Ok buddy
Head High Contact - Worth it for a Free Kick?
- Thread starter The Devils Advocate
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Correct. Games have rules and boundaries. If you look at the rules. First, the spirit of the game is protect the person first to the ball. 2nd it describes a legal tackle as "lower than the shoulder and above the knee. The rule may not have been to protect the head but to differentiate it from games like union and league. Now days, the head is obviously far more protected....doesn't mean the rules were built around that 150 years ago
So what is the problem? Ginnivan is trying to still duck and drop his knees for frees, and the AFL is accordingly not going to pay them. So how is that only going after ginnivan? The others will get called out who do it also.
Whether collingwood fans like to accept it or not, ginnivan is being targeted fairly because he is the most notorious offender of it in the AFL.
The treatment is justified and correct. A simple solution to this is ginnivan stops playing for free kicks and there is no issue. The solution is very simple, the solution is not ginnivan tries to be clever and look for new ways to trick the umpires and “ beat the system” and be a smart ass, the solution is he gets on with footy and stops looking for frees.
He has nobody to blame for his targeting predicament than himself given he is the worst perpetrator
BigPond101
Club Legend
- Mar 18, 2020
- 1,179
- 2,405
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Ginnivan ducks everytime he's tackled but Cody Weightman flops every contest no matter if he's just on the side of the pack nowhere near the ball. If the AFL want to make an example of someone I wish they would run Weightman out of the game before Ginnivan
'I felt sick': Leigh Matthews launches emotion-charged editorial on latest rule tweak
You don’t hear Leigh Matthews more passionate than this. The AFL legend has expressed his concern about where football is heading following the latest interpretation of the head-high tackling rule. Matthews, possibly the greatest player of all-time, has long argued the AFL is making the game...
www.3aw.com.au
Dunno why we are so concerned about players ducking. If they want to duck then let them
duck. Last I checked AFL didn't have any boundaries on how you choose to move your body. Players get into all sorts of body positions during general play, some very similar to a duck. If a player bends to pick up the ball are we going to start pinging them too because they're putting their head in a compromised position? I'm sorry but if a player is quick enough to duck a tackle then that's the defenders problem. The defender needs to be quicker and better to legally tackle his opponent, not look for a charity offering from the AFL for being slow and lazy.
Going low didn’t make the free null & void, it was the arm raise to draw the free. It is instinctive from Gillivan and it’s the AFL’s fault that they ignored the problem for a decade and let kids copy it.
If he doesn’t do that, then I recon it’s a high tackle but Redman also has a better chance of keeping his arms low.
They brought the ducking head rule in awhile ago and players don’t do it. It’s become such a problem with playing for frees it’s going to take a few weeks to adjust.
It's not upto ginnivan to ensure his opponent keeps his arms low. The defender should lay a stronger tackle and wrap the player tighter to not allow an arm lift to slip their tackle high.
Bit rich coming from someone who would king hit someone from behind every game. Imagine if he was out there and players were ducking into his tackles, probably would be up for murder charges.'I felt sick': Leigh Matthews launches emotion-charged editorial on latest rule tweak
You don’t hear Leigh Matthews more passionate than this. The AFL legend has expressed his concern about where football is heading following the latest interpretation of the head-high tackling rule. Matthews, possibly the greatest player of all-time, has long argued the AFL is making the game...
How come Selwood, Shuey etc can’t raise their arm in 90% of the time they are tackled? It’s because they are strong good tackles. The ones they can are weak tackles. You are advocating to reward the weak.
Stop concentrating on the 1% of the tackles you see. Head high is head high. It’s a free kick.
Arm lift has been deemed an action that wipes the head high element of a tackle. Same as ducking the head has been for a long time since it is purely about getting a free kick.
That’s great, except head high is not head high if you duck your head into it. What is the difference is you raise your arm so it slips high?
Protecting the head occurs if players stop playing for frees. There is a transition period though and it’s going to take a while because the AFL has ignored the problem for 15 years.
Ducking your head is deliberately putting your head in danger. Raising your arm in a tackle is forcing an already high tackle and weak tackle to above the shoulder. If the tackle had of been 15cm lower it would not occur. It’s a free kick and should always be.
If the raising of the arm causes the head high component yes.
However if the contact is head high first and then an arm is raised it should have no bearing on the initial head high contact.
I.e:
Selwood raises the arm to lift shoulder high tackles in an attempt to slip the tackle. If the tackle makes contact with the head play on or holding the ball.
Ginnivan raises the arm generally after he is hit high. In his case the arm raise is a secondary action. Therefore the ump needs to determine if the initial contact is caused by a duck / drop or an incorrect tackle.
