Head High Contact - Worth it for a Free Kick?

[aussierulesrules]

Great result. High tackle frees down from 60-odd last week to 30-odd this week and it will instantly disincentivise the blight on the game that collapsing at the first sign of getting tackled is becoming.

If they allowed it to continue every kid who watches Ginnovan get rewarded for drawing high contact will start doing the same thing, and in no time the game would just become a high-tackle free kick fest.

For that reason alone this had to be stopped and then of course there’s the head safety aspect.

Absolute no-brainer of a rule change and has to be continued.

In no time at all Jack and co will stop playing for these frees and might actually get back to playing footy.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Only a matter of time that someone ends up with a serious neck injury.

That’s really up to ginnivan now isn’t it?? How badly does he want those free kicks. The AFL is no longer legally responsible if he gets injured as they are no longer rewarding him looking for high contact

 

[aussierulesrules]

I'll repeat what I have said elsewhere. I don't like Ginnivan and I don't like his playing for free kicks. This blight on the game was developed by Selwood and enthusiastically adopted and adapted by many others. The AFL has ignored it for many years and now because a young smart arse has rubbed people's noses in his version of it they have reacted. Their solution is to umpire Ginnivan out of the game and call the problem solved.

This absolute garbage that you’re spouting here and that the likes of Gerard Wheatley are carrying on with (that it’s the “Jack Ginnivan rule”, or as you’re laughably suggesting here, that it’s solely to umpire Jack out of the game) is pure hysterical nonsense.

Hysterical nonsense.

The proof of this? As I said above, the number of high free kicks paid last week was reportedly in the 60’s, and this week it was about half that.

Did Jack get 30 less kicks for high contact this week, or is this in fact not some conspiracy against him, and instead a rule to stop anyone from doing it? Hence so many less paid across the round from all games?

Hmmmm

 

[stefcep]

Correlation does not imply causation.

Clumsy head high tackles existed before the weekend.

That’s really up to ginnivan now isn’t it?? How badly does he want those free kicks. The AFL is no longer legally responsible if he gets injured as they are no longer rewarding him looking for high contact

Its not just Ginnivan. Apparently, the high tackle free count halved over the weekend. Its clear the umps are not paying previously high tackles across the league. That doesn't mean there's less tackles that make contact with the neck and head, only that the umps aren't paying them due to the new interpretation, which was obvious in the games I watched.

As for the law, it would be an interesting one in Court.

 

[Gaspard]

This absolute garbage that you’re spouting here and that the likes of Gerard Wheatley are carrying on with (that it’s the “Jack Ginnivan rule”, or as you’re laughably suggesting here, that it’s solely to umpire Jack out of the game) is pure hysterical nonsense.

Hysterical nonsense.

The proof of this? As I said above, the number of high free kicks paid last week was reportedly in the 60’s, and this week it was about half that.

Did Jack get 30 less kicks for high contact this week, or is this in fact not some conspiracy against him, and instead a rule to stop anyone from doing it? Hence so many less paid across the round from all games?

Hmmmm

You intentionally misunderstand and selectively quoted me to push your point of view which is rather differrent to mine. I'm contending that the AFL is targeting Ginnivan as a way of dealing with a much wider problem. They have altered the rules to the detriment of all players in the mistaken view that Ginnivan is the problem. The solution to the ducking and shrugging problem, which is real, does not lie in demonising one player who does it to the exclusion of all the others, nor in removing a vital protection to all players heads (probably temporarily until they have gotten rid of Ginnivan and can say problem solved). The problem is deeper and if this mishandling continues may be existential for the AFL.

The pathetic "explanation" put out by the AFL for the incident with Redman, which laid bare the discriminatory nature of the direction to umpires, sees AFL spokesmen shifting the blame to umpires in part, although still going for Ginnivan, so that the decision makers are insulated from any consequences. They aim to focus the blame on one person, but not to face the problem. This is a well worn tactic from these people, applied to (among others) James Hird and Melbourne's Bailey over other issues in recent times.

This is not an issue to be considered from our partisan club trenches, but as a blight on the game that has to be addressed quickly and fairly.

 

[Goosecat]

This absolute garbage that you’re spouting here and that the likes of Gerard Wheatley are carrying on with (that it’s the “Jack Ginnivan rule”, or as you’re laughably suggesting here, that it’s solely to umpire Jack out of the game) is pure hysterical nonsense.

Hysterical nonsense.

The proof of this? As I said above, the number of high free kicks paid last week was reportedly in the 60’s, and this week it was about half that.

