Autopsy Collingwood Ducks v Roos

[Roosurgence]

Analysing results is the very defintion of analysis.

Or is that incorrect?

 

[blackshadow]

Analysing results is the very defintion of analysis.

Or is that incorrect?

Analysing results is far different to quoting a set of results as analysis which is what you stated.

 

[astrovic]

It seems that the media - and by extension a lot of football fans - have a fair amount of collective amnesia about this issue.

The AFL issued a statement at the start of the year about the prior opportunity and holding the ball rules, in particular in relation to ducking. AFL outlines tighter interpretations of existing rules

Specifically, they said:

Holding the Ball

• In 2022, Umpires will be less lenient towards Players who have had Prior Opportunity and do not immediately and Correctly Dispose of the Football when they are Legally Tackled under existing Law 18.6.2.
  
  • In 2022, a Free Kick will be awarded against a Player who ducks their head prior to being Legally Tackled and does not immediately and Correctly Dispose of the Football. Umpire cues for Prior Opportunity includes: evading, fending, ducking, has a prior option (i.e. goes to handball / kick and decides not to), is balanced and steady, is awarded a mark or free-kick, or drives their head.

Therefore it is clear that in the 3 examples shown by Lloyd, the umpires have to ask themselves "did Ginnivan duck his head?" If yes, the free kick is against him. If not, the high contact is a free kick in his favour. Each one is obviously going to be a spur of the moment judgment call and they're never going to get it 100% correct.

I reckon they got the first 2 correct (Stevo tackled Ginnivan high, as Ginnivan was already down and did not duck, LDU tacked Ginnivan correctly and Ginnivan tried to duck into it), and the last one wrong (Corr tackled Ginnivan correctly and Ginnivan tried to duck into it, but the umpires judged that Corr tackled Ginnivan high). That's just my opinion, but at least it is based on what the rule is, not on some vague notion I have about what the rule might be or what it used to be prior to this season.

The media has an important role in informing public about what the rules are and how they are to be adjudicated. They still drive the conversation, no matter how hard they try to make us ignore them in disgust with their continual inanity (see: Cornes, K). There was some commentary during the game about how the rule worked (mainly at the time of the LDU tackle), but mostly the commentary was confused and confusing, and it was clear to me that the commentators don't really understand the rule. It's also clear from that segment that neither Lloyd nor Boomer really know how the rule works. It seems to be a game-wide problem.

Hell, the fact that Ginnivan is using ducking as a tactic to win a free, when under the rules it should be more likely to win his tackler a free, suggests either he doesn't get it, or the umpires don't and he knows it. If the umpires don't really get it then it's an AFL head office problem.

We can all have opinions and debate about whether the umps got it wrong or right but gee it would help if the starting point for that debate is what the rules actually are, especially in the media.

As a final point - at a guess, I reckon that 99% of Collingwood supporters that think Ginnivan's ducking is awesome and saying things like "learn to tackle correctly" (when they should be asking "what even is the rule here?") were baying for Lindsay Thomas' blood a couple of years ago.

 

[Magnanimous]

Geeeez!! Some people are hard to please! After losing all year by 40 points or more, we lose by just 8 to a bloody good team and play some very good football doing it and everyone is whining about it! Pull your heads in and be happy with the effort that the boys put in.

It's a loss but who cares, we're not making finals, improvement in effort, skill and fitness is the best we can hope for.

LDU played like a genuine A grader, Powelly getting back to what we were seeing last year and BUCKETS holding down the back line is what I'm happy with. Also really liked Young's game today too, been a big critic of him and I was pleased to see him play well.

On SM-G998B using BigFooty.com mobile app

FWIW I thought you guys played an excellent game from the outset.

There is a lot of players there to work with and several notable absentees.
Really loved your backline, and the midfield owned us today along with Larkey.
Goldy was also very good.

Very stiff not to get the chocolates in my view.

It seems a lot of the issues are with the lack of stability off the field.
Hope you get the right man for the job when the time is right.

Hopefully not too long until you next salute and all the best for the rest of the season.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DuckYeah]

What a bizarre thing for Carey to say. He’s always been soft. Used to drive my mates who support the pies crazy.

Now they can’t stand Ginnivan.