Playing for free kicks doesn’t change the fact that a large percentage of them are still free kicks.
What a crock, the perfect tackle in AFL is just above the elbow where you get both arms and they can't handball. The grifters anticipate it coming so punch/lift upwards with their free arm/elbow so the tackle slides up as the arm. If you tackle below the arms at the waist they get the hand pass off and no holding the ball.
There is no reason to raise the arm/punch the air in a tackle. It is the most obvious one to spot and it is purely to draw a free kick, same as ducking the head. If the player does that, they forfeit their head high rights. Long term, this will solve a lot of problems and it won't even be discussed.
If a player gets someone holding the ball but then rides into their back, they give away the free despite earning one before the event. Same here, Ginivan is going to get a free but lifts his arm = bad luck cheater.
You're bringing in an element of unnecessary complexity for a very simple head high tackle rule. You can try to argue that raising the arms is a deliberate attempt to get caught high, but you can also argue it's an evasive move to try and slip the arms. So you'll need to judge it on intent which is an impossible task.
There are more obvious things such as ducking the head into an opponent which at face value is obvious and the tackler has absolutely no way of avoiding it. But where it goes wrong is trying to bring dropping the body or legs into the equation - in no way shape or form can you judge whether a player ducked in order to win a free. Ducking, weaving, dropping the body are all also evasive actions to try and break free of a tacklers grasp.
So you can either keep going with that level of complexity and confuse the s**t out of everyone. Or you can just pay a simple head high tackle which at the end of the day is the tacklers responsibility, and you probably only come across the situation once a game. No one will be getting used to this rule. It's simply going to make defenders lazier and it's going to make forwards and even mids apprehensive to make a play because they might get pinged for getting tackled head high with no freekick because they were in a half bent position whilst trying to free themselves to dispose of it.
Again just deflecting from the tackler having any responsibility. For 150 years the tackler has been responsible for high contact, players have been evading, shrugging etc for the entire time.
Now the bloke with the ball is responsible.
It’s just laughable.
AFL ( Auskick Football League) a sport invented for the weak
You clearly hate and think little of the sport and it's direction, so why are you here? You're the top contributor of this thread and it's just whinging with very little discussion. Was the AFL even around 150 years ago? Stop bringing this up like its relevant at all. The world was completely different 150 years ago I mean go back 30 years and you have people king hitting each other on the field. If these players are genuinely trying to evade, shrugs tackles, then how does this rule even impact them? They can continue to do that.
There is a very clear reason to raise your arms. As we can clearly see it helps slip the tackle. Selwood is a great example, everyone has a cry over the freekicks he receives, but the 9/10 he doesn't receive he actually slips the tackle and dishes off thanks to the arm movement. Yeah you can argue ginnivan specifically does it for a freekicks, but I would very confidently argue that Selwood does it purely to slip the tackle. Same action, different intent. So again you're judging on intent which is impossible and bordering on stupidity. Just pay the high when its there, keep it simple.
If ginnivans actions are quick and smart enough to mean he gets caught high during the course of a tackle, then good on him, bad luck to the defender who should've done his research on ginnivan and known to aim for his hips rather than mid body in order to stick a legal tackle. What's next? Forwards can't jump for a mark any higher than their direct opponents capability because it's unfair on their defender?
Last edited:
Btw in your first paragraph you mentioned precisely the exact reason to raise your arms, then proceeded to contradict yourself and say there is no reason.
You're admitting it takes superior prejudgment and skill to pull it off. So that means you're basically saying you are not allowed to be better and smarter than your opponent if what you are doing screws with your opponent's ability to deal with you.
If you choose to lay a tackle around the elbows then it's your responsibility to make sure you hit the tackle tight enough that they can't swing the arms up. If you're incapable of doing that because you're weak as piss or have s**t aim then don't tackle because you will end up tackling his head. It's the tacklers responsibility end of story. No one's forcing them to lay the tackle.
Again I don't understand this argument at all. If Selwood does the technique to slip the tackle then why would not receiving a high free kick have any effect on him? It would only impact players who's pure intent is to draw the free kick.
Because sometimes the tackle doesn't get slipped... Just because he has no intent to get a freekick doesn't all of a sudden make you superman and able to break free of every tackle lol. The new ruling clearly states that if you duck or drop then you don't get a freekick for getting collected high. So Selwood getting caught high despite genuinely trying to slip the tackle will mean he won't be given a freekicks for getting his head taken off, possibly even holding the ball against.
It's impossible to umpire intent unless you have mind reading abilities, that's the whole point of the argument. Umps struggle to umpire what's blatantly Infront of them let alone having to acquire mind reading slow motion vision.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
