Head High Contact - Worth it for a Free Kick?

[Purple Suit]

Btw in your first paragraph you mentioned precisely the exact reason to raise your arms, then proceeded to contradict yourself and say there is no reason.

You're admitting it takes superior prejudgment and skill to pull it off. So that means you're basically saying you are not allowed to be better and smarter than your opponent if what you are doing screws with your opponent's ability to deal with you.

If you choose to lay a tackle around the elbows then it's your responsibility to make sure you hit the tackle tight enough that they can't swing the arms up. If you're incapable of doing that because you're weak as piss or have s**t aim then don't tackle because you will end up tackling his head. It's the tacklers responsibility end of story. No one's forcing them to lay the tackle.

I'm admitting that they are playing for free kicks, including Selwood. This crap that they are just evading the tackle is bullshit, they are trying to get a free kick by duping the umpire and watch it disappear with the new rule.

Being a scammer or con artist takes skill too but it doesn't make it right, the same logic applies to players who's intent is to draw a head high free kick.

I believe the going low is going to be very hard to judge and think it should be umpired similar to how it was a few weeks ago. The arm lift is obvious and if you're shrugging the tackle so it turns into high contact then you are contributing to the issue of concussions etc and shouldn't be rewarded. It will not prevent the player from shaking the tackle and getting off a handpass if they are good enough, exactly what happens if a player decides to duck under a tackle atm.

 

[zyzzbruh]

I'm admitting that they are playing for free kicks, including Selwood. This crap that they are just evading the tackle is bullshit, they are trying to get a free kick by duping the umpire and watch it disappear with the new rule.

Being a scammer or con artist takes skill too but it doesn't make it right, the same logic applies to players who's intent is to draw a head high free kick.

I believe the going low is going to be very hard to judge and think it should be umpired similar to how it was a few weeks ago. The arm lift is obvious and if you're shrugging the tackle so it turns into high contact then you are contributing to the issue of concussions etc and shouldn't be rewarded. It will not prevent the player from shaking the tackle and getting off a handpass if they are good enough, exactly what happens if a player decides to duck under a tackle atm.

You're not admitting anything, you're guessing.

Only seeing what you're choosing to see. If you actually watched Selwood play a full game you'd notice him breaking free of tackles by lowering his body constantly. The freekicks are only occasional. Coincidence that he's able to break most of em even though he apparently does it only to win a freekick?... Ah looks like it not easy to tell what a players intent is Afterall..

 

[Hoops]

It's fascinating that one player can make a career out of it and another player can't play more than 20 games before getting targetted about it.

View attachment 1456175
View attachment 1456177
View attachment 1456178

Thanks for that. Showed how Selwoods shrug is about breaking the tackle whereas Ginnivan falls in to the tackle to draw a free.

 

[PieLebo87]

This s**t needs to stop. No amount of antagonism warrants this kid being put in a chokehold multiple times in a season, x2 v Cats and x1 v Essendon. Not directing the hate towards the players, but the AFL/umpires who’s job is to protect the players out there.

The Ginnivan haters will say he deserves it and it’s a childish response because no matter what he does, he shouldn’t be copping this s**t out in a professional sporting arena in a national competition.

I refuse to believe not 1 of the 3 officiating umpires didn’t see this happen 1-2 metres away from Dangerfield with the footy.

Imagine this was done to a Docherty or Cunnington and see if the reactions would be different.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

View attachment 1499183

This s**t needs to stop. No amount of antagonism warrants this kid being put in a chokehold multiple times in a season, x2 v Cats and x1 v Essendon. Not directing the hate towards the players, but the AFL/umpires who’s job is to protect the players out there.

The Ginnivan haters will say he deserves it and it’s a childish response because no matter what he does, he shouldn’t be copping this s**t out in a professional sporting arena in a national competition.

I refuse to believe not 1 of the 3 officiating umpires didn’t see this happen 1-2 metres away from Dangerfield with the footy.

Imagine this was done to a Docherty or Cunnington and see if the reactions would be different.

Agree totally but it’s not just him. The AFL have officially made above shoulder cintact legal.
Head high contact is now rife in the sport and the AFL have trained their sheep so well not a word is spoken about it.
It’s a disgrace.

 

[PieLebo87]

Agree totally but it’s not just him. The AFL have officially made above shoulder cintact legal.
Head high contact is now rife in the sport and the AFL have trained their sheep so well not a word is spoken about it.
It’s a disgrace.

It’s very, very dangerous. It’s now common for players to drop the head and not receive the free. You either have to penalise the player for dropping the head, or reward that player with a high free. That’s the only way they’ll stop it. Not by simply calling play on. I initially interpreted the rule change where dropping the head was deemed as prior opportunity, but it’s not being officiated that way.