Did Jack get 30 less kicks for high contact this week, or is this in fact not some conspiracy against him, and instead a rule to stop anyone from doing it? Hence so many less paid across the round from all games?

Hmmmm

No.
Less high contact frees does not necessarily mean less high contact is happening. It can in fact mean the opposite altogether. It just means the high contact occuring isn't being recognised. That's like saying we moved the speed limit to 120kmh and now we're getting less over 110kmh speeding tickets so we've improved the speeding stats.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Was well umpired all week. Well done to everyone out there. This is how it should have been all year. Was happy I didn’t see our players flopping around. Will take players 2-3 weeks but it will be a good thing.

 

[Area51]

The real issue is why has it taken the AFL so long to address this. It's been going on for years. Seems they only respond when things heat up in the media. Pathetic administration.

 

[Thetrader15]

Great result. High tackle frees down from 60-odd last week to 30-odd this week and it will instantly disincentivise the blight on the game that collapsing at the first sign of getting tackled is becoming.

If they allowed it to continue every kid who watches Ginnovan get rewarded for drawing high contact will start doing the same thing, and in no time the game would just become a high-tackle free kick fest.

For that reason alone this had to be stopped and then of course there’s the head safety aspect.

Absolute no-brainer of a rule change and has to be continued.

In no time at all Jack and co will stop playing for these frees and might actually get back to playing footy.

Interesting to note that Joel Selwood had his lowest possession count for the whole year on the weekend.

 

[Thetrader15]

The real issue is why has it taken the AFL so long to address this. It's been going on for years. Seems they only respond when things heat up in the media. Pathetic administration.

Also because the guy who's been highlighted in the media isn't one of the darlings of the AFL.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That’s really up to ginnivan now isn’t it?? How badly does he want those free kicks. The AFL is no longer legally responsible if he gets injured as they are no longer rewarding him looking for high contact

The AFL is responsible for everything until they decide to act on it.

There are levers available for the AFL to punish divers/stagers etc etc. They simply don't use them.

Give Ginnivan (and any other player doing it) 1 x $1,000 fine and if he does it again a week, than a week every other time following.

I guarantee you it stops.

The AFL is a complete soft utensil on staging/diving etc. If they were serious about players deliberately seeking out head high contact they would crack down on this straight away.

Punishing tacklers for s**t tackles that cause head high contact, but not punishing players who deliberately put themselves in that position to get a free kick is the epitome of stupidity. Are clubs supposed to train against stagers to get better at it avoiding it? its crazy.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I'll repeat what I have said elsewhere. I don't like Ginnivan and I don't like his playing for free kicks. This blight on the game was developed by Selwood and enthusiastically adopted and adapted by many others. The AFL has ignored it for many years and now because a young smart arse has rubbed people's noses in his version of it they have reacted. Their solution is to umpire Ginnivan out of the game and call the problem solved.

Concussion and head injuries in general are made more likely by the AFL rule change to allow some high tackles (most really). This is not a solution. There will be consequences in court when damaged players enforce their legal rights to protection under the game's rules. I hope that there is a clear paper trail to those responsible for this, so that those who made the decision are the ones who have to pay. The unapologetic non explanation of the attempted choke of Ginnivan on Sunday shows that the rule is targeted at one player only. The expectation is that when they have gotten rid of him, the problem will go away. It won't.

The game is in for some very hard times quite soon unless a proper method of dealing with high tackles is found. It may entail going back to paying them all and then suspending players judged to have cheated. It may be something else. Persecuting Jack Ginnivan, toad though he may be, out of the game is not the way to clean this up. A proper fix of the rules is.

There are already rules in place to deal with staging in the post game review.

The AFL are too soft in enforcing it.

All its going to take is one of these players who are ducking to get a serious injury and then all hell is going to break loose.

The only way this s**t gets out of the game is if players start missing games over it. $1,000 fine for first offence, than a game for everything after.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That’s really up to ginnivan now isn’t it?? How badly does he want those free kicks. The AFL is no longer legally responsible if he gets injured as they are no longer rewarding him looking for high contact

it is potentially a much bigger issue than that. Player Insurance policies need to be looked at to see if the action of the player causing the contact voids the policy. If in the unlikely event Ginnivan breaks his neck because he hs ducked into a tackle and is unable to work for the rest of his life, who is responsible?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There are already rules in place to deal with staging in the post game review.

The AFL are too soft in enforcing it.

All its going to take is one of these players who are ducking to get a serious injury and then all hell is going to break loose.

