Duck and Lift!!!

[Couch Coach]

The reason it's subtle (don't agree with that though) is because it's not just one action.
It's lowering the hips, leaning toward the tackler, bending the knees, dropping the shoulder, raising the arm and crumbling into the tackler in almost one seamless action.
Head high will rarely happen if these deliberate actions stop.
Redman's action wasn't poor. He was just doomed the moment Ginni sized him up.

As for Fisher, I've addressed that previously in a few posts in multiple threads. I hated it and called him out for it. He seems to have dropped it from his repertoire already.
How would I want it called? Play on. It felt like cheating when Fish got his couple. It would feel worse in a final. I'd rather win on skill and merit.

Completly dissagree.
Who tackles with their arm being nearly perpendicular with his shoulder.

This is a guy with a history as well

Essendon defender Mason Redman has been offered a one-match ban for his elbow to the throat of Richmond's Dion Prestia.

Bomber pinged for dangerous tackle on Bont

Mason Redman gives away a free kick after this tackle on Marcus Bontempelli

www.afl.com.au

And Essendon defender Mason Redman can also accept a one-game suspension, charged with a dangerous tackle on Bulldog Marcus Bontempelli.

Cheap shot: Essendon kicker should have been banned

It’s official: The AFL’s formula for tribunal penalties is a formula for failure, fan frustration and gnashing of teeth from clubs.

thewest.com.au

Cheap shot: Essendon kicker Mason Redman should have been banned.

Oh wait I'm doing this wrong. We only use the history of the guy with the ball and not the tackler right.

 

[Saint]

I hate the Bulldogs as much as anyone I know mainly due to to the pathetic grubs they've had on their list for years now that duck and flop every chance they get - Mclean, Hunter, Weightman, Dunkley (though much less frequent). When even the Doggies supporters are on the side that Ginnivan is a diving hack you know the kids absolutely trying to rort the system.

His first instinct is to put himself in a position so farcical and compromised that if his flopping tactics fail he's no longer able to dispose of the ball because he's swung his arm up above his head to get the tacklers arm to neck level.

You can critique Selwood, Shuey, Hunter, all the usual culprits... Even Harry Mckay at times...but at least these players have a back up plan. Selwood is still always ready to get rid of the ball if he's not paid the free, Hunter will do his best but still a quality player outside of his flopping. Ginnivan doesn't even attempt to play footy, just pick it up and charge head first into the nearest defenders forearm.

If I was his coach I'd never play him again. Utterly embarrassing for Collingwood, a team that's meant to be tough and uncompromising.

I wonder how many of his junior coaches let him get away with putting himself in danger like this?

If I had a junior player doing this regularly, you'd have to tell them to stop, tell their parents they have to stop, and if they don't you won't put them out on the field.

Coaches and team-mates have a duty of care to their players not to put them in harms' way if they're trying to get themselves hurt.

If McCrae hasn't told Ginnivan to cut it out (in fact the club has defended and encouraged it) and he gets concussed they'll be looking at a decent old lawsuit.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

I wonder how many of his junior coaches let him get away with putting himself in danger like this?

If I had a junior player doing this regularly, you'd have to tell them to stop, tell their parents they have to stop, and if they don't you won't put them out on the field.

Coaches and team-mates have a duty of care to their players not to put them in harms' way if they're trying to get themselves hurt.

If McCrae hasn't told Ginnivan to cut it out (in fact the club has defended and encouraged it) and he gets concussed they'll be looking at a decent old lawsuit.

where has the club defended and encouraged it exactly?

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Completly dissagree.
Who tackles with their arm being nearly perpendicular with his shoulder.

This is a guy with a history as well

Essendon defender Mason Redman has been offered a one-match ban for his elbow to the throat of Richmond's Dion Prestia.

Bomber pinged for dangerous tackle on Bont

Mason Redman gives away a free kick after this tackle on Marcus Bontempelli

www.afl.com.au

And Essendon defender Mason Redman can also accept a one-game suspension, charged with a dangerous tackle on Bulldog Marcus Bontempelli.

