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

[MagpieJo]

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?


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.

So basically you think the tackler needs to be strong enough to stop a player he tackles from buckling at the knees? Hmmm, ok, in full flight too!

Tackle low you say? Then they will ping you for tunnelling!

We wouldn't be having this discussion if certain players hadn't perfected the art of shirking a tackle by putting themselves at risk of injury. That's just cheating, and playing for a free. It's a blight on our game, and I'll be glad to see it go.

 

[DemonTim]

I've already justified my point but you've just ignored it.

The physiology you explained is wrong because you said it impossible for the tackler to keep his opponents hands down. Its not because if you're strong enough you can do it. It causes rolling mauls because this rule makes it easier to tackle, and constant tackling is the main source of the rolling maul. Its being coached incorrectly because tackler wouldn't give away so many frees if it was.

These are all points I've mentioned before that you seemed to have ignored.

You've taken one sentence, and ignored the context of it, then responded to it. That's called disingenuous. You have not responded to the physiology aspect in the slightest other then "if you're strong enough you can do it". It's not to do with strength at all (you also seem to be mistaken that the tackle is completed then slips high, the shrug occurs before the tackle is fully applied, hence the tackler is in a 'weak' position)

If a player attempts to get out of a tackle, and doesn't, and gets head high contact, play on is called, this means the player has had prior opportunity, he needs to dispose of the ball. You seem to just be using a shock jock catch phrase to justify it.

Should we also get rid of push in the back in marking contests? I mean using your logic if the player at the front was strong enough they wouldn't be pushed over so easily.

You see against n you just assume, I never once said that I am an expert in sports science, it plays a role in all sports. But one thing I know like the back of my hand is the sport itself, I have lived it and breathed it as a player and coach for near on 40 years. Now I will say I stepped away a couple of years ago because relating to the young men these days got much harder for me. I could get them to play and work through different game plans but I struggled in the end with understanding their excuses and life is so tough for them World.
Back on point working in sport does not mean you know why a tackle slips high or a tackle that is pinned and held. We all know a very very small minority milks for some kicks but that is just the way it is.
I am not wrong, I just don't agree with you.

You mocked "sports science" and assumed that I was a 23 year old Uni student who had never kicked a ball. Hard to backtrack now.

Working in sports doesn't mean that. Of course. But an understanding of physiology and exercise science is going to be the best route to take. It's scientific in nature, anecdote doesn't trump science (although you haven't actually refuted the science. You've just said you disagree with it)

All of this is also ignoring that their doing the smart thing and tackling the largest amount of mass on the body

The post seems all over the shop, sounds like you just have a problem with young people from it.

If the player tackled can force that tackle high then of course it's a bad tackle.

Again, that's incorrectly working off the theory that the tackle is completed when it's forced high, it's not, when lunging or reaching for a tackle your arms are in a weaker position than the person you're tackling. The shrugs and ducks don't occur once a tackle is fully applied

You want players damned if they do, damned if they don't. Cyril tackles the wrists at times, and cops flak for potential injury, a player tackles higher and gets shrugged and gets flak for "weak tackling"

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You've taken one sentence, and ignored the context of it, then responded to it. That's called disingenuous. You have not responded to the physiology aspect in the slightest other then "if you're strong enough you can do it". It's not to do with strength at all (you also seem to be mistaken that the tackle is completed then slips high, the shrug occurs before the tackle is fully applied, hence the tackler is in a 'weak' position)

If a player attempts to get out of a tackle, and doesn't, and gets head high contact, play on is called, this means the player has had prior opportunity, he needs to dispose of the ball. You seem to just be using a shock jock catch phrase to justify it.

Should we also get rid of push in the back in marking contests? I mean using your logic if the player at the front was strong enough they wouldn't be pushed over so easily.


You mocked "sports science" and assumed that I was a 23 year old Uni student who had never kicked a ball. Hard to backtrack now.

Working in sports doesn't mean that. Of course. But an understanding of physiology and exercise science is going to be the best route to take. It's scientific in nature, anecdote doesn't trump science (although you haven't actually refuted the science. You've just said you disagree with it)

All of this is also ignoring that their doing the smart thing and tackling the largest amount of mass on the body

The post seems all over the shop, sounds like you just have a problem with young people from it.


