Head High Contact - Worth it for a Free Kick?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

It's a pain but rules shouldn't be changed due to it. Reading this article and disagree with it. ‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’: Four stars take advantage of AFL’s Ginnivan ‘confusion’

We start paying free kicks against would be a even worst disaster as the umpires just have no idea and can't evenly officiate the game as it is. Need to keep it as simple as possible for the umpires not make it more difficult by adding another rule.

The duck has been around for years. Selwood/Shuey been doing it for their whole careers. Frustrating but players need to adapt by tackling lower. I'm at the opinion of not changing a single thing. No need too. Frees should still be paid. It's all about learning how to tackle. Its on the players this one.
 
Hoops said:
The difference is Selwood tends to break the tackle and keeps his feet, whereas Ginnivan falls into the tackle.

People saying Selwood should be fined for this is having a laugh.
Click to expand...


Selwood is the absolute pioneer of this problem. So now people are losing their feet but using his technique they don't deserve a free? I mean I have been surprised how protected Selwood is because he is a tough, hard at it player, and that's what footy media and ex players love. But letting him get away with the same technique because he keeps his feet after lowering his body as opposed to falling to the ground is next level stupid.
 
FAIRANDBALANCED said:
Selwood is the absolute pioneer of this problem. So now people are losing their feet but using his technique they don't deserve a free? I mean I have been surprised how protected Selwood is because he is a tough, hard at it player, and that's what footy media and ex players love. But letting him get away with the same technique because he keeps his feet after lowering his body as opposed to falling to the ground is next level stupid.
Click to expand...
It is but umpires can't be blowing the whistle if a player dives into a free. Can you imagine how badly they are going to officiate this. They will become much more bias if this rule is implemented. It's too much a grey area to make a rule with it.



Sent from my CPH2025 using Tapatalk
 
The problem here is that the AFL has known this is a problem since Selwood developed the shrug. They allowed him, and the others that quickly picked up the technique to flourish. Most good players don't do it a lot and are forgiven. Until Ginnivan, nobody celebrated its success, but just took their free and played on with a private smirk. Ginnivan has rubbed his opponents noses in it, not least Selwood. The powers in the game don't like that, and have found an easy solution. Umpire Ginnivan out of the game and the problem will go away. It won't of course, but the game's rulers will pretend it has.

The discussion here mostly ignores the wider issue. Football is heading for a financial and publicity crisis over concussion. The policy makers have no idea how the game can be adapted to deal with concussion. They are thrashing around with protocols and rule tweaks, and in Ginnivan's case, attacking a player as if he is the problem with their rules. They have to find a formula that protects players from concussion while maintaining a high impact game style. I would suggest that this is not possible. The nature of the game is set to change and it is not Jack Ginnivan's fault. He is a symptom, not a cause.
 
The deliberate arm lift forcing a legal tackle high should be looked at. Many players do it and some even train to do it and show others.
Yep Gin, we are looking at you.

Selwood and Shuey do it so its not one player or one team.

If a player contributes to forcing a legal tackle high then call play on. It will stop as soon as you take away the reward for forcing it.

Then we can just enjoy watching the true pros like Breust milking frees and listen to Dermie and other bias commentators chuckle about it and how great their player is.
 
I love how the media now has finally read the rule book and sees that these high calls should have been called play-on. That’s what we’ve all been saying all year. The issue has never been that Ginnivan isn’t being paid free kicks now, it’s the fact that he was in the first place. I understand Collingwood fans frustrations around this as it seems they are only now properly adjudicating it, and specifically for him. But that’s what has frustrated me about the whole “the onus is on the tackler, tackle lower” crowd. It literally isn’t, the rule says it’s play on.

Looks like the AFL has finally told the umpires to properly do their jobs after 17 rounds. But then that begs the question, why did the AFL tell McCrae that some of the Ginnivan calls were wrong? Because they weren’t and now they are back peddling. This honestly is a blight on the AFL and umpiring unit that it’s taken 17 rounds and they still haven’t made any statements to give clarity to either the teams or the fans.
 
JyeDye said:
I love how the media now has finally read the rule book and sees that these high calls should have been called play-on. That’s what we’ve all been saying all year. The issue has never been that Ginnivan isn’t being paid free kicks now, it’s the fact that he was in the first place. I understand Collingwood fans frustrations around this as it seems they are only now properly adjudicating it, and specifically for him. But that’s what has frustrated me about the whole “the onus is on the tackler, tackle lower” crowd. It literally isn’t, the rule says it’s play on.