Cheap shot: Essendon kicker should have been banned

It’s official: The AFL’s formula for tribunal penalties is a formula for failure, fan frustration and gnashing of teeth from clubs.

thewest.com.au

Cheap shot: Essendon kicker Mason Redman should have been banned.

Oh wait I'm doing this wrong. We only use the history of the guy with the ball and not the tackler right.

Thats interesting. You're right. It looks like only one persons "history" is being considered in the matter. Hardly a shock. Oh actually - two people. The people who were blindsided by Matthews defence of Ginnivan want to interrogate his distant past too. Redman is in the clear though

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Completly dissagree.
Who tackles with their arm being nearly perpendicular with his shoulder.

This is a guy with a history as well

Essendon defender Mason Redman has been offered a one-match ban for his elbow to the throat of Richmond's Dion Prestia.

Bomber pinged for dangerous tackle on Bont

Mason Redman gives away a free kick after this tackle on Marcus Bontempelli

www.afl.com.au

And Essendon defender Mason Redman can also accept a one-game suspension, charged with a dangerous tackle on Bulldog Marcus Bontempelli.

Cheap shot: Essendon kicker should have been banned

It’s official: The AFL’s formula for tribunal penalties is a formula for failure, fan frustration and gnashing of teeth from clubs.

thewest.com.au

Cheap shot: Essendon kicker Mason Redman should have been banned.

Oh wait I'm doing this wrong. We only use the history of the guy with the ball and not the tackler right.

So, let me get this straight.

you are trying to paint redman as some kind of cheap shot player when you literally posted the photo that damns ginnivan.

You would be a s**t house lawyer

Player history means nothing. Look at this incident solely on its merits.

Ginnivan quite clearly;

A) Drops his knees. As you can see in the Photo.
B) He drops is shoulder exposing his neck to contact.

If he had done neither of A or B, Redman would have made contact with his arm/shoulder.



You cannot expect a tackler to assume the player he is tackling will stage for a free kick. That is ludicrous.

The intent of high contact is not Redman's, It's Ginnivan who has that intent. he is the one who wants head high contact to occur so he can get the free kick.

 

[WilloTree]

where has the club defended and encouraged it exactly?

Here you go...

"I think it’s a skill, and it forces the tackler to really be on his best game. Is there a rule? There’s no rule against it at the minute.”
Craig McRae

“Dusty [Dustin Martin] does it with an arm, others, Joel Selwood’s made a living out of it, I think it’s smart. It’s smart play.”
Craig McRae

 

[Saint]

where has the club defended and encouraged it exactly?

Pies rally around Ginnivan over free kicks

Collingwood teammates have rallied around Jack Ginnivan amid the furore over AFL players ducking and shrugging their shoulders to win free kicks for high contact.

www.espn.com.au

His team-mates haven't discouraged it, the coach hasn't said he should fix his game. (I'd love to be corrected on this)

I love that any article showing Jack Ginnivan has him with his arm raised, ball in the other hand and no chance of disposal.

It's like it's his only definable ability on a football field, to get the ball, and fall to the ground and raise his arm for a free kick.

When it gets to court and Ginnivan is suing the Collingwood FC and AFL for letting him be paralysed, he'll be quoting team-mates and the lawyers will ask him:
"Did the coach (any of the 5 or 6 coaches) ever tell you to stop doing it, even though the whole world knew you were doing it to draw contact to your neck/head?"
"No, the coach said it was a good skill to have and smart play"

 

[WilloTree]

Go and listen to the greatest man to ever be in charge of your club to learn about how wrong you are.


Leigh Matthews has perfectly summed up this whole farce, no need for further comment.

Always love a good Lethal spray, it's good theatre. But, I don't think we're to believe it's an unbiased opinion are we?

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Pies rally around Ginnivan over free kicks

Collingwood teammates have rallied around Jack Ginnivan amid the furore over AFL players ducking and shrugging their shoulders to win free kicks for high contact.

www.espn.com.au

His team-mates haven't discouraged it, the coach hasn't said he should fix his game. (I'd love to be corrected on this)

I love that any article showing Jack Ginnivan has him with his arm raised, ball in the other hand and no chance of disposal.

