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

[my name was taken]

You are kidding of course. NIP IT IN THE BUD????????????????????????????????????????????
Its been going on for several years now and is becoming more predominant every week.

We don't need a rule change we need some perceptive brains inside the judiciary heads when the game is on.

I mean to say , you can't tell me that there are not a certain number of players that have this drop , duck, lift arm , tactic to get around the neck free kicks , and they are absolute expert at it, and the stupid AFL and the blind umpires who can't or won't pick out the trick, and make so many mistakes with it. Any attempt to fake a free is play on. It is no better than taking a dive!
Also just on that quote I made about can't or won't see the trick, imagine getting some "under the table" , for picking the wrong thing three or four times in a game, and changing a result. Its coming if it isn't already here.

Too many rules to bend boys and girls!

yes they need a rule change because free kick is currently the correct call. The umpires only judicate to the rules of high contact.

 

[jatz14]

It is going to be so satisfying the first time someone ducks/shrugs and gets caught holding the ball.

I think there are fairly good odds the first time you see it paid, it will be against someone from your team, and your response will be more along the lines 'what the ****, that wasn't a duck/shrug, he tried to fend the tackle and had his head ripped off, stupid ****ing umpire'.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[my name was taken]

I think there are fairly good odds the first time you see it paid, it will be against someone from your team, and your response will be more along the lines 'what the ****, that wasn't a duck/shrug, he tried to fend the tackle and had his head ripped off, stupid ******* umpire'.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

West coast fan, the response can only be booooooo

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think there are fairly good odds the first time you see it paid, it will be against someone from your team, and your response will be more along the lines 'what the ****, that wasn't a duck/shrug, he tried to fend the tackle and had his head ripped off, stupid ******* umpire'.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

It will end up like the leading with the head rule, the AFL will just instruct the umpires to call play on for everything. They believe everyone when they bend over to pick up the ball leads with their head now and genuine head high contact was simply not paid. This will be no different, blokes will genuinely be tackled high and the umpire will yell out play on.
AFL = Rules!!! - What Rules!!!

 

[mike123]

Ducking under a tackle and shrugging will probably still be part of the players' repertoire, as this is a genuine way of avoiding / breaking a tackle. The frees from incidental contact will simply disappear.

But they shouldn't incidental contact is still contact and the tacklers should just get better at avoiding players head.

 

[mike123]

I think this rule is going to be a cluster ****

I agree

 

[Suma Magic]

I think there are fairly good odds the first time you see it paid, it will be against someone from your team, and your response will be more along the lines 'what the ****, that wasn't a duck/shrug, he tried to fend the tackle and had his head ripped off, stupid ******* umpire'.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

Agree to disagree there.

 

[DemonTim]

But they shouldn't incidental contact is still contact and the tacklers should just get better at avoiding players head.

So incidental contact when backing into a pack should be a push in the back?
Tacklers are tackling right. You want to prevent the ball being disposed

 

[Cold Sober]

FFS Report the low life's for diving,Chapman was the first at Geelong,but he was champion at Essendon
Common sense says penalise the knee dropping,elbow raising,head ducking pieces of shit, COMMON SENSE ,remember, thats what we used in the OLD DAYS

 

[Dangerousfield]

I was really frustrated with the paying of high frees when the tackle was correctly applied but the tackled player shrugged the shoulders/buckled the knees/rammed his head into the tackler and got the free.

It went against the spirit of the game to milk frees and we all know who the biggest milkers in the game are!

I'd rather a few frees not be paid than the squillions that have been paid to the milkers over recent years - a blight on the game that should now be eradicated. For once, well done AFL!

 

[citizen-erased]

So you are no longer a believer that a player can try and break the tackle? And if he does he should no longer be protected?
This rule is for the weak tacklers, typical AFL ruling looking after the weak and soft. There is hundred upon hundreds of tackles every year where the player is tackled and tries to lift his arm but the tackler is strong and disciplined and he does not allow it to happen.
The player with the ball is being less and less protected. If he bends over to pick the ball up and is met front on high he is interpreted as leading with his head instead of being given a free kick, i don't know any player in history that can bend over to pick the ball up while running and be upright within one step. But with no onus on the tackler this is what they are asking him to do.
The head is not sacrosanct in the AFL, in fact they are allowing more and more head high contact than ever before. It is so stupid they believe the player with the ball has the responsibility. He should have none what so ever. He can't be touched high no matter how it happens. Put the onus on the tacklers and make the coaches enforce their players to do it better.
there is 800 odd players in the AFL and in this thread just a handfull of names are discussed as an issue. when 600 players are doing it then change the rules, not even 2% of the players are an issue. Until then head high is head high and a free kick should be awarded every single time.

