Mongrel - who has it who doesn't ? Does it Matter?

[Robbo's my hero]

I reckon you have to want to hurt the other bloke. Too many nice boys on the team.

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

I never played a game of footy with that in mind. I think this is why the AFL has a problem with tackling at the moment. Even the nice boys have been turned into psychopaths. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't classify myself as a nice footballer. I was desperate to kick my opponents arse figuratively. Give him a day to remember for all the wrong reasons. Mongrel is overrated. I want to see our boys become no nonsense types. If someone goes down get in the opposition's face and then lift your effort in response. All that counts in the finish is the score at the end of the game. Not how many guys you've hurt.

 

[JustaBattler]

The objective of pinning a players arm(s) is to stop them being able to properly dispose the ball and get a free kick. A soon as a pinned player is then driven into the ground - the objective becomes one of possible harm to the player because they cant use an outstretched arm to protect themselves as they fall.

The umps are at fault for not paying hold the ball, calling ball up or incorrect disposal as soon as a player is pinned - and the tackler is at fault as soon as he decides to drive or sling a defenseless player into the ground.

I think the umps have a lot to answer for personally as they are prone these days to allow lots of incorrect disposals in congestion in order to keep the game moving - and now made worse by the fact of super congested numbers around contests.

 

[Robbo's my hero]

The objective of pinning a players arm(s) is to stop them being able to properly dispose the ball and get a free kick. A soon as a pinned player is then driven into the ground - the objective becomes one of possible harm to the player because they cant use an outstretched arm to protect themselves as they fall.

The umps are at fault for not paying hold the ball, calling ball up or incorrect disposal as soon as a player is pinned - and the tackler is at fault as soon as he decides to drive or sling a defenseless player into the ground.

I think the umps have a lot to answer for personally as they are prone these days to allow lots of incorrect disposals in congestion in order to keep the game moving - and now made worse by the fact of super congested numbers around contests.

I agree entirely. The interpretation of the rule has led to some of these incidents. Can it be retrieved? I think it can be but we must redefine the interpretation of the tackle without it resulting in the tackled player being carted off on a stretcher.

I blame the search of 'an advantage' over your opponent. Tackling has changed so much its close to unrecognisable these days. I blame the influence of rugby league. Who do you get as a tackle coach if you want to improve? A coach from rugby league. Some bright spark also watched the methods that the rugby players used. The 'chicken wing' tackle has become popular. Not as effective in rugby league but a boon in Aussie Rules. You need two hands to handpass.

My solution for the 'chicken wing'? Make it an illegal tackle and award a free kick to the guy being winged. There's an argument that neither Kreuzer or Brown would be hurt because the player knows it would result in a free kick.

 

[The Smoking Gun]

I think the umps have a lot to answer for personally as they are prone these days to allow lots of incorrect disposals in congestion in order to keep the game moving.

This^^^. I see a lot of scoops, shovels, slaps, handoffs and some pretty blatant throws, such as Selwood's one-armed pearler against Port that Cam Smith would've proud of. I'd go so far as to say 1 in 4 handballs are actually throws and if you could view each disposal from all the available camera angles that could even be as high as 1 in 3.........and he we were thinking chuckers were confined to cricket.

 

[JustaBattler]

I agree entirely. The interpretation of the rule has led to some of these incidents. Can it be retrieved? I think it can be but we must redefine the interpretation of the tackle without it resulting in the tackled player being carted off on a stretcher.

I blame the search of 'an advantage' over your opponent. Tackling has changed so much its close to unrecognisable these days. I blame the influence of rugby league. Who do you get as a tackle coach if you want to improve? A coach from rugby league. Some bright spark also watched the methods that the rugby players used. The 'chicken wing' tackle has become popular. Not as effective in rugby league but a boon in Aussie Rules. You need two hands to handpass.

My solution for the 'chicken wing'? Make it an illegal tackle and award a free kick to the guy being winged. There's an argument that neither Kreuzer or Brown would be hurt because the player knows it would result in a free kick.

