How will you solve the ducking issue

[Astro Bomber]

Wayne Campbell admits players leading with their head into tackles is biggest issue facing umps
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/wa...ssue-facing-umps/story-fnelctok-1227324540885

What is the best way to solve the issue of people ducking or lifting their arm to drag the tackle high in order to get free kick?

It's not as easy as saying "he ducked, play on"

 

[Cashmoney13]

Remove the Selwood's

 

[Quivorir]

It's not as easy as saying "he ducked, play on"

I disagree. If they stop getting rewarded for doing it, they will stop doing it.

 

[Damon_3388]

It's not an issue...

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Have noticed they are rewarding players who duck into tackles again, after umpires didn't reward that nearly as much in the last year or two.

Can understand it from an umpiring point of view though - no one wants to be the umpire that doesn't pay a free kick when a guy is stretchered off/seriously injured. This one is solely on the players to stop doing.

 

[joop]

Stop paying the free kicks, if a player knows they won't get rewarded why would they continue to do it?

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

It's easily one of the most frustrating things about the game. I saw Simon White literally break his neck from running head first into a tackler, it was awful. I know ducking isn't quite the same but * it's ridiculous. They contribute to their own injuries in a bid to win a free, it's pathetic.

 

[telsor]

In extreme/regular cases charge them with staging for frees.

 

[boncer34]

Let it go. If they duck put the bloody whistle away.

Problem solved.

 

[NathanMX]

Just don't award free kicks for anything bar incidents that involve malice or blatant cheating.

So what if the fullback has his hands around the full forward or is grabbing the arms, let the forward push back, make it a test of strength and let the forward push his opponent to the ground and then try and mark it if he can do that. At the very least it will bring back the gorillas
Too many touchy free kicks even now.

 

[chinggis77]

I think it will disappear naturally anyway.

If you look at guys like Shuey & Co they duck yet often don´t get the free kick and get tied up. Compare this to the Judds, Ablett´s and Fyfe´s of the world. They ALWAYS look to (a) break the tackle or (b) keep their hands free so they can get the handball away (meaning they take the hit also).

Ducking will be seen for what it is - (a) cowardly act and (b) an inefficient play when one could instead keep the arms free to get the ball away.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

I disagree. If they stop getting rewarded for doing it, they will stop doing it.

Yes, it not exactly the riddle of the sphinx is it? If umpires weren't stupid enough to pay free kicks for it, the players wouldn't do it. They'd find another way to cheat. I saw one the other day, can't remember who the players were, but a player was standing there, not moving forward at all, an opponent saw him, put the head down and ran straight into him .... free kick for too high. Just ridiculous that the player causing the high contact gets rewarded with a free kick.

The AFL need to arrange a visit to all 18 clubs, have all players watch a video of the Neil Sachse incident to show them how fragile that area of the body is, and how easily serious injury can occur. They should also be made to listen to a lecture from a Neurologist informing them of the risks they are taking.

 

[Quinz]

Haven't noticed it much this year to be honest.

 

[GuzzLG]

Pay a free against a ducker. As it is there's no downside. Either a free or a ball up. Have nothing to lose.

AFL has to protect players' head from opposition players as well as themselves.

 

[QuietB]

Wayne Campbell admits players leading with their head into tackles is biggest issue facing umps
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/wa...ssue-facing-umps/story-fnelctok-1227324540885

What is the best way to solve the issue of people ducking or lifting their arm to drag the tackle high in order to get free kick?

It's not as easy as saying "he ducked, play on"

Why isn't it? You reward it, they will do it.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Unfortunately the term "ducking" has multiple meanings.

There is the head drive (see luke hodge on youtube)

There is the shoulder shrug (Selwood, Pendles, Shuey, Murphy et al)

There is the old fashioned bend at the hips (Think Murphy v Naitnaui a few weeks back) - though typically this isn't paid

Then there is incidents like Elliot Yeo and Daniel Rich on the weekend. Yeo dove in head first for the ball, Rich on the other hand got side on and entered the contest protecting himself. Yeo damn near had his head snapped and won a free kick - all because he didn't enter the contest appropriately (thank god Rich wasn't cited)

Our game is never going to be black and white with rules - the hands in the back rule showed that doesn't work.

For me head high contact should be payable when the following criteria is met

a) Meaningful head high contact is made
b) the tackler (or offender) was predominantly responsible for the head high contact.