Again, that's incorrectly working off the theory that the tackle is completed when it's forced high, it's not, when lunging or reaching for a tackle your arms are in a weaker position than the person you're tackling. The shrugs and ducks don't occur once a tackle is fully applied

You want players damned if they do, damned if they don't. Cyril tackles the wrists at times, and cops flak for potential injury, a player tackles higher and gets shrugged and gets flak for "weak tackling"

When lunging or reaching the tackler is not in any position to stick the tackle and I would say 99% of those tackles are easily breakable, no matter the science behind how they are taught it doesn't change that all players are different. Most players as an example have no issue breaking a tackle from Mark Lecras, yet if Jeremy McGovern tackles then more times than not it sticks.
You are saying as they are taught the same they tackle the same which is not correct. In theory they might be but strength plays a role and I don't understand how you can ignore that.

 

[DemonTim]

When lunging or reaching the tackler is not in any position to stick the tackle and I would say 99% of those tackles are easily breakable, no matter the science behind how they are taught it doesn't change that all players are different. Most players as an example have no issue breaking a tackle from Mark Lecras, yet if Jeremy McGovern tackles then more times than not it sticks.
You are saying as they are taught the same they tackle the same which is not correct. In theory they might be but strength plays a role and I don't understand how you can ignore that.

Again, this has zero to do with my point

All tackles require you to at the very least reach. How exactly do you tackle someone without reaching your arms? What tackle like a T. rex?

 

[mike123]

So basically you think the tackler needs to be strong enough to stop a player he tackles from buckling at the knees? Hmmm, ok, in full flight too!

Yep, players lower themselves because its easier to get out of tackles that way. Tacklers need to be aware of that.

Tackle low you say? Then they will ping you for tunnelling!

Not that low, but you knew that you just wanted to make an argument out of nothing.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if certain players hadn't perfected the art of shirking a tackle by putting themselves at risk of injury. That's just cheating, and playing for a free. It's a blight on our game, and I'll be glad to see it go.

We wouldn't be having this discussions if tacklers didn't keep getting fooled into it.

 

[mike123]

You've taken one sentence, and ignored the context of it, then responded to it. That's called disingenuous.

Hasn't stopped you from doing it.

You have not responded to the physiology aspect in the slightest other then "if you're strong enough you can do it". It's not to do with strength at all (you also seem to be mistaken that the tackle is completed then slips high, the shrug occurs before the tackle is fully applied, hence the tackler is in a 'weak' position)

If a tackler is in a weak position then so be it. That's what the player with the ball is trying to do and has every right to do. If he's strong enough it won't hinder him, if he isn't the tackle will be broken or slip high.

If a player attempts to get out of a tackle, and doesn't, and gets head high contact, play on is called, this means the player has had prior opportunity, he needs to dispose of the ball. You seem to just be using a shock jock catch phrase to justify it.

You haven't justified anything.

Should we also get rid of push in the back in marking contests? I mean using your logic if the player at the front was strong enough they wouldn't be pushed over so easily.

Comparing apples with oranges. You've taken one sentence, and ignored the context of it, then responded to it...

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Again, this has zero to do with my point

All tackles require you to at the very least reach. How exactly do you tackle someone without reaching your arms? What tackle like a T. rex?

So what is your point then?

 

[DemonTim]

Hasn't stopped you from doing it.



If a tackler is in a weak position then so be it. That's what the player with the ball is trying to do and has every right to do. If he's strong enough it won't hinder him, if he isn't the tackle will be broken or slip high.



You haven't justified anything.



Comparing apples with oranges. You've taken one sentence, and ignored the context of it, then responded to it...

Well done at seeing me use your logic

Again, you misunderstand "weak position" any time you are reaching for a tackle, you are in a weak position, until the tackle is applied, your arms are outstretched. Meaning weak position

But again, you just stomp your feet and shout "no you're wrong" without actually discussing the logic behind it. I even asked you some questions and you couldn't answer them.

Maybe stick to SFA

 

[DemonTim]

So what is your point then?

ive made it, numerous times, you respond with something not relating to what was said (even gone as far as complaining about how players today are sooks)

 

[Thetrader15]

This rule has nothing to do with weak tackling.

Do you honestly think the serial acting offenders for frees are good for our game?

This rule change won't impact too much on Selwood, but it will impact on Mclean, Matheson, etc whose #1 priority in a contest is to milk a free.