The only way this s**t gets out of the game is if players start missing games over it. $1,000 fine for first offence, than a game for everything after.

I’d go further. 1 game first offence, sorry to be blunt but players shouldn’t be bending the rules. Suspend the players that do and so don’t care if it’s my side, Collingwood or whatever side. Blanket rule you do it you will be suspended.

 

[Gaspard]

I’d go further. 1 game first offence, sorry to be blunt but players shouldn’t be bending the rules. Suspend the players that do and so don’t care if it’s my side, Collingwood or whatever side. Blanket rule you do it you will be suspended.

If we could rely on the AFL to apply this sort of rule even handedly there would be a chance for this approach, but we've all had times when we have thrown our hands in the air at the inconsistency and adherence to "the rule of the week" mentality in tribunal decisions. As an example, Maynard got two weeks in the preseason for an action that doesn't even get a fine now. They can't be trusted to look at the good of the game ahead of the appearance for the AFL bosses.

 

[Paul Kersey]

There are already rules in place to deal with staging in the post game review.

The AFL are too soft in enforcing it.

All its going to take is one of these players who are ducking to get a serious injury and then all hell is going to break loose.

The only way this s**t gets out of the game is if players start missing games over it. $1,000 fine for first offence, than a game for everything after.

The AFL goes out of its way to protect players that stage.

 

[Goosecat]

The AFL goes out of its way to protect players that stage.

Players stage the more frees aren't paid. You keep getting arm chopped and hands in the back when marking without frees, you increase staging. You keep giving tacklers more leeway re stacks on, landing on backs etc and the play-makers/ball-getters start staging more. The incentive to go first and make the play keeps getting diminished. Every time you go the ball first you get scragged, chopped, taken high, in the back, stacks on etc etc for no reward, you increase the staging.
You introduce ever more rules and interpretations period, making ever more grey areas that get missed and you drive the staging increases.
It's no coincidence that staging has continually increased as ever more grey areas are introduced.

 

[JyeDye]

I'll repeat what I have said elsewhere. I don't like Ginnivan and I don't like his playing for free kicks. This blight on the game was developed by Selwood and enthusiastically adopted and adapted by many others. The AFL has ignored it for many years and now because a young smart arse has rubbed people's noses in his version of it they have reacted. Their solution is to umpire Ginnivan out of the game and call the problem solved.

Concussion and head injuries in general are made more likely by the AFL rule change to allow some high tackles (most really). This is not a solution. There will be consequences in court when damaged players enforce their legal rights to protection under the game's rules. I hope that there is a clear paper trail to those responsible for this, so that those who made the decision are the ones who have to pay. The unapologetic non explanation of the attempted choke of Ginnivan on Sunday shows that the rule is targeted at one player only. The expectation is that when they have gotten rid of him, the problem will go away. It won't.

The game is in for some very hard times quite soon unless a proper method of dealing with high tackles is found. It may entail going back to paying them all and then suspending players judged to have cheated. It may be something else. Persecuting Jack Ginnivan, toad though he may be, out of the game is not the way to clean this up. A proper fix of the rules is.

Do you actually think the AFL is trying to push solely Ginnivan out of the game, or maybe it's just the ducking in general. I don’t know why Collingwood supporters have such a victim complex over this. If a player is being ‘umpired’ out of the game, I would just say he wasn’t a very good player. I think Ginnivan is a good player by the way. He’s young and down on some form recently.

You know Ginnivan could just not duck his head into a tackle every time he gets the ball right? This is an option that I don’t see Collingwood supporters mentioning. There’s no one holding a gun to his head forcing him to duck, he can just not do it and then he doesn’t have to worry about coping hits to the head. Why did Rory Laird another smaller player get another 38 touches on the weekend but didn’t get a head knock once? But this Ginnivan guy gets 6 touches and 4 head knocks. It’s definitely the AFL forcing this on him and not his own doing at all.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Was the choke to Ginnivan there? Absolutely. Should the AFL community shut the * up about it for the long term good of the game and sending a message to duckers that the jig is up. Absolutely.

The same club whinging now sent Joel Selwood footage to the AFL a few years back. All selfishness and whatever benefits their team in the moment.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Was the choke to Ginnivan there? Absolutely. Should the AFL community shut the * up about it for the long term good of the game and sending a message to duckers that the jig is up. Absolutely.

The same club whinging now sent Joel Selwood footage to the AFL a few years back. All selfishness and whatever benefits their team in the moment.

not sure the AFL community should shut the * up about it when the AFL is not even enforcing their own rules. Its the supporters acting up thats getting this stuff noticed.