Try and break all you like. I just don't want to see a player awarded a free when they are the reason the tackle goes high.

 

[loki04]

Selwood will still shrug tackles successfully. Not being awarded frees for something he used to be is still somewhat of a negative for him though.

Will also likely get pinned for more holding the balls.

Will still be a gun player just this rule will impact the way he plays on a small scale.

 

[MagpieJo]

Moronic rule. Impossible to umpire. This will be canned before the halfway point of the season after all those supporting it start canning it when they realise how stupid a rule it is.

Overestimating the number of Geeeeeeeelong fans

 

[MagpieJo]

I was really frustrated with the paying of high frees when the tackle was correctly applied but the tackled player shrugged the shoulders/buckled the knees/rammed his head into the tackler and got the free.

It went against the spirit of the game to milk frees and we all know who the biggest milkers in the game are!

I'd rather a few frees not be paid than the squillions that have been paid to the milkers over recent years - a blight on the game that should now be eradicated. For once, well done AFL!

Brilliant post. Totally agree.
What's even better is didn't feel the need to slag any opposition player off!

As for my team, I've seen Pendles do the Selwood drop a few times and I bloody hate it. It's blatant cheating, dangerous and unnecessary for good players. Don't play for frees, play footy.

 

[mike123]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

What Toby McLean, Puopolo, Rhys Matheison, Christensen and others do is a blight on the game

It's the equivalent of diving in soccer

AFL is spot on with the rule change

No its not, what they do is fine, its the piss weak tackling attempts on the that are a blight on our game.

 

[raymond35]

So how are you supposed to tackle some one who drops to their knees and Rams their head into you?

 

[mike123]

So incidental contact when backing into a pack should be a push in the back?

You're comparing apples with oranges here. Players are aloud to stand there ground in contest if they're going for the ball.

Tacklers are tackling right. You want to prevent the ball being disposed

No they're not otherwise they wouldn't be making high contact. What tacklers want doesn't matter if they're not good enough to do it properly.

 

[mike123]

Try and break all you like. I just don't want to see a player awarded a free when they are the reason the tackle goes high.

No the tackler is the reason why it went high because he wasn't strong enough.

 

[mike123]

So how are you supposed to tackle some one who drops to their knees and Rams their head into you?

You also get low and tackle them low. I know its an amazing new concept.

As for rams there head into that's a totally different discussion. But nice exaggeration champ.

 

[DemonTim]

You're comparing apples with oranges here. Players are aloud to stand there ground in contest if they're going for the ball.



No they're not otherwise they wouldn't be making high contact. What tacklers want doesn't matter if they're not good enough to do it properly.

Well the rules now state they are tackling right

Can tell the blokes who don't play. Would rather players milk frees than pay a decent tackle

 

[DemonTim]

You also get low and tackle them low. I know its an amazing new concept.

As for rams there head into that's a totally different discussion. But nice exaggeration champ.

No you don't. You tackle low they easily dispose.

 

[estibador]

We don't need a rule change we need some perceptive brains inside the judiciary heads when the game is on.

I mean to say , you can't tell me that there are not a certain number of players that have this drop , duck, lift arm , tactic to get around the neck free kicks , and they are absolute expert at it, and the stupid AFL and the blind umpires who can't or won't pick out the trick, and make so many mistakes with it. Any attempt to fake a free is play on. It is no better than taking a dive!

So you're complaining that the umpires never used to call play on when players pulled this free kick trick... yet you're also complaining about the rule change that now gives them the power to do just that.

In the past the umps weren't allowed to use their judgement because the rules stated they had to pay high contact, now the rules have been changed to give you exactly what you want yet you still complain we didn't need a rule change.

 

[raymond35]

You also get low and tackle them low. I know its an amazing new concept.

As for rams there head into that's a totally different discussion. But nice exaggeration champ.

Looks like you're right and everyone else is wrong.....champ.

 

[Thetrader15]

Let's not hold our breath that the right outcome will be reached and consistently adjudicated across the entire season and all games

 

[mike123]

Well the rules now state they are tackling right

Can tell the blokes who don't play. Would rather players milk frees than pay a decent tackle

And the new rule is stupid and encourage a rolling maul **** fest, and the umpires won't even adjudicate it properly. Its the tacklers fault for not tackling good enough that's why players can milk frees. Instead of appeasing to weak tackling the tacklers should just get better.

So which one am I?

No you don't. You tackle low they easily dispose.

Not if you strong enough keep their hands down, if you aren't then its your fault you're not strong enough if they dispose the ball. Again a rule to help weak tacklers, and tackling isthe main factor in the rolling mau, so its going to have a negative on the brand of footy being played.