Next target Lindsay (where is my snorkel) Thomas

 

[greatwhiteshark]

ive made it, numerous times, you respond with something not relating to what was said (even gone as far as complaining about how players today are sooks)

You have made no point at all, you just say its all to do with science behind it. Good work!!!

 

[DemonTim]

You have made no point at all, you just say its all to do with science behind it. Good work!!!

Sigh. Yes, despite me giving you a very dumbed down explanation about it, and you coming back with an insult about qualifications and an anecdote that ended with you complaint about the damn youth of today, it's me with no point

Every one of your comments has nothing to do with the post its quoting, and they don't even follow a logical sequence.

 

[mike123]

Well done at seeing me use your logic

You used that logic first....

Again, you misunderstand "weak position" any time you are reaching for a tackle, you are in a weak position, until the tackle is applied, your arms are outstretched. Meaning weak position

Again you've made no argument for this rule other than the tacklers are in a weak position which doesn't actually support the rule and doesn't even make sense, because if tacklers were in a weak position when tackling there'd be barely any tackling which isn't the case.

But again, you just stomp your feet and shout "no you're wrong" without actually discussing the logic behind it. I even asked you some questions and you couldn't answer them.

I did answer but you've ignored them because you know they're right and I don't want to accept that.

Maybe stick to SFA

Maybe I will, less morons there.

 

[Ian Dunross]

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

This is just wrong

When the player drives his head/neck into the players arms, it's cheating to get a free kick

It's not an attempt to avoid the tackle

You don't drop to one knee to avoid a tackle

 

[Squiba]

I can't see this being adjudicated correctly. So ridiculously open to interpretation and at such high speeds...

Would rather incidents of blatant ducking/arm throwing/whatever be reviews by the match committee. >2 times a game or >5 times in any stretch of 3 games should result in a 1 week suspension

 

[mike123]

This is just wrong

No its not.

When the player drives his head/neck into the players arms, it's cheating to get a free kick

It's not an attempt to avoid the tackle

There was already a rule change for this, which I'm for. This is different issue all together stop bringing it up.

You don't drop to one knee to avoid a tackle

Yes its does, lower centre of gravity makes tackles easier to avoid and or shrug.

 

[DemonTim]

You used that logic first....



Again you've made no argument for this rule other than the tacklers are in a weak position which doesn't actually support the rule and doesn't even make sense, because if tacklers were in a weak position when tackling there'd be barely any tackling which isn't the case.



I did answer but you've ignored them because you know they're right and I don't want to accept that.


Maybe I will, less morons there.

You've absolutely not discussed physiology or the science behind it other than "durr da tacklers r too weak". You've responded to nothing and justified nothing, you'll notice multiple people have told you this. The tackle is correct because it takes away arm leverage in the most practical way (especially since the ball carrier is coaches to lift the ball high when tackles), the tackle centres on the largest segment of mass on the body and takes away movement at both the shoulder joint and restricts the movement of the elbow. This places the hands in a vulnerable position, as the movement of the wrist isn't enough to dispose in a clean manner. Tackling lower leaves the shoulder more free and has a greater room for error, especially since it's easy to slip a hand free from there. As the shrug or knee drop is done prior to the tackle being applied, the tackler has no opportunity to "be stronger" as their arms are in a weak position. There's the science, now justify yours.

That's even failing to mention that coaches have coached tackling like this for years, players have been tackling like this for years, and now the league agrees via the rules it's the correct way to tackle. So by count that's:
The league
The coaches
The players
The science
All saying it's the correct way to tackle

Let's compare that to the side saying its a bad tackle:
2 randoms on bigfooty

Well now I'm starting to feel that maybe we are all so so wrong, and you two with your strong points of "nah the players are just weak" are right. Well done.

 

[DemonTim]

No its not.



There was already a rule change for this, which I'm for. This is different issue all together stop bringing it up.



Yes its does, lower centre of gravity makes tackles easier to avoid and or shrug.

It's a fine tactic to avoid a tackle, and should be allowed, you should not be given a free kick for it, and it isn't now.