Looks like the AFL has finally told the umpires to properly do their jobs after 17 rounds. But then that begs the question, why did the AFL tell McCrae that some of the Ginnivan calls were wrong? Because they weren’t and now they are back peddling. This honestly is a blight on the AFL and umpiring unit that it’s taken 17 rounds and they still haven’t made any statements to give clarity to either the teams or the fans.
Click to expand...
If the way Ginnivan was umpired on the weekend was correct then I have no problem except:
- The same umpires gave Pendles a high contact free when his body was dropping.
- Different umpires gave high contact frees (when the body was dropping) to Michael Walters, Liam Ryan and Kysaiah Pickett.
www.foxsports.com.au

‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’: Four stars take advantage of AFL’s Ginnivan ‘confusion’

‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’: Four stars take advantage of AFL’s Ginnivan ‘confusion’
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au

Why is it that the rules are only being followed for Ginnivan and not the rest of the comp?

Either Ginnivan is being treated differently to the rest of the comp or the umpires are wrong in every other case.











 
Last edited:
Couch Coach said:
If the way Ginnivan was umpired on the weekend was correct then I have no problem except:
- The same umpires gave Pendles a high contact free when his body was dropping.
- Different umpires gave high contact frees (when the body was dropping) to Michael Walters, Liam Ryan and Kysaiah Pickett.
www.foxsports.com.au

‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’: Four stars take advantage of AFL’s Ginnivan ‘confusion’

‘If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em’: Four stars take advantage of AFL’s Ginnivan ‘confusion’
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au

Why is it that the rules are only being followed for Ginnivan and not the rest of the comp?

Either Ginnivan is being treated differently to the rest of the comp or the umpires are wrong in every other case.











Click to expand...

I'm with you man. I'm saying all of those should be play on. You can try and shrug or lower to try and break a tackle but it should just be play on. Kind of feel sad for Ginnivan at this point for how much has been put on him, including myself, as he's just became the poster boy for it. I've said it before but Collingwood's Noble is probably the best in the game at it yet no one talks about him because he gets the free kicks in a back pocket.

Such a joke that only after the media stirs up about this they start kind of paying them correctly, only to one player. Hopefully we get a statement after Collingwood ask for a 'please explain' as they should. The AFL is actually a joke surrounding this.
 
JyeDye said:
I'm with you man. I'm saying all of those should be play on. You can try and shrug or lower to try and break a tackle but it should just be play on. Kind of feel sad for Ginnivan at this point for how much has been put on him, including myself, as he's just became the poster boy for it. I've said it before but Collingwood's Noble is probably the best in the game at it yet no one talks about him because he gets the free kicks in a back pocket.

Such a joke that only after the media stirs up about this they start kind of paying them correctly, only to one player. Hopefully we get a statement after Collingwood ask for a 'please explain' as they should. The AFL is actually a joke surrounding this.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but the AFL won't come out and admit that they are only getting the calls correct in Ginnivan's case and incorrect in 5 other situations.

Ginnivan is the poster boy for it because he does it 3-4 times a game but he is 19yo and played 20 games. Where as Pendles, Walter, Ryan, Pickett, Selwood and Fisher are all older, playerd more games and seasons yet don't get the same scrutiny. Seems totally unfair that the AFL don't get on the front foot and take the attention away from Ginnivan.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

People act like it’s so easy to umpire it.
The fact is Ginnivan is terrible at trying to milk frees. Falling over every single time and diving into a high tackle is easier to adjudicate.
When Selwood or Pendlebury does it, it’s far smoother. They don’t go to ground every time.

Also how can people feel sorry for Ginnivan? He absolutely loves the attention, he isn’t some poor what about me kid, it’s not fair.
That peroxide hair should be enough for people to understand it.
 
I know Walters got a free on the weekend for high contact, but in the most part he's generally been told to * off by the umps for a few years now.

Which isn't a whinge - his reputation is rightly deserved - it's more to say that it's not something that umpires have ignored until now. Not for every player anyway.
 
It's yet another incompetent, almost child level analysis attempt at governance by mediocre brains. It's really simple in reality yet so hard for some to grasp; If there is a grey area; it will continue to be exasperating and arguable by all parties until the grey area is removed. Interpretations will change year by year, even game by game and player by player to the frustration of all.
I'm more from the; stop continually creating even more grey interpretive areas that * the integrity of the game via inconsistencies caused crowd.
Beyond what most can envision it seems; the truth is the rule should be black and white. I don't care if the player ducks, swerves, collapses, lowers or dives frankly. If they have got their hands on the ball first and are making the play; bloody good on them. If you as an opposition can't tackle without getting them high, no matter what they do with that ball in their hands they got to first, then tough s**t, they get to make the play they deserve. I don't care if it brings about a reduction in total tackles eventually, the game will flow on even better as a result.
Get rid of the whole prior opportunity grey nightmare with it and before you know it we've solved the single biggest areas of continual frustration and interpretation in the game.
If you make the play by getting the ball first, you get all the rights, as it should be. If the opposition finds it difficult to tackle and start tackling less; great, the game flows on and we get more speed and one on ones ahead of the play again. I don't even care if it means opposition players start getting out of the way of the head in case the ball player charges his head into them. Once again; great, the head is still sacrosanct and the ball-getter still has the advantage, as they should.

