has gone low to pick up the ball. Maybe you just can't tackle them then fairly.

But the converse, if the player who goes low for the ball then drives forward into the opponent, well, nothing the other guy can do really.

I also think that ducking, whilst keeping the feet, can at times be a legitimate way to navigate traffic whilst honestly trying to keep the play going. Actions where there is no likely scenario other than losing your feet - not so much. You are basically "giving up" and hoping for a free or ball up at worst.

Perhaps keeping the feet vs buckling and losing one's feet is the key? I don't know.

 

[Purple Suit]

In general I agree,

Players have been in modern times taught to tackle higher in order to pin the arms. With that comes the risk of the tackle going high.

A player with the ball is allowed, indeed should try to, make themselves difficult to tackle legally. I have no problem with that.

Even the whole idea of it being ok if if the tackle starts low and slips high - this will encourage reckless tackling.


I just think we need some clarification on how we can assess when the tackled player is like 80% (just for arguments sake) responsible for the high tackle, and focus on those.

In some cases, a player is not really entitled to easily tackle fairly. Especially front on when a player has gone low to pick up the ball. Maybe you just can't tackle them then fairly.

But the converse, if the player who goes low for the ball then drives forward into the opponent, well, nothing the other guy can do really.

I also think that ducking, whilst keeping the feet, can at times be a legitimate way to navigate traffic whilst honestly trying to keep the play going. Actions where there is no likely scenario other than losing your feet - not so much. You are basically "giving up" and hoping for a free or ball up at worst.

Perhaps keeping the feet vs buckling and losing one's feet is the key? I don't know.

Dropping the knees/going low is a hard one due to the factors you pointed out, but raising the arm to make it slip up is easy to see. That should have been outlawed a long time ago and is low hanging fruit to target next.