 

[mike123]

You've absolutely not discussed physiology or the science behind it other than "durr da tacklers r too weak". You've responded to nothing and justified nothing, you'll notice multiple people have told you this. The tackle is correct because it takes away arm leverage in the most practical way (especially since the ball carrier is coaches to lift the ball high when tackles), the tackle centres on the largest segment of mass on the body and takes away movement at both the shoulder joint and restricts the movement of the elbow. This places the hands in a vulnerable position, as the movement of the wrist isn't enough to dispose in a clean manner. Tackling lower leaves the shoulder more free and has a greater room for error, especially since it's easy to slip a hand free from there. As the shrug or knee drop is done prior to the tackle being applied, the tackler has no opportunity to "be stronger" as their arms are in a weak position. There's the science, now justify yours.

That's even failing to mention that coaches have coached tackling like this for years, players have been tackling like this for years, and now the league agrees via the rules it's the correct way to tackle. So by count that's:
The league
The coaches
The players
The science
All saying it's the correct way to tackle

Let's compare that to the side saying its a bad tackle:
2 randoms on bigfooty

Well now I'm starting to feel that maybe we are all so so wrong, and you two with your strong points of "nah the players are just weak" are right. Well done.

We're going around in circles. These are all points you've come up with before and I've already argued against them.

 

[DemonTim]

We're going around in circles. These are all points you've come up with before and I've already argued against them.

No. No you haven't. You just responded vaguely about the tackler needing to be stronger (which is stupidly vague in terms of what we are discussing. Stronger in what terms)

When your only point sums up to "be stronger" you've failed

 

[mike123]

It's a fine tactic to avoid a tackle, and should be allowed, you should not be given a free kick for it, and it isn't now.

You should be IMO and it should be the tacklers responsibility to not get him high, you obviously disagree with it so we're not going anywhere on this. The rule has changed but that doesn't mean I agree with it just like you didn't agree with the old rule. I don't like it because it's a rule that probably won't be adjudicated properly and will contribute to rolling maul.

 

[mike123]

No. No you haven't. You just responded vaguely about the tackler needing to be stronger (which is stupidly vague in terms of what we are discussing. Stronger in what terms)

When your only point sums up to "be stronger" you've failed

It doesn't fail because its right. Otherwise there'd be next to no tackles and every tackle that does happen would get the player high, but that's obviously not the case.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You've absolutely not discussed physiology or the science behind it other than "durr da tacklers r too weak". You've responded to nothing and justified nothing, you'll notice multiple people have told you this. The tackle is correct because it takes away arm leverage in the most practical way (especially since the ball carrier is coaches to lift the ball high when tackles), the tackle centres on the largest segment of mass on the body and takes away movement at both the shoulder joint and restricts the movement of the elbow. This places the hands in a vulnerable position, as the movement of the wrist isn't enough to dispose in a clean manner. Tackling lower leaves the shoulder more free and has a greater room for error, especially since it's easy to slip a hand free from there. As the shrug or knee drop is done prior to the tackle being applied, the tackler has no opportunity to "be stronger" as their arms are in a weak position. There's the science, now justify yours.

That's even failing to mention that coaches have coached tackling like this for years, players have been tackling like this for years, and now the league agrees via the rules it's the correct way to tackle. So by count that's:
The league
The coaches
The players
The science
All saying it's the correct way to tackle

Let's compare that to the side saying its a bad tackle:
2 randoms on bigfooty

Well now I'm starting to feel that maybe we are all so so wrong, and you two with your strong points of "nah the players are just weak" are right. Well done.

Oh FFS, no one has said they are tackling the wrong way, what has been said is some do it better than others. But you keep saying everyone tackles the same way, the same strength of tackle etc. What game have you been watching where every tackle is perfect and correct. They are humans and they make mistakes and miss judge things. They don't all tackle perfectly.

 

[DemonTim]

You should be IMO and it should be the tacklers responsibility to not get him high, you obviously disagree with it so we're not going anywhere on this. The rule has changed but that doesn't mean I agree with it just like you didn't agree with the old rule. I don't like it because it's a rule that probably won't be adjudicated properly and will contribute to rolling maul.

Rolling maul is a nonsensical buzzword. From memory statistically stoppages aren't high compared with historically

I actually would prefer if it was play on unless it is an obvious deliberate or negligent high hit. Stagers should also face tribunal sanctions.

Our entire discussion has been around your point that players are tackling incorrectly

 

[Blues_Man]

Puopolo career now in limbo

As is M'crae from the Dogs..has taken ducking to a whole new level