 

[Maddo11]

View attachment 1499183

This s**t needs to stop. No amount of antagonism warrants this kid being put in a chokehold multiple times in a season, x2 v Cats and x1 v Essendon. Not directing the hate towards the players, but the AFL/umpires who’s job is to protect the players out there.

The Ginnivan haters will say he deserves it and it’s a childish response because no matter what he does, he shouldn’t be copping this s**t out in a professional sporting arena in a national competition.

I refuse to believe not 1 of the 3 officiating umpires didn’t see this happen 1-2 metres away from Dangerfield with the footy.

Imagine this was done to a Docherty or Cunnington and see if the reactions would be different.

Show the full incident instead of cherry picking stills.

2e gets Ginni around the shoulder, then Ginni grabs 2es arm and drags it high, then rolls about with his arms out looking for the ump




Yes the high contact rules might be borked at the moment but flopping about for frees instead of trying to get the ball doesn't help the umps

 

[PieLebo87]

Show the full incident instead of cherry picking stills.

2e gets Ginni around the shoulder, then Ginni grabs 2es arm and drags it high, then rolls about with his arms out looking for the ump


View attachment 1499224

Yes the high contact rules might be borked at the moment but flopping about for frees instead of trying to get the ball doesn't help the umps

I honestly don’t have the above footage. I’ve seen and commented and shared the stills from the Collingwood board.

As discussed elsewhere, Tuohy had every opportunity to not follow through, but he didn’t as a form of ‘punishment’ to Ginnivan.

I’m not sitting here calling Ginnivan innocent, but surely you acknowledge he’s being unfairly targeted as has now been seen in 3 different instances, starting with Round 3.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Show the full incident instead of cherry picking stills.

2e gets Ginni around the shoulder, then Ginni grabs 2es arm and drags it high, then rolls about with his arms out looking for the ump


View attachment 1499224

Yes the high contact rules might be borked at the moment but flopping about for frees instead of trying to get the ball doesn't help the umps

Playing for frees has always been a bad look, but it doesn’t change that it’s still a free the majority of the time.

There are no rules in AFL anymore. We have just seen 4 cracking finals and that’s awesome but the reality is that probably 100 blatant free kicks were missed or just simply ignored. I am all for letting the game go but if you do that then you must let everything go. Some of the head high contact not paid was quite disturbing.

The head is far from sacrosanct in the AFL, just miles away.

 

[nylexbandit]

I think they just need to start aggressively fining people on Mondays for trying to milk frees. $500 first offence and double thereafter through the season.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I think they just need to start aggressively fining people on Mondays for trying to milk frees. $500 first offence and double thereafter through the season.

No they have to pay head high contact and stop rewarding poor tackling. By deciding that the player with the ball causes head high contact then you have decided that head high contact is legal.

 

[nylexbandit]

No they have to pay head high contact and stop rewarding poor tackling. By deciding that the player with the ball causes head high contact then you have decided that head high contact is legal.

Head high contact is legal in certain circumstances. Happy for them to pay it and then fine the guy on Monday and keep fining. Ginnivan would be paying to play by this point as an example

 

[PieLebo87]

No they have to pay head high contact and stop rewarding poor tackling. By deciding that the player with the ball causes head high contact then you have decided that head high contact is legal.

I’ve said this from the get go. No matter what players do to win a high free, the onus should always be on the tackler not to be caught out. The tackler is the one who is laying the damn tackle in the first place.

Wanna play it safe? Tackle the hips. Wanna try and pin them and get a HTB free, you’re running the risk of getting them high/exploited.

That would’ve been a smarter way for the AFL to go about it. All they’ve done now is opened a Pandora’s box of mess.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I’ve said this from the get go. No matter what players do to win a high free, the onus should always be on the tackler not to be caught out. The tackler is the one who is laying the damn tackle in the first place.

Wanna play it safe? Tackle the hips. Wanna try and pin them and get a HTB free, you’re running the risk of getting them high/exploited.

That would’ve been a smarter way for the AFL to go about it. All they’ve done now is opened a Pandora’s box of mess.

Could not agree more

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Head high contact is legal in certain circumstances. Happy for them to pay it and then fine the guy on Monday and keep fining. Ginnivan would be paying to play by this point as an example

Here is the problem, I am running after the ball and you are scragging me from behind and eventually grab my jumper. I have to play for the free because the idiot umpire is not penalising you for grabbing my jumper. And this occurs in numerous circumstances. It’s got worse because umpires let things go more now instead of simply paying the free kick.
Without the ball is another rule not paid. Pay it and players will stop grabbing their opponents who don’t have the ball.
They just complicate it for no reason.

 

[PieLebo87]

Here is the problem, I am running after the ball and you are scragging me from behind and eventually grab my jumper. I have to play for the free because the idiot umpire is not penalising you for grabbing my jumper. And this occurs in numerous circumstances. It’s got worse because umpires let things go more now instead of simply paying the free kick.
Without the ball is another rule not paid. Pay it and players will stop grabbing their opponents who don’t have the ball.
They just complicate it for no reason.