I do hope for Ginnivan that he isn’t smashed by the media. Its not awesome, its how he learned to play footy. He has a dip and he called Cornes out, hopefully the kid see’s it as a water off a ducks back moment.. however, he has to be aware, the way he goes about it, there’ll be a player out there that has will have enough and absolutely take his head off.. Corr isnt built like that, yet he tried to rip his head off “legally”

 

[The Anvil]

No I’m suggesting that’s what he did.

He went back to the exact garbage that we have been doing for 3 months in the last where the priority was to stop the opposition from scoring and not score ourselves.

He lost his nerve.

Instead of going balls to the wall and trying to put the game to bed by scoring ourselves he tried to put the dam wall up and save it. All it did was allow Collingwood the ball and momentum and they gleefully took it and made us pay.

That is what he did, as mentioned by others the players were gassed so I guess I understand the decision but it was not a good one.

Repeat entries by the opposition end up in goals against so there is a limited amount of time this can work for. Like the last 2 mins, not the quarter.

We needed experienced heads to step up as the pies did.

Interestingly, Hardwick pointed to this being the reason the Tigers lost to the GC late also.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Val Keating]

I do hope for Ginnivan that he isn’t smashed by the media. Its not awesome, its how he learned to play footy. He has a dip and he called Cornes out, hopefully the kid see’s it as a water off a ducks back moment.. however, he has to be aware, the way he goes about it, there’ll be a player out there that has will have enough and absolutely take his head off.. Corr isnt built like that, yet he tried to rip his head off “legally”

It’s only a matter of time.

 

[The Anvil]

I do hope for Ginnivan that he isn’t smashed by the media. Its not awesome, its how he learned to play footy. He has a dip and he called Cornes out, hopefully the kid see’s it as a water off a ducks back moment.. however, he has to be aware, the way he goes about it, there’ll be a player out there that has will have enough and absolutely take his head off.. Corr isnt built like that, yet he tried to rip his head off “legally”

There was one play where he went into his playing for a free and the opposition player was still a fair way from reaching him.

End of the day though, people that duck can be caught holding the ball with good tackling technique. It’s on the tackler to get this right.

 

[Marstermind]

Haven't seen any of yesterday's game - umpiring commitments means I can't go to Saturday afternoon games, and I've just been too busy today to watch the replay, and I'm too lazy to read back over this entire thread.

In a nut shell, what was different about the first three quarters yesterday? If anything, is it sustainable? Can I expect more like it before the end of the year? Or was it just a flash in the pan that will get dimmed very quickly?

 

[Themanbun]

There was one play where he went into his playing for a free and the opposition player was still a fair way from reaching him.

End of the day though, people that duck can be caught holding the ball with good tackling technique. It’s on the tackler to get this right.

I'd argue that it's near impossible if they execute what Ginnivan does perfectly. He drops as low as blokes do in wrestling when they shoot for a take down...it's pretty hard to get under that. If you pre empt it and shoot your tackle drastically lower than you otherwise would you risk a major head clash.

 

[Roosurgence]

Haven't seen any of yesterday's game - umpiring commitments means I can't go to Saturday afternoon games, and I've just been too busy today to watch the replay, and I'm too lazy to read back over this entire thread.

In a nut shell, what was different about the first three quarters yesterday? If anything, is it sustainable? Can I expect more like it before the end of the year? Or was it just a flash in the pan that will get dimmed very quickly?

In a nutshell a better structure where we held our forwards and made Collingwood accountable one on one and the big one, effort and intent on the players behalf.

 

[DuckYeah]

There was one play where he went into his playing for a free and the opposition player was still a fair way from reaching him.

End of the day though, people that duck can be caught holding the ball with good tackling technique. It’s on the tackler to get this right.

He is a smart footballer, no doubt. The way he moves his body before tackle you are left with 2 options. 1. Is tackle and the arm goes round the neck. 2. You tackle the legs as thats how low he gets.

He may be revolutionary to the game. He has taken it to the next level

 

[Themanbun]

He is a smart footballer, no doubt. The way he moves his body before tackle you are left with 2 options. 1. Is tackle and the arm goes round the neck. 2. You tackle the legs as thats how low he gets.

He may be revolutionary to the game. He has taken it to the next level

When players start training to counter it I guarantee there will be some nasty head clashes.

 

[Roosurgence]

When players start training to counter it I guarantee there will be some nasty head clashes.

You would hope common sense takes place and players don’t need to counter it.