The AFL literally have a system in place to deal with this. They just for whatever reason keep not enforcing it.

its a bit s**t jacks copping all the heat for it, considering guys like selwood have gotten off scott free in the media for years. But surely now is the time to just start giving blokes weeks off. It is putrid to watch this game turning into soccer.

 

[Sector 7G]

Was well umpired all week. Well done to everyone out there. This is how it should have been all year. Was happy I didn’t see our players flopping around. Will take players 2-3 weeks but it will be a good thing.

Agree. In the Carlton game the umpires let incidental high contract go where a player was trying to break tackles of burrow into other players.

I am surprised by the Pies supporter backing Ginnivan. Zac Fisher got 2 ducking frees against the Eagle. Pretty much uniformly Carlton supporters were - Ok we will take them but the AFL should stamp that out. Ginnivan has himself to blame . If he hadn't bragged about playing for frees he might have got another year out of his ducking

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Agree. In the Carlton game the umpires let incidental high contract go where a player was trying to break tackles of burrow into other players.

I am surprised by the Pies supporter backing Ginnivan. Zac Fisher got 2 ducking frees against the Eagle. Pretty much uniformly Carlton supporters were - Ok we will take them but the AFL should stamp that out. Ginnivan has himself to blame . If he hadn't bragged about playing for frees he might have got another year out of his ducking

Yep give the players a few weeks and honestly the sport will be better for it. Every side has a couple who let’s just say it duck for frees. They will learn quickly

 

[Red Black and Blue]

not sure the AFL community should shut the * up about it when the AFL is not even enforcing their own rules. Its the supporters acting up thats getting this stuff noticed.

The AFL literally have a system in place to deal with this. They just for whatever reason keep not enforcing it.

its a bit s**t jacks copping all the heat for it, considering guys like selwood have gotten off scott free in the media for years. But surely now is the time to just start giving blokes weeks off. It is putrid to watch this game turning into soccer.

They definitely should have addressed it ten years ago when it was Shuey, Ashton Hams and Selwood. But better late than never.

For them to turn around and say we got it wrong is going to revert the good work of the last week. It's a never ending cycle of false amendments.

 

[hawkman]

Agree. In the Carlton game the umpires let incidental high contract go where a player was trying to break tackles of burrow into other players.

I am surprised by the Pies supporter backing Ginnivan. Zac Fisher got 2 ducking frees against the Eagle. Pretty much uniformly Carlton supporters were - Ok we will take them but the AFL should stamp that out. Ginnivan has himself to blame . If he hadn't bragged about playing for frees he might have got another year out of his ducking

Dylan Moore has done it for a couple of years and barely anyone noticed. Ginnivan just kept trying to draw attention to himself and ended up getting everyone's attention and now caused some of his own issues

 

[Gaspard]

Do you actually think the AFL is trying to push solely Ginnivan out of the game, or maybe it's just the ducking in general. I don’t know why Collingwood supporters have such a victim complex over this. If a player is being ‘umpired’ out of the game, I would just say he wasn’t a very good player. I think Ginnivan is a good player by the way. He’s young and down on some form recently.

You know Ginnivan could just not duck his head into a tackle every time he gets the ball right? This is an option that I don’t see Collingwood supporters mentioning. There’s no one holding a gun to his head forcing him to duck, he can just not do it and then he doesn’t have to worry about coping hits to the head. Why did Rory Laird another smaller player get another 38 touches on the weekend but didn’t get a head knock once? But this Ginnivan guy gets 6 touches and 4 head knocks. It’s definitely the AFL forcing this on him and not his own doing at all.

You don't get it. The AFL doesn't want to face the rules nightmare that exists here and is pursuing Ginnivan in the mistaken view that getting rid of him will get rid of the problem. It is not anti Collingwood per se, but is a cowardly way of getting the decision makers' heads off the block. I have always loathed the duckers, divers and shruggers since Geelong brought it to the game 15 years ago. I don't support Ginnivan in doing it either. But, head high tackles cannot be allowed. A method has to be found to protect all players from these, while preventing cheating. Not an easy task, but Ginnivan is only a symptom, not the cause. Getting rid of him will not address the cause.

On their record, the AFL will succeed in this. They destroyed Hird and Bailey as scapegoats for drugs and tanking. They will do the same to Ginnivan, but it will not deal with the head high tackle/shrugging problem. A solution that does not expose players to high tackles must be found. I expect that once Ginnivan is gone, the interpretations will be allowed to return to what they were and we will all pretend it is OK.