No high frees when player with the ball is responsible for the high contact

[estibador]

I can live with some grey area and mistakes when it comes to lowering of the knees as long as every instance when the arm of the player with the ball goes up is called an automatic play on. That's by far the most annoying free kick and the most pathetic way to play.

Most of the worst offenders like Shuey combine the two anyway and the telescope arm is an easy spot.

Once the rule beds in and the blatant arm-raising cheating is eliminated it shouldn't be too difficult to distinguish between legitimate low movement in traffic and the Shuey-esque drop to one knee where you'd have no chance of continuing to run if the free isn't paid.

 

[NoobPie]

Great interpretation change and long long over due.

Of course it will be called incorrectly, it's a tough game to umpire, but ultimately it shifts the balance back where should be where both the tackled and the tackler share responsibility that tackles are dangerous to head and neck.

Again, there'll be bad decisions but ultimately it will change the optimal strategy of someone from trying to engineer head contact to actually Attempting to execute a creative play.

The afl have let it fester for a decade since "the head is sacrasanct" paradigm created this problem. Alas, some kids have spent a junior career mastering this "craft". Tough t***ies, play football.

 

[NoobPie]

So lets say a footballer is running at full speed and accidentally closelines joel selwood head and joel selwood has his knees bent is that counted as a free? Cos thats what the umpire will see since it at lightning speed.

Honestly this is too hard to umpire.

I'd imagine players lining up to clothes line joel selwood.

Is that counted as a free. Imagine selwood drops knee. Note the black man is running at full speed with the intention of taking the yellows dude head off.

Faaaaaark chiiiiriiist! reckless high contact will still be paid, there'll be no free hits. What there'll be a lot less of is professional playing for free kicks rather than playing the game

Selwood will still be a super star...but he'll have to change the way he plays...

https://thearcfooty.com/2016/08/09/joel-selwood-has-set-a-new-afl-free-kick-record/

 

[HairyO]

Puopolo career now in limbo

Thing with Poppy is he plays on and doesnt wait for the whistle. He will be fine.

Its the younger players who throw the head back and stop who will struggle.

Selwood is another who will do just fine. Sad as it makes me to say it.

 

[Seeds]

Faaaaaark chiiiiriiist! reckless high contact will still be paid, there'll be no free hits. What there'll be a lot less of is professional playing for free kicks rather than playing the game

Selwood will still be a super star...but he'll have to change the way he plays...

https://thearcfooty.com/2016/08/09/joel-selwood-has-set-a-new-afl-free-kick-record/

You are wrong. Umpires now have the power to pick and choose which high tackles are ok and players will exploit it. Players who are in the act of bending down to pick up the ball will get their heads taken off as their downwards motion will be confused with shrugging. Tacklers will also tackle in a way that pushes the player down so that it looks like they are dropping the knees. This is a very easy tackle to do and will result in more head high hits.

It's insane.

 

[Seeds]

Faaaaaark chiiiiriiist! reckless high contact will still be paid, there'll be no free hits. What there'll be a lot less of is professional playing for free kicks rather than playing the game

Selwood will still be a super star...but he'll have to change the way he plays...

https://thearcfooty.com/2016/08/09/joel-selwood-has-set-a-new-afl-free-kick-record/

Why? He shrugs shoulders to avoid and break free of tackles and is usually successful in doing it. Just means more of his disposals will be handballs and kicks in packs or breaking free of packs rather than set kicks.

 

[Seeds]

Great interpretation change and long long over due.

Of course it will be called incorrectly, it's a tough game to umpire, but ultimately it shifts the balance back where should be where both the tackled and the tackler share responsibility that tackles are dangerous to head and neck.

Again, there'll be bad decisions but ultimately it will change the optimal strategy of someone from trying to engineer head contact to actually Attempting to execute a creative play.

The afl have let it fester for a decade since "the head is sacrasanct" paradigm created this problem. Alas, some kids have spent a junior career mastering this "craft". Tough t***ies, play football.

It shifts the balance further towards those who wait for their opponent to get the ball rather than to get the ball themselves. It was bad enough when they invented the no sliding rule and changed the holding the ball rule from simply having to attempt a disposal to actually having to dispose the ball legally and this shifts the balance even further in favour of the tackler. The game has never been more biased in its favouritism for the tackler over the person who actually tries to get the ball. This is a tragedy in sporting terms.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Ducker!!!

 

[ManOfClay]

Can you teach a young dog new tricks? This guy has a lot of work to do in the off-season!
View attachment 321627 View attachment 321628 View attachment 321629

New dog, new trick!!!!

View attachment 321773

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think it's a great rule. Here's the text from the AFL article:

"Umpires will be instructed that whether a tackle is reasonable should always be their first assessment when adjudicating high contact," Evans said.

Umpires will be asked to call play on when a tackle is assessed as reasonable and the player with the ball is responsible for the high contact however the ball carrier will be protected against high or reckless tackling.

 

[Great 2008]

Puopolo career now in limbo

Bulldust he uses strength to lift the tackle just like Selwood. FWIW I have no problem with how Selwood plays the game. It's dropping through the knees not lifting the arm that craps me. Will be just another grey area to drive fans nuts.

 

[Bokonon_]

I do get that players sometimes lower their centre of gravity to limit the tacklers legal options. If the result is to take away an option for the player in posession to win the contest by making a hard target, then I'm not sure it's good. If it's interpreted to reduce injury risk by the ball carrier by deliberateky seeking a high tackle then I'm ok.
Difficukt line to draw and as other people have said, puts pressure on the umps.

 

[yyou]

Luke Schuey?

Luke Shruggy

 

[shintemaster]

Pretty sure this was already against the rules? Umpires just not that great picking it out.