If the AFL comes out and reinforces that dropping to your knees and raising your arm is considered ducking and will constitute prior opportunity, then you would hope players stopped doing it.

The worst thing they can do is come out this week and pay him free kicks for that action due to the media outrage.

 

[Val Keating]

Haven't seen any of yesterday's game - umpiring commitments means I can't go to Saturday afternoon games, and I've just been too busy today to watch the replay, and I'm too lazy to read back over this entire thread.

In a nut shell, what was different about the first three quarters yesterday? If anything, is it sustainable? Can I expect more like it before the end of the year? Or was it just a flash in the pan that will get dimmed very quickly?

Effort.

 

[Marstermind]

He is a smart footballer, no doubt. The way he moves his body before tackle you are left with 2 options. 1. Is tackle and the arm goes round the neck. 2. You tackle the legs as thats how low he gets.

He may be revolutionary to the game. He has taken it to the next level

That is so sad.

A player who is "revolutionary to the game" is one who bends the rules, attempts to manipulate the umpires, and whose first instinct isn't to engage in a genuine physical contest, or utilises a genuine skill, or to bring teammates into the game with an exquisite footy brain.

All power to him, for now. But if being "revolutionary" isn't Polly Farmer's handball, or Kennedy's Commando training, or Barassi at half time in the 1970 Grand Final, or Walls's huddle from kick-out in the 80s, or Pagan's Paddock, or Clarko's Cluster or even Roos's full team team defence, and instead it's now a bloke who basically plays for free kicks...the game is stuffed.

 

[DuckYeah]

When players start training to counter it I guarantee there will be some nasty head clashes.

Or players get pissed off.. Corr 100% went for his head in that last quarter.. gone-van is lucky it wasn’t a barry hall as me may have grabbed the neck and dragged him around the field

 

[DuckYeah]

That is so sad.

A player who is "revolutionary to the game" is one who bends the rules, attempts to manipulate the umpires, and whose first instinct isn't to engage in a genuine physical contest, or utilises a genuine skill, or to bring teammates into the game with an exquisite footy brain.

All power to him, for now. But if being "revolutionary" isn't Polly Farmer's handball, or Kennedy's Commando training, or Barassi at half time in the 1970 Grand Final, or Walls's huddle from kick-out in the 80s, or Pagan's Paddock, or Clarko's Cluster or even Roos's full team team defence, and instead it's now a bloke who basically plays for free kicks...the game is stuffed.

Its all about bending the rules. I should have made that clear. Revolutionary to bending rules

 

[Harryboy4]

I was very close to Ginnivan yesterday and could see his antics up close. His ducking is so contrived and is becoming his first action…I think he has talents beyond this behaviour and if he is to be a long term player he should stop it.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

I would have less issue with Ginnivan if it was just the occasional getting low on purpose, but he does the full kit and kaboodle.

Sees contact coming and drops like a fainting goat.

Doesn't try and avoid the tackle but invites it knowing he will get hit high.

Lifts his arm to force tackles that were initially legal, high.

All 3 fit into the rule change in 2017 that came about because of Selwood. If you invite the contact and push it high, shrug it up, drop at the knees or lift the arm, then no high free is to be paid if the tackle was initially reasonable.

Can call him smart, but its not smart gambling with your brain. He's going to end up seriously hurt if he plays like that.

 

[Val Keating]

You would hope common sense takes place and players don’t need to counter it.

If the AFL comes out and reinforces that dropping to your knees and raising your arm is considered ducking and will constitute prior opportunity, then you would hope players stopped doing it.

The worst thing they can do is come out this week and pay him free kicks for that action due to the media outrage.

It is prior opportunity isn’t it?

 

[Roosurgence]

It is prior opportunity isn’t it?

I always thought it was?

It was the same as when players were ramming their heads into players to draw the free.

As soon as the AFL claimed that it wouldn’t be a free and stopped paying them, the players stopped.

It still happens, but not nearly as much as it used to.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

AFL Website - 2017

 

[Marstermind]

Effort.

OK. So the coach and his game plan is fine. And the talent on the list is fine. The players just have to try harder?

 

[Roosurgence]

OK. So the coach and hiss game plan is fine. And the talent on the list is fine. The players just have to try harder?

The game plan for 3/4’s yesterday wasn’t the same one we have seen for the 11 games prior.

It’s concerning that it’s taken so long and the threat of sackings to bring about the change.