It's like it's his only definable ability on a football field, to get the ball, and fall to the ground and raise his arm for a free kick.

When it gets to court and Ginnivan is suing the Collingwood FC and AFL for letting him be paralysed, he'll be quoting team-mates and the lawyers will ask him:
"Did the coach (any of the 5 or 6 coaches) ever tell you to stop doing it, even though the whole world knew you were doing it to draw contact to your neck/head?"
"No, the coach said it was a good skill to have and smart play"

I think its pretty far down the Rabbit hole but if i was the insurance Company i would 100% be arguing it was Ginnivan who put himself in the position to cause damage to himself, it is as clear as day to anyone with common sense that it is Ginnivan intent to get a free kick, that intent is causing the head high contact. Not the tackler.

Staging in the AFL is a stupid thing, people ignore it when they benefit from it but if it is another team than its no punches pulled.

It is the AFL's fault its gotten this far, They never punish staging which the punishments they introduced and staging has been occurring well before Ginnivans entered the chat. it is a complete blight on the game that has allowed to foster because it gets rewarded.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Always love a good Lethal spray, it's good theatre. But, I don't think we're to believe it's an unbiased opinion are we?

View attachment 1458435

Why would anyone listen to lethal in this situation?

Lethal legit knocked blokes out on the field, usually out of play. Yet we are to believe he felt sick and couldn't sleep that Ginnivan didn't get a free kick? ******* spare me. Guys does all he can to remain relevant.

 

[Reg Grundy35]

Always love a good Lethal spray, it's good theatre. But, I don't think we're to believe it's an unbiased opinion are we?

View attachment 1458435

unbiased? like all the other opinions on this mater? lol

 

[Couch Coach]

Player history means nothing. Look at this incident solely on its merits.

Exactly but plenty of others are bringing up other Ginnivan instances so why not others from Redman?

Things like this don’t do Ginnivan any favours for getting free kicks now, he actively runs into Jake Kelly here with a free kick his only intention.

Ginnivan lost his right to be treated fairly when he started ducking and flopping for the first 30 games of his career. Umpires are human. They know that if Ginnivan is caught high then most likely he has caused it due to his history. And fair enough too. In the example against Essendon, he still dropped like a deck of cards and lifted his arm. He would've got the free if he didn't do this but he has programmed himself to do this.

BTW he's only played 20 games.

that was just pay back for Jack running a metre backwards into Redman leaning with his head after Heppel received a free kick at CHB.

Some players do this at times during games, Ginninvan appears to do it constantly. Hes taken the benefit of doubt away. Its his only response to getting tackled.

Joel and Toby and Shuey and Flea and a bunch of others would draw the high tackles at times during games but were genuinely, as their first instinct, trying to break the tackle, they could all also play, win their own balls and show skill. Ginnivan is skilful but seems to only have 1 approach when anywhere near a tackler, accept the head high and expect the free kick. Hes not genuinely trying to break tackles, hes deliberately seeking to draw the high tackle.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Exactly but plenty of others are bringing up other Ginnivan instances so why not others from Redman?



BTW he's only played 20 games.

you are taking the piss.

Redman does not have a reputation as a dirty player, he has been suspended like twice in almost 100 games of footy.

Ginnivan has staged so much that he has built a reputation in less than a season. That is remarkable.

 

[WilloTree]

unbiased? like all the other opinions on this mater? lol

Absolutely. It's great radio - Gerard knew he was getting gold when he asked the question.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

unbiased? like all the other opinions on this mater? lol

You know there are actually unbiased opinions on this topic, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept them. You're balls deep in emotion on the topic and determined to make it an anti-Jack and anti-Collingwood argument.

Let's move passed this one incident and past Ginnivan as the subject.
Let's tick this one off as Jack 100% initiated the first contact, so that part shouldn't have been a free, but Redman 100% took it too far after the initial tackle and that part of it should've been a free.

Now let's look at the issue as a whole.
Players taking a rule designed to protect the head/neck region and deliberately exploiting it by putting their head/neck in vulnerable positions for a cheap free.
Do you agree with it, and how do we fix it?