Believe you're correct. Doubt it will work. Whenever the impact is significant they will still pay a free irrespective of whether the player was "responsible" and so the reward will still be there when a game is on the line.

 

[Topkent]

View attachment 321773
Ducker!!!

Blocking this flog, the epitome of arrogance

 

[YorshireSwan]

Shuey being a ducker is so 2012. Far bigger culprits than him, buddy.

Buddy unlike yourself I don't wear yellow and blue glasses, and up until August this year I have been to every WCE home game since 2012. He is one of the best at it!

 

[Freshwater]

Most Bulldogs fans and footy fans hate the way McClean lifts the tacklers arms in the tackles. But it's hypocritical to criticise him and not Selwood who has been doing it for a decade. These players are first to the ball and and then have the strength to affect the tackle in their favour. I do like the new rule, and like many here hope it gets interpreted correctly.

 

[Mofra]

Great rule change in theory, but opens up such a grey area it seems it will be hard to officiate in practice.

Hopefully they simply the interpretation so the lifting-arm of the ball carrier that slips the tacklers arm over the shoulder is the main trigger for "play-on"

 

[JD Tomahawk]

Great news.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

This is one part of the game that has bothered me for a while. It's frustrating to watch a game and see a legal tackle laid that is then initiated into high contact by the player with the ball. Regardless of whether that player was trying to gain a free kick, or just break from the tackle. Play stops. It can kill momentum. It frustrates players and fans.
Play on! The onus is now on the player with the ball to either shrug the tackle, get a pass out, or get done holding the ball.
If Selwood does it purely to shrug the tackle, then he and Geelong supporters have nothing to worry about. He will now be able to play on once he shrugs the tackle. Same goes for other players that shrug the tackle. It's interesting that players like Danger, Ablett, Judd, Pendles, Cripps and the likes are all able to get their arms free and get passes away without lifting the arm.
Other players though tend to lock the tackler's arm in around the neck and go to ground during the tackle. These are the players that will need to change their style, or they will be caught holding the ball. Will be interesting to see because I think it has become second nature for some players. Toby McLean is the obvious example. It's just a reflex action for him when he's tackled now and he doesn't try to break free in the process.
Hopefully they keep enforcing it and don't relax after a few weeks.

 

[ScarlettFever]

Good rule change if it can be implemented properly which is probably unlikely.

I cannot stand when someone gets a free kick for a soft high, so I am very aware as to why people get furious at Selwood.

Hopefully now people will appreciate how good a player he his rather than loathing him for getting soft free kicks. I don't think he will change his tactics though, purely because he usually shrugs the tackle in the process.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Great rule change in theory, but opens up such a grey area it seems it will be hard to officiate in practice.

Hopefully they simply the interpretation so the lifting-arm of the ball carrier that slips the tacklers arm over the shoulder is the main trigger for "play-on"

I don't think it will be too hard. Exactly as you said. If the tackle starts below the shoulder and the player with the ball raises the arm to force the tackler high, then it's play on.
Basically any high contact that's initiated by the ball carrier. Don't lead with the head into contests. Don't raise the arm in a tackle (you can if you want to shrug the tackle, but play on or get caught holding). Don't drop the knees/lower the body when you see a tackle coming.
They'll get a few wrong, but it should be good.

 

[Ando727]

I don't think it will be too hard. Exactly as you said. If the tackle starts below the shoulder and the player with the ball raises the arm to force the tackler high, then it's play on.
Basically any high contact that's initiated by the ball carrier. Don't lead with the head into contests. Don't raise the arm in a tackle (you can if you want to shrug the tackle, but play on or get caught holding). Don't drop the knees/lower the body when you see a tackle coming.
They'll get a few wrong, but it should be good.

Could get interesting though because once the tackler feels the shrug beginning and the high contact is on its way, what's to stop him tightening his grip and intentionally trying to take his opponent's head off? Officially it's not the tackler's fault because the opponent caused the high contact, but how do we police the rest of it? It can't be a free for all when it involves high contact - it's too dangerous. Doesn't it create a dilemma for umpires in that respect? Every new rule comes with new complications. They'll probably have to address that with yet another rule once they see how dangerous it is or there's a serious injury.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Could get interesting though because once the tackler feels the shrug beginning and the high contact is on its way, what's to stop him tightening his grip and intentionally trying to take his opponent's head off? Officially it's not the tackler's fault because the opponent caused the high contact, but how do we police the rest of it? It can't be a free for all when it involves high contact - it's too dangerous. Doesn't it create a dilemma for umpires in that respect? Every new rule comes with new complications. They'll probably have to address that with yet another rule once they see how dangerous it is or there's a serious injury.

I see your point and they might make some exceptions if they deem the force to be excessive, but in my opinion, why should the umpires protect the players head if the player himself is reckless enough to keep initiating contact? The serial offenders will either adapt their game if they get sick of constant high contact with no reward, or they'll stupidly keep doing it.
You see players shrug tackles and evade tacklers all the time without initiating high contact.
If we see certain players changing their style, we will know that they were mostly playing for the free.

 

[And_ROOS]

Dunno about that. Why doesn't he just play on already then if it's such a disadvantage to go back and take his kick? He doesn't have to go back.

Because when he gets these free kicks in the middle theres usually a cluster of players around him, so going back makes sense because it takes away the risk of being tackled again or dispossessed of the ball.

The end of the QF final this year is a good example, Selwood taken high and had to play on, gets the ball out to Selwood, to Taylor, to Caddy for the goal. Had it been a free kick he would have gone back, taken the kick, and I doubt Caddy would have been standing on his own by the time the ball gets there.