I have a fair amount of playing league and rugby at pretty senior levels, as well as a fair amount of coaching......I think a properly executed tackle is a beautiful thing and certainly can 'hurt' a tackled player - however it is also a very difficult thing to coach in AFL because you can't tackle below the hips or anywhere near the top of the shoulder - this (in real world) limits the ability to execute a brace and hit type tackle....

you might also like to know that sling tackles or throws were banned decades ago in rugby and league - irrespective of how a player lands, just as pile drivers were were a players head was driven into the ground from an upturned position...

The chicken wing is an ineffective tackle in rugby codes because one armed passes are legal and often executed...in AFL holding one arm and teh inevitable twist that follows is a legal way of achieving teh same thing as a pinned arms tackle - illegal disposal..

No sadly for AFL followers the problem lies at the heart of what AFL deems to be legal and not legal....in order to differentiate itself from rugby - players are tripped if tackled below the hips and players cant pass/shovel/give off the ball without punching it - so the focus is on stopping the legal disposal...

This means that fair players pin and prop up their opponents of they care for safety of opponent- OR as coached by certain but not all coaches- they pin and then drive players into the ground - either using a throwing action from an upright position or a driving action....

The other complication is that players executing a perfect above the hips and below the shoulders tackle take on the risk of getting a free against - with silly in the back frees - the in the back rule should be sparingly used - these days a far cry from original intent and that was to stop rucks and mauls forming by players diving onto tackled players backs...

as an aside- allowing players to literally jump knees first into opponents hitting their kidneys/backs/spines/heads in marking contests is awful from a player safety point of view but part of the game I guess.

 

[Kismet]

I have a fair amount of playing league and rugby at pretty senior levels, as well as a fair amount of coaching......I think a properly executed tackle is a beautiful thing and certainly can 'hurt' a tackled player - however it is also a very difficult thing to coach in AFL because you can't tackle below the hips or anywhere near the top of the shoulder - this (in real world) limits the ability to execute a brace and hit type tackle....

you might also like to know that sling tackles or throws were banned decades ago in rugby and league - irrespective of how a player lands, just as pile drivers were were a players head was driven into the ground from an upturned position...

The chicken wing is an ineffective tackle in rugby codes because one armed passes are legal and often executed...in AFL holding one arm and teh inevitable twist that follows is a legal way of achieving teh same thing as a pinned arms tackle - illegal disposal..

No sadly for AFL followers the problem lies at the heart of what AFL deems to be legal and not legal....in order to differentiate itself from rugby - players are tripped if tackled below the hips and players cant pass/shovel/give off the ball without punching it - so the focus is on stopping the legal disposal...

This means that fair players pin and prop up their opponents of they care for safety of opponent- OR as coached by certain but not all coaches- they pin and then drive players into the ground - either using a throwing action from an upright position or a driving action....

The other complication is that players executing a perfect above the hips and below the shoulders tackle take on the risk of getting a free against - with silly in the back frees - the in the back rule should be sparingly used - these days a far cry from original intent and that was to stop rucks and mauls forming by players diving onto tackled players backs...

as an aside- allowing players to literally jump knees first into opponents hitting their kidneys/backs/spines/heads in marking contests is awful from a player safety point of view but part of the game I guess.

Agree with much of this analysis, except that in AFL a tackle can be below the hips, but can't be below the knees.

 

[JustaBattler]

Lamb has cemented his position in JAB's starting 22 - for his continued good form and glimpses into mongrel potential building up over teh last ew games into last nights rising star mongrel award...

Well Done Lamb - you have earned respect - and managed to kick a couple of goals as well...

 

[JustaBattler]

The bloke with the most amount of mongrel we have hasn't been mentioned. You people.... JED LAMB. You want players with a bit of s**t in them? Look no further. I reckon the guy is so used to being combative that he talks s**t about himself in his sleep.

But in any case, I find the whole topic to be lame. Everyone is different. Some players with the attitude of Lamb as described above are great for a team to have, but otherwise, the standard rules apply: play hard, play fair, and don't take s**t from the opposition. Job done.