 

[Maze]

I've done no such thing, but I can understand how you might think so, because you are overly emotional and your comprehension skills in here have been utterly woeful.
How have I painted

The reason it's subtle (don't agree with that though) is because it's not just one action.
It's lowering the hips, leaning toward the tackler, bending the knees, dropping the shoulder, raising the arm and crumbling into the tackler in almost one seamless action.
Head high will rarely happen if these deliberate actions stop.
Redman's action wasn't poor. He was just doomed the moment Ginni sized him up.

As for Fisher, I've addressed that previously in a few posts in multiple threads. I hated it and called him out for it. He seems to have dropped it from his repertoire already.
How would I want it called? Play on. It felt like cheating when Fish got his couple. It would feel worse in a final. I'd rather win on skill and

So, let me get this straight.

you are trying to paint redman as some kind of cheap shot player when you literally posted the photo that damns ginnivan.

You would be a s**t house lawyer

Player history means nothing. Look at this incident solely on its merits.

Ginnivan quite clearly;

A) Drops his knees. As you can see in the Photo.
B) He drops is shoulder exposing his neck to contact.

If he had done neither of A or B, Redman would have made contact with his arm/shoulder.

View attachment 1458416

You cannot expect a tackler to assume the player he is tackling will stage for a free kick. That is ludicrous.

The intent of high contact is not Redman's, It's Ginnivan who has that intent. he is the one who wants head high contact to occur so he can get the free kick.

Once again you ignore the laws. The spirit of the game protects the ball carrier and a legal tackle is above the knees and BELOW the shoulder. History has always put the onus on the tackler. The only time high contact is permitted is shrugging a tackle or driving a head into a stationary player. All this rubbish that it is his fault is irrelevant and those that claim he is cheating clearly neglect players claiming all the grey areas of the game. Appealing for frees that aren't there, playing a ball that's out, blocking players out of the contest. So called do gooders claiming Ginnivan footy is against the spirit don't seem to object to 90% of other players that will get away with whatever they can. Ever seen a player give back an incorrect free?
Before you chirp on....read the rules and understand how badly the afl has handled this

 

[Reg Grundy35]

You know there are actually unbiased opinions on this topic, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept them. You're balls deep in emotion on the topic and determined to make it an anti-Jack and anti-Collingwood argument.

Let's move passed this one incident and past Ginnivan as the subject.
Let's tick this one off as Jack 100% initiated the first contact, so that part shouldn't have been a free, but Redman 100% took it too far after the initial tackle and that part of it should've been a free.

Now let's look at the issue as a whole.
Players taking a rule designed to protect the head/neck region and deliberately exploiting it by putting their head/neck in vulnerable positions for a cheap free.
Do you agree with it, and how do we fix it?

I'm all for a crackdown. I'm just pissed that people have been calling for it for years with some well known exponents given a pass ( and its yet to be proved this won't continue) but a 19 yo beginner gets to be pulverised in the quest to solve that problem - partly because of his actions - and most certainly partly because he dyed his hair, gives it to the crowd and upset people by getting BOG on ANZAC day. He simply doesnt deserve the extent of the pile on he got. Plonkers on here who think they know everything dont matter at all - they are nobodies - BUT the umpires and the AFL and media foghorns like Robbo and Whately certainly do. They are they ones most of the plonkers get their material from.

 

[JyeDye]

Once again you ignore the laws. The spirit of the game protects the ball carrier and a legal tackle is above the knees and BELOW the shoulder. History has always put the onus on the tackler. The only time high contact is permitted is shrugging a tackle or driving a head into a stationary player. All this rubbish that it is his fault is irrelevant and those that claim he is cheating clearly neglect players claiming all the grey areas of the game. Appealing for frees that aren't there, playing a ball that's out, blocking players out of the contest. So called do gooders claiming Ginnivan footy is against the spirit don't seem to object to 90% of other players that will get away with whatever they can. Ever seen a player give back an incorrect free?
Before you chirp on....read the rules and understand how badly the afl has handled this

Probably not best to lecture someone on reading the rules when you don't understand them.

You can argue if you agree with them, or that Ginnivan's drop was enough to warrant the play-on decision. There is grey area, but dropping of the knees is considered play on.

