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

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm sure a video entitled 'Luke Shuey Cheating' is going to present a totally fair and reasonable view of what occurred. When you see it in normal motion it's relatively clear that Shuey's 'arm lift' is actually nothing more than a running motion. The tackle slipped high because the tackler was careless.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this?

 

[El_Scorcho]

How about we go further with it and remove high contact on it's own as a free.

The desire to protect the head has given us 15 years of ducking, diving, shrugging, and allegations of unfair play to win frees.

Stop incentivising getting hit in the head, and only award a free for high if there is forceful contact to the neck or head. Incidental contact and tackles that slip up should never be frees.

 

[docko911]

The solution is pretty simple, suspend players who consistently lift their arms, bend their neck towards contact or lower their knees to draw contact. It is blatantly obvious on replays so just review each game and suspend players accordingly. It will be gone within a matter of weeks.

Do this in that soccer sport for diving cheats.

In fact apply it to all aspects of AFL that involve drawing freekicks.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The solution is pretty simple, suspend players who consistently lift their arms, bend their neck towards contact or lower their knees to draw contact. It is blatantly obvious on replays so just review each game and suspend players accordingly. It will be gone within a matter of weeks.

Do this in that soccer sport for diving cheats.

In fact apply it to all aspects of AFL that involve drawing freekicks.

Or pay every high contact free kick other than ducking the head and watch how quickly the players change how they tackle!!!

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Nope it has to work both ways, can't be holding the ball either. You can't give all the benefit to the tackler. Can't be no free kick if it goes high but a free kick to the tackler if you are still holding it while being dragged down by your neck. It's either play on or a ball up. Unless of course if player drops the ball.
There is only one way out of a tackle and thats by going low and shrugging, good tackles won't allow this but weak tackles will. Most tackles are pretty good and thats why the likes of Selwood and Shuey can't do what they do all the time. It is only the weak tackles they can do it. It is not cheating, staging or anything else.
In my view they have the ball and can do as they please, the tackler has one responsibility which is to not get him high. Why is this so complicated? I just don't get it or where some of you are coming from.

Um what?!? You're contradicting yourself.
Of course it can be holding the ball. That depends on any prior opportunity of course. If you've had prior opportunity and choose to take the tackler on by trying to shrug the tackle and you force an otherwise legal tackle high by your actions and then get caught, it absolutely can be holding the ball.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Or pay every high contact free kick other than ducking the head and watch how quickly the players change how they tackle!!!

Is this what we want though? Do we really want every bit of incidental contact to be a free kick? Do we want to enormously incentivise players drawing contact to their heads?

We need to go the other way with it. Heavy suspensions for knocking someone out is great but awarding frees for incidental contact doesn't protect the head.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Is this what we want though? Do we really want every bit of incidental contact to be a free kick? Do we want to enormously incentivise players drawing contact to their heads?

We need to go the other way with it. Heavy suspensions for knocking someone out is great but awarding frees for incidental contact doesn't protect the head.

Your way will see high contact become rampant in the game as no one will be suspended because they are not doing anything wrong. They just won't get a free kick.
My way removes the majority of high contact in the game.
I want the rules to paid as they are written without sub rules to the existing rules. Just one rule. High contact is a free kick. Just as it was for 100 years without any issue at all and they were still doing the crap they do today.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Um what?!? You're contradicting yourself.
Of course it can be holding the ball. That depends on any prior opportunity of course. If you've had prior opportunity and choose to take the tackler on by trying to shrug the tackle and you force an otherwise legal tackle high by your actions and then get caught, it absolutely can be holding the ball.

Sorry mate, I am still in the camp that other than ducking all head high contact is a free kick, nothing will sway me on that. What this rule they introduced did was create more head high contact yet I thought the head was sacrosanct.
Like I said earlier, pay all head high contact and within two weeks the players will of changed how they tackle. No coach is going to allow his players giving away free kicks all the time. He will instruct them to change.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Sorry mate, I am still in the camp that other than ducking all head high contact is a free kick, nothing will sway me on that. What this rule they introduced did was create more head high contact yet I thought the head was sacrosanct.
Like I said earlier, pay all head high contact and within two weeks the players will of changed how they tackle. No coach is going to allow his players giving away free kicks all the time. He will instruct them to change.

I think you've jumped the great white shark.
Why is ducking exempt?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think you've jumped the great white shark.
Why is ducking exempt?

Because Ducking is clearly visible and has been adjudicated as such for many many years now. The rest is to hard to umpire. It should be simpler for them not more complicated and you know as well as I do that in real time it will never be adjudicated as a shrug.
I think they will just call play on to everything now and then the complaints will come of all the high contact they are missing.
just pay the free for high contact and move on, make the coaches and players change how they play.

 

[Jakksynn]

How about we go further with it and remove high contact on it's own as a free.

The desire to protect the head has given us 15 years of ducking, diving, shrugging, and allegations of unfair play to win frees.