Knowing that the play maker has all the advantage, as they should, also means however they no longer need the most impossible, grey, interpretive nightmare in the game; prior opportunity. They must dispose of the ball legally (oh what a shock, a consistent rule). There is no grey area prior opportunity bullshit. Given all those advantages, if you do get tackled and can't dispose of the ball legally, you're gone, no if's, buts or arguable grey areas. You drop the ball guess what; illegal disposal, you're gone, as it used to be. You hold the ball; it's holding the ball, as it used to be. No arguable/interpretive, ever changing, grey area nightmare of prior opportunity so "imbecilcally" introduced via short- sighted, child like analysis.The rule that has led to the ridiculous levels of stoppages and ball-ups we have, giving every team time to set up defensive structures. Prior opportunity remains the single biggest rule addition screw up of the entire game and the sheer volume of additional efforts at rule changes/additions to address all the issues it created is staggering.
The game flows better, the grey areas are removed and new and prospective audiences can actually start to understand the rules because they are consistent.
 
Last edited:
I was surprised to see Liam Ryan at it. AFL should have stamped it out when Selwood started it - majority were calling for it. I like the idea of a free against for players who do it.
 
Wasn't Toby McLean from the Bulldogs a couple of years back a big culprit of this as well.
 
HIGH CONTACT FREE KICKS DRAWN IN TACKLES (2013-2015)
Individual players
Joel Selwood: 85
Allen Christensen: 41
Paul Puopolo: 40
Anthony Miles: 39
Trent Cotchin: 34
Lindsay Thomas: 33

Why didn't the AFL change the rules earlier than 2017?
Why didn't the AFL enforce the rule until 2022?
 
Couch Coach said:
HIGH CONTACT FREE KICKS DRAWN IN TACKLES (2013-2015)
Individual players
Joel Selwood: 85
Allen Christensen: 41
Paul Puopolo: 40
Anthony Miles: 39
Trent Cotchin: 34
Lindsay Thomas: 33

Why didn't the AFL change the rules earlier than 2017?
Why didn't the AFL enforce the rule until 2022?
Click to expand...
Well none of those guys went around in media telling others how they've got such a great skill in turning legal tackles into free kicks. And bragging about it, and rubbing their oppositions face in it.

Ginnivan and Weightman just have themselves to blame.

And listening to Collingwood fans cry like Ginnivan is unique. Weightman has copped the same deserved treatment.
 
Duckimus Prime said:
Well none of those guys went around in media telling others how they've got such a great skill in turning legal tackles into free kicks. And bragging about it, and rubbing their oppositions face in it.

Ginnivan and Weightman just have themselves to blame.

And listening to Collingwood fans cry like Ginnivan is unique. Weightman has copped the same deserved treatment.
Click to expand...

It's fair enough that Ginnivan and Weightman don't get frees as that is the rules.

But why did Pendlebury, Walters, Ryan, Fisher and Pickett all get away with it on the weekend?

The AFL have stated that they are not singling out players but it's clear that they are also not applying the rules evenly accross the comp.
 
JyeDye said:
Another one is the in the back free in the tackle. I honestly think this rule should just be scrapped at this point. 90% of them are just the players diving forward. Are we expecting the tackler to deadlift them back up? To let go of them? This one I think should just be removed.
Click to expand...
Agreed, its not dangerous.

Also I don't see why you can't push a player who is running with the ball in the back to throw them off balance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mouncey2franklin
  • Poll
Peter Wright contact with Harry Cunningham: Pleads Guilty and Receives 4 Week Suspension
33 34 35 36 37
Replies
909
Views
18K
OnTheRocks
OnTheRocks
Lingsface
Head high suspensions
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
HairyO
HairyO
QuietB
Novel idea - what if umpires actually paid free kicks for good tackles
Replies
7
Views
677
HairyO
HairyO
Back One Out
Umpire's pets, Most goals from free kicks
2 3
Replies
56
Views
4K
MagpieJo
MagpieJo
theyellowsash
  • Poll
Is all head high contact causing a concussion, regardless of situation or intent, soon going to be a suspension?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
The Royal Sampler
The Royal Sampler
astrowizzle
Not Returning the ball to player after free kick awarded
Replies
17
Views
2K
Vivy
V
Outback Footy
Paul Curtis kicking in danger? Another rule forgotten?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Adelaide Hawk
Adelaide Hawk

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top