That means that a bloke winning the ball and slipping over and cannoning his head into a tackler wouldn't win a kick
The shoulder shrug where the tackle starts fairly but moves up due to the shrug isn't a kick
Someone who gets low and picks up the ball and then chooses to stay low doesn't win a kick

 

[Randomizor]

Play a quacking noise over the loudspeakers every time a player does it

 

[QuietB]

I have a way out there idea.

There should be a third umpire who can review all decisions made on the field. They can take their time and announce their call when they are ready. Play can continue while they are doing this.

Now, if they decide a player staged or ducked, then they can award a free kick to the opposition team from the centre circle and all scores up until that time by the staging/ducking players team are reversed.

Onus would then be on the players not to stage or duck, and if they did, not to accept the free kick.

The game needs to stop rewarding staging and ducking. The only way to do it is to penalise it.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Pay a free against a ducker. As it is there's no downside. Either a free or a ball up. Have nothing to lose.

AFL has to protect players' head from opposition players as well as themselves.

Do we want even more rule changes though? Otherwise, I think it is the only thing that will fix the issue (short of a pile of injuries, which nobody wants to see). It would have to only be for ducking, not a player slipping over or other accidental things.
Other than that, only the coaches can do anything. Drum it into the guys that an injury is worse for the team than temporarily losing the ball, and therefore not to risk ducking into tackles.

 

[QuietB]

Unfortunately the term "ducking" has multiple meanings.

There is the head drive (see luke hodge on youtube)

There is the shoulder shrug (Selwood, Pendles, Shuey, Murphy et al)

There is the old fashioned bend at the hips (Think Murphy v Naitnaui a few weeks back) - though typically this isn't paid

Then there is incidents like Elliot Yeo and Daniel Rich on the weekend. Yeo dove in head first for the ball, Rich on the other hand got side on and entered the contest protecting himself. Yeo damn near had his head snapped and won a free kick - all because he didn't enter the contest appropriately (thank god Rich wasn't cited)

Our game is never going to be black and white with rules - the hands in the back rule showed that doesn't work.

For me head high contact should be payable when the following criteria is met

a) Meaningful head high contact is made
b) the tackler (or offender) was predominantly responsible for the head high contact.

That means that a bloke winning the ball and slipping over and cannoning his head into a tackler wouldn't win a kick
The shoulder shrug where the tackle starts fairly but moves up due to the shrug isn't a kick
Someone who gets low and picks up the ball and then chooses to stay low doesn't win a kick

Need to add something for in the back as well. The player who dives forward in a tackle does not get a free kick.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Play a quacking noise over the loudspeakers every time a player does it

Between the booing and the quacking a West Coast game at Subi would be an interesting game, noise wise.

 

[Furn2]

Stop paying the free kicks, if a player knows they won't get rewarded why would they continue to do it?

On the off chance they do. What's the downside ?

If the punishment for robbing a bank was you just have to give the money back, everyone would be trying it.

Just make any form of ducking or lowering ect prior opportunity and deliberately driving your head into a player a free against.

 

[Snoozer]

It's not that difficult to fix. Don't pay a free to someone who is deemed to have contributed unreasonably to a high tackle on themselves, whether it be a shoulder shrug, duck, or leading stupidly into a contest head first. It's not hard to identify.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Need to add something for in the back as well. The player who dives forward in a tackle does not get a free kick.

They have been really lax on that this year.

Seems to me as long as the tackler lands largely to the side of the player the tackled isn't deemed to be in the back (which is good)

If the tackler tackles from directly behind and falls into the back - then they have been paying it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Another simple thing that was made complicated by rule changes and interpretations.
Footy has forever had these things happen.

A) The player with the ball has every right no matter how he does it to try and get passed and through all ongoing traffic, be that crawling, jumping, weaving etc etc, he can bend his body and move all parts of his body anyway he wishes to do this.

B) The players without the ball have one objective and that is to stop him doing the above, that means they must tackle him and not get him head high.

Up until about 15 odd years ago a free kick was paid for high contact no matter how it occurred. And make no mistake players were leading with their heads and ducking backing then. It was not an issue because the umpires had a black and white rule and we all knew it and it was paid when it happened.

The game would be far better off if the umpires just went back to paying all head high contact, the coaches would soon sort it out with their players and they would make the adjustment.

There is no issue at all, only an issue for some because the interpretation has changed for the worse for no reason at all.