Stop incentivising getting hit in the head, and only award a free for high if there is forceful contact to the neck or head. Incidental contact and tackles that slip up should never be frees.

Rugby does it well.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Because Ducking is clearly visible and has been adjudicated as such for many many years now. The rest is to hard to umpire. It should be simpler for them not more complicated and you know as well as I do that in real time it will never be adjudicated as a shrug.
I think they will just call play on to everything now and then the complaints will come of all the high contact they are missing.
just pay the free for high contact and move on, make the coaches and players change how they play.

You're so far off the mark on this. I can think of plenty of times when watching the footy (not just Carlton games) where a high has been paid and a player has clearly ducked.

 

[Apsaalooke]

Just don't pay high frees to the known offenders. There's only 5 or 6 of them and everyone, including themselves, know who they are. They'll whinge and carry on for awhile and then stop their cheating tactics

 

[jimbob12]

Just don't pay high frees to the known offenders. There's only 5 or 6 of them and everyone, including themselves, know who they are. They'll whinge and carry on for awhile and then stop their cheating tactics

Lol i like it. Make them wear something so the umpire can't miss them like pink headwear as they really should be wearing something to protect their heads.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You're so far off the mark on this. I can think of plenty of times when watching the footy (not just Carlton games) where a high has been paid and a player has clearly ducked.

Nothing is perfect, I see a minimum of 20 holding the man decisions not paid every single AFL game, they just don't pay it anymore.
The AFL have made umpiring way to hard.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Nothing is perfect, I see a minimum of 20 holding the man decisions not paid every single AFL game, they just don't pay it anymore.
The AFL have made umpiring way to hard.

They haven't made it hard, they just let a lot go to keep the game flowing.
The AFL seems to be of the opinion that too many stoppages will ruin the game, and they're probably right to a certain degree, but letting play continue when the ball carrier initiates contact will decrease stoppages. They will probably also find that some of things that players do because they know that they can get away with it more often than not, will be stopped because they aren't getting away with it.
Basically, be stricter on the rules and players will change their habits, resulting in less whistles.
Making players change tackling techniques when they are mostly initiating legal tackles is stupid. Penalise the player that invites the high contact. And when I say penalise, I don't mean award a free against them, it might just be as simple as allowing play to continue and if they lose the ball, so be it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

They haven't made it hard, they just let a lot go to keep the game flowing.
The AFL seems to be of the opinion that too many stoppages will ruin the game, and they're probably right to a certain degree, but letting play continue when the ball carrier initiates contact will decrease stoppages. They will probably also find that some of things that players do because they know that they can get away with it more often than not, will be stopped because they aren't getting away with it.
Basically, be stricter on the rules and players will change their habits, resulting in less whistles.
Making players change tackling techniques when they are mostly initiating legal tackles is stupid. Penalise the player that invites the high contact. And when I say penalise, I don't mean award a free against them, it might just be as simple as allowing play to continue and if they lose the ball, so be it.

That's all good and well but if you let a lot go on other rules then why should this rule be any different. Some will be paid some won't. We have to just cop it when they decide we won't enforce the laws of the game under all circumstances.

 

[Underdog]

Eric MacKenzie cleverly, but deliberately, forces the ball out of bounds..."so clever", "brave", "outstanding".

Luke Shuey draws a high tackle..."disgrace", "disgusting", "cheat".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Football fans are ****ing morons.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Eric MacKenzie cleverly, but deliberately, forces the ball out of bounds..."so clever", "brave", "outstanding".

Luke Shuey draws a high tackle..."disgrace", "disgusting", "cheat".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Football fans are ******* morons.

It's so bloody true mate. I think today they are entertainment fans as opposed to footy fans. Two totally different things.

 

[PowerForGood]

Eric MacKenzie cleverly, but deliberately, forces the ball out of bounds..."so clever", "brave", "outstanding".

Luke Shuey draws a high tackle..."disgrace", "disgusting", "cheat".

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Football fans are ******* morons.

What do you call someone who can do both at the same time? Hodge cleverly but deliberately forces Wingards head out of bounds against the point post with a high hip and shoulder.

 

[JoondalupJ]

You clearly don't know the rules. It doesn't matter one iota that Polec's hand ended up around Shuey's neck. The rule states that if the tackle starts legally and the person being tackled forces the tackler's arm up it's play on. Take a look at the AFL interpretation video and STFU!

Your a funny little clown, disagree if you like, the fact is in the day when things were straight forward instead of grey areas everywhere around the neck was around the neck , if your opponent beat you to the ball , as Shuey did then tough luck tackler!!!!!!!, and then you start raving about the written rules as they sit now, that no one, even f******g umpires can correctly interperate all the time .
So you go and have another look, and you make a decision in a tenth of a second , and you watch the replay that says it all , both players are buckle legged, so both dipping, maybe the Port bloke thought Shuey was going to duck, so evened up the contest , and by the way he scragged him around the neck and if the rule states that if it starts legal it finishes legal, that's the greatest load of garbage you've ever said, because if it started legal then it wasn't a free , but the umpires( 2 of them) saw the around the neck , bad luck, the other prancer saw nothing.
And this happens all the bleeding time!!?????