 

[Mr_Plow]

Thread should be renamed:

Mongrel - Lamb has it, who doesn't? Does it matter?

You know who else has some of it? Jarrod Pickett.

He didn't need to tackle Gunston that aggressively over the line like he did. But because smartass Gunston thought he could sidestep Pickett, he copped it.

Don't disrespect Pickett, Jack.

 

[Gethelred]

Has Bolts got enough mongrel in him? Hopefully he learnt something about the value of the coach and his players having a healthy dose of mongrel when he worked with Clarkson.

Look into his eyes when you see him in focus, whether at the presser, in the box, or at all.

You'll see a little bloke, with sheer intensity in his eyes; that little bit of madness, mania, that required touch of animal.

He's fine. Most who take the AFL by storm don't possess that kind of mongrel.

 

[Coops93]

Has Bolts got enough mongrel in him? Hopefully he learnt something about the value of the coach and his players having a healthy dose of mongrel when he worked with Clarkson.

Have you seen him in the coaches box? Fmd, he might get as fired up if not more than Clarko

Tom Williamson definitely has it. He might be my favourite player of these last two drafts. He does it the right way, not in a kind of Sicily manor of just being a prick, but to show he won't be pushed around and that you're not going to get it easy.

Although, Charlie Curnow is pushing him for my favouritism.

Also, I'm sure that's what all the players are thinking about when playing. Being my favourite

 

[JustaBattler]

So anyone still think mongrel isn't the #1 requirement to win ?

Last year Doggies tackled their way to a flag and this year even the tuggers managed to tackle their way to a flag...

Gimme 2 more decent midfielders next to Cripps and watch Carlton push hard for finals even in 2018.

oh and get rid of the fancy hair cut brigade and anyone who cant stick a tackle.

 

[thylacine60]

it sure mattered today goddamn it..........

 

[JustaBattler]

it sure mattered today goddamn it..........

made me sick watching Adelaide try and play fancy pants footy and dodge the mongrel tackles - time after time after time teh Tuggers just lined uop the next to ge the handpass and crunched them dforcing turnover...

I think i counted a quarter and a half of Adelaide not being hold teh ball for longer than a couple of possesions - just pathetic ....
same as GWS last week - rolled over like little puppies - out mongrelled by a bunch of spuds who were committed to beating their man...

the new football is back to the old football - which never went away...

every year the best tackling side wins.

 

[1981]

Pushing s**t uphill if your captain lacks mongrel

 

[thylacine60]

who has mongrel at carlton? willo? mcreadie? byrne?

 

[El Topo]

who has mongrel at carlton? willo? mcreadie? byrne?

Lamb, Cripps (Judd-like arrogance)... certain senior stalwart conspicuous by their absence

 

[Wickzki]

Lamb
Docherty
Plowman
Byrne
Cripps
Pickett
Marchbank
Curnow
Petrevski-Seton
Macreadie
Fisher
Williamson

From the under 25 brigade, these are the guys who I believe have shown us something when it comes to playing the hard stuff required.

A few like Weitering have the potential to harden up over time and to make this list.

 

[The old campaigner]

who has mongrel at carlton? willo? mcreadie? byrne?

A. Silvagni.

 

[thylacine60]

yep - forgot he was even alive - good call

 

[RudyBlue]

A. Silvagni.

My goodness I wish he was five years younger

 

[Bluebag13]

Liam the beast jones


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[passmark]

Adelaide have zero mongrel.
Zip, nada, zilch, nothing.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Adelaide have zero mongrel.
Zip, nada, zilch, nothing.

Also happens to be the same number of Bryce Gibbs' they have.

 

[Stormzy]

A few blokes have that mongrel edge to their game and I think it will only get better next year.

Blokes like Jonesy, Weiters, Lamb, Zac Fisher and Cripps when he comes back are all lads I'm looking forward to seeing.

Think Murphy, Gibbs and Kreuzer also have that edge to their game but it can go missing at crucial times.