 

[Couch Coach]

Probably not best to lecture someone on reading the rules when you don't understand them.

You can argue if you agree with them, or that Ginnivan's drop was enough to warrant the play-on decision. There is grey area, but dropping of the knees is considered play on.

You forgot the first part.

"Where the tackle is reasonably applied, there is no prior opportunity and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – play on should be called."
"Where the tackle is reasonably applied, and there is prior opportunity, and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – holding the ball should be called."

The tackle needs to be "resonably applied" first.

You can't just go out and intentionally apply a coathanger and then argue about the ball carriers actions.

AFL Head of Umpiring Dan Richardson said: “First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus on duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.” Richardson said.

 

[Maze]

Probably not best to lecture someone on reading the rules when you don't understand them.

You can argue if you agree with them, or that Ginnivan's drop was enough to warrant the play-on decision. There is grey area, but dropping of the knees is considered play on.

The ducking one is 100% incorrect. You can evade a tackle but ducking under the arm. A tackler is NOT allowed to hit you in the head either accidentally or intentionally above the shoulder. I'm not sure what you have taken this from but it's not from the afl 2022 rule book.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Once again you ignore the laws. The spirit of the game protects the ball carrier and a legal tackle is above the knees and BELOW the shoulder. History has always put the onus on the tackler. The only time high contact is permitted is shrugging a tackle or driving a head into a stationary player. All this rubbish that it is his fault is irrelevant and those that claim he is cheating clearly neglect players claiming all the grey areas of the game. Appealing for frees that aren't there, playing a ball that's out, blocking players out of the contest. So called do gooders claiming Ginnivan footy is against the spirit don't seem to object to 90% of other players that will get away with whatever they can. Ever seen a player give back an incorrect free?
Before you chirp on....read the rules and understand how badly the afl has handled this

He is staging for free kicks.

The AFL have Rules for staging and laws against it.

You are only ignoring the laws you want too.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

The ducking one is 100% incorrect. You can evade a tackle but ducking under the arm. A tackler is NOT allowed to hit you in the head either accidentally or intentionally above the shoulder. I'm not sure what you have taken this from but it's not from the afl 2022 rule book.

he is not intending to evade a tackle. His intent is to draw a free kick.

 

[Maze]

He is staging for free kicks.

The AFL have Rules for staging and laws against it.

You are only ignoring the laws you want too.

Staging is totally the wrong description. That is faking for a free when contact is NOT made. Couch Coach sums it up perfectly above, "you have to apply a proper tackle". A proper tackle is a legal tackle which again is between the shoulder and knee.

 

[Maze]

he is not intending to evade a tackle. His intent is to draw a free kick.

And Redman does not apply a legal tackle

 

[JyeDye]

The ducking one is 100% incorrect. You can evade a tackle but ducking under the arm. A tackler is NOT allowed to hit you in the head either accidentally or intentionally above the shoulder. I'm not sure what you have taken this from but it's not from the afl 2022 rule book.

It's from the official AFL website:

AFL clarifies high tackle rulings

The AFL provided clarity on how high tackles should be adjudicated

www.afl.com.au

You forgot the first part.

"Where the tackle is reasonably applied, there is no prior opportunity and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – play on should be called."
"Where the tackle is reasonably applied, and there is prior opportunity, and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a shrug, drop or arm lift – holding the ball should be called."

The tackle needs to be "resonably applied" first.

You can't just go out and intentionally apply a coathanger and then argue about the ball carriers actions.

AFL Head of Umpiring Dan Richardson said: “First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus on duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.” Richardson said.

I completely see where you are coming from, and it's confusing. However, if you look at the video that showcases examples of play-on calls on the AFL website I linked above, they showcase a Ginnivan tackle similar to the one on the weekend.

I believe when they are saying reasonably applied, they instead mean reasonable intentions. So as you said you can't just coat hanger someone. Again, complete grey area, the AFL is a joke about this.



I've tried to take a screen shot at the moment Ginnivan takes contact in that video example. It was still initially high and the AFL are saying that should be play-on. As they say, if a player lowers their knees/head to be responsible for the high contact, it will be called play-on.