Don't talk to me about bloody rules .
I've been complaining about ducking for years, Selwood is a bleeding disgrace, by the way he's practised and practised his knee drop shoulder dip, its an art form for him and wrong. And some others have taken it on.
Its a grey interpretation for an umpire to make?
So you get and read all my posts, good ones and bad ones, quick ones and rants , but read them all, or you
Shut The F**k Up .
You rude individual. If you want a debate have one , not every body will agree with you and maybe , just maybe you are wrong sometimes, brother , me too, ever thought of that.

Maybe instead of STFU you should GrowTFU.

Why finish with a comment like that , you and I don't know each other from a bar of soap! Fair dinkum mate!

 

[JoondalupJ]

I'm sure a video entitled 'Luke Shuey Cheating' is going to present a totally fair and reasonable view of what occurred. When you see it in normal motion it's relatively clear that Shuey's 'arm lift' is actually nothing more than a running motion. The tackle slipped high because the tackler was careless.

Yes and bending his knees as well?

 

[JoondalupJ]

Nope it has to work both ways, can't be holding the ball either. You can't give all the benefit to the tackler. Can't be no free kick if it goes high but a free kick to the tackler if you are still holding it while being dragged down by your neck. It's either play on or a ball up. Unless of course if player drops the ball.
There is only one way out of a tackle and thats by going low and shrugging, good tackles won't allow this but weak tackles will. Most tackles are pretty good and thats why the likes of Selwood and Shuey can't do what they do all the time. It is only the weak tackles they can do it. It is not cheating, staging or anything else.
In my view they have the ball and can do as they please, the tackler has one responsibility which is to not get him high. Why is this so complicated? I just don't get it or where some of you are coming from.

Your main comment above is a beauty , "you can't give all the benefit to the tackler". EXACTLY, and I 'd say the one who should be given the benefit of the doubt, mostly is the bloke who went and got the ball. Shuey did.
That is what happened last weekend.

 

[sprockets]

Your a funny little clown, disagree if you like, the fact is in the day when things were straight forward instead of grey areas everywhere around the neck was around the neck , if your opponent beat you to the ball , as Shuey did then tough luck tackler!!!!!!!, and then you start raving about the written rules as they sit now, that no one, even f******g umpires can correctly interperate all the time .
So you go and have another look, and you make a decision in a tenth of a second , and you watch the replay that says it all , both players are buckle legged, so both dipping, maybe the Port bloke thought Shuey was going to duck, so evened up the contest , and by the way he scragged him around the neck and if the rule states that if it starts legal it finishes legal, that's the greatest load of garbage you've ever said, because if it started legal then it wasn't a free , but the umpires( 2 of them) saw the around the neck , bad luck, the other prancer saw nothing.
And this happens all the bleeding time!!?????

Don't talk to me about bloody rules .
I've been complaining about ducking for years, Selwood is a bleeding disgrace, by the way he's practised and practised his knee drop shoulder dip, its an art form for him and wrong. And some others have taken it on.
Its a grey interpretation for an umpire to make?
So you get and read all my posts, good ones and bad ones, quick ones and rants , but read them all, or you
Shut The F**k Up .
You rude individual. If you want a debate have one , not every body will agree with you and maybe , just maybe you are wrong sometimes, brother , me too, ever thought of that.

Maybe instead of STFU you should GrowTFU.

Why finish with a comment like that , you and I don't know each other from a bar of soap! Fair dinkum mate!

Jeepers. Again, I haven't bothered reading the rest of your rant. I don't care how slow or fast you run your VHS tape player, the ONLY CORRECT call was play on. The rules matter, whether you think they do or not. It's not about you. Go and look at the rules as they currently are and were on the day of the incident. Forget everything else like the great war, the middle ages and the birth of Christ. Take a look at the current rule, the interpretation in the 2017 rule change video and then take a look at the incident. Then STFU.

By the way, you think I'm raving? Take a look at your own posts.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Jeepers. Again, I haven't bothered reading the rest of your rant. I don't care how slow or fast you run your VHS tape player, the ONLY CORRECT call was play on. The rules matter, whether you think they do or not. It's not about you. Go and look at the rules as they currently are and were on the day of the incident. Forget everything else like the great war, the middle ages and the birth of Christ. Take a look at the current rule, the interpretation in the 2017 rule change video and then take a look at the incident. Then STFU.

By the way, you think I'm raving? Take a look at your own posts.

The rules don't matter, you said in an earlier post some are ignored to let the game flow. I said that there is numerous holding the man decisions not paid each game and you said they let a lot go to keep the game flowing. So rules don't matter and this one is no more important than any other.
I wish they did matter and all rules were adjudicated as they were written.