Gamesmanship is at an all time high. The AFL, instead of just officiating the rules and stamping this out, are too busy creating new rules and confusing the F out of everyone and the umpires.

Remember the whole taking the ball out of the ruck and incorrectly disposing was an automatic HTB free? Now rucks are able to take it out of the ruck and simply drop it whilst being tackled and it’s never HTB.

Or the hands in the back being an automatic free? Backtracked on that fairly quickly.

If you’re watching the AFL with absolutely zero vested interest and didn’t actually barrack for any footy clubs, you’d be laughing, shaking your head and walking away.

The only thing they’ve actually done alright which has made the game more bearable to watch is the 6/6/6, and the ability to play on from a kick out for a faster transition. To an extent the stand rule is good in theory but even that they can’t even get right with silly 50s being paid far too often.

 

[Spearman]

Gamesmanship is at an all time high. The AFL, instead of just officiating the rules and stamping this out, are too busy creating new rules and confusing the F out of everyone and the umpires.

Remember the whole taking the ball out of the ruck and incorrectly disposing was an automatic HTB free? Now rucks are able to take it out of the ruck and simply drop it whilst being tackled and it’s never HTB.

Or the hands in the back being an automatic free? Backtracked on that fairly quickly.

If you’re watching the AFL with absolutely zero vested interest and didn’t actually barrack for any footy clubs, you’d be laughing, shaking your head and walking away.

The only thing they’ve actually done alright which has made the game more bearable to watch is the 6/6/6, and the ability to play on from a kick out for a faster transition. To an extent the stand rule is good in theory but even that they can’t even get right with silly 50s being paid far too often.

This is why, once the novelty wears off, Aussie Footy won't grow internationally. Too many WTFs about why a penalty was called or not. An outside wouldn't have a clue.

 

[PieLebo87]

This is why, once the novelty wears off, Aussie Footy won't grow internationally. Too many WTFs about why a penalty was called or not. An outside wouldn't have a clue.

Imagine watching and playing it your whole life and having a puzzled WTF looks during games.

This shouldn’t happen. Generally, when you get a WTF moment, it’s around a foul/penalty that everyone knows about which a ref may’ve gotten wrong with that infringement.

With our game, you get frees where even the commentators are genuinely confused. We’ve added far too many layers to the rules that it’s legitimately open to so many different interpretations.

 

[nylexbandit]

Here is the problem, I am running after the ball and you are scragging me from behind and eventually grab my jumper. I have to play for the free because the idiot umpire is not penalising you for grabbing my jumper. And this occurs in numerous circumstances. It’s got worse because umpires let things go more now instead of simply paying the free kick.
Without the ball is another rule not paid. Pay it and players will stop grabbing their opponents who don’t have the ball.
They just complicate it for no reason.

Agree 100%. They should just pay what is there and penalise players who take advantage by faking/accentuating

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

There are no rules in AFL anymore. We have just seen 4 cracking finals and that’s awesome but the reality is that probably 100 blatant free kicks were missed or just simply ignored. I am all for letting the game go but if you do that then you must let everything go. Some of the head high contact not paid was quite disturbing.

Could you imagine if umpires started umpiring from the book these days? The whistle would be blown every 5 seconds. Every "handball" these days is a throw, according to the written rule, every ruck contest is illegal, etc, and it goes on. A mutant form of the rules made possible by continual "interpretations" rather than strict adherence.

 

[Bianconeri]

Could you imagine if umpires started umpiring from the book these days? The whistle would be blown every 5 seconds. Every "handball" these days is a throw, according to the written rule, every ruck contest is illegal, etc, and it goes on. A mutant form of the rules made possible by continual "interpretations" rather than strict adherence.

Eventually the players would adapt to the whistle stop conceding so many free kicks and the game would be more free flowing as a result.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Could you imagine if umpires started umpiring from the book these days? The whistle would be blown every 5 seconds. Every "handball" these days is a throw, according to the written rule, every ruck contest is illegal, etc, and it goes on. A mutant form of the rules made possible by continual "interpretations" rather than strict adherence.

Within almost one week the coaches would address it and tell their players to stop breaking the rules. At the moment you can break the rules and pretty much no chance you will get pinged.
But the problem now is one guy does get pinged every now and again and the ramifications can be huge. I don’t want a GF result hinge on a free kick that should of been paid 40 times in the match but was only paid once or twice and a team wins a flag because of it.

I said 2 years ago when they started to blame the player with the ball for head high contact that it will end up a problem, it is a problem already.
Holding the man is a problem.
Goals from 50m penalties applied to players who did not interfere is a problem.

Like I said we had 4 great finals which let’s face it was not a regular occurrence. But make up your mind, either no free kicks at all, or play to the laws of the game.

 

[Wojcinski]

Show the full incident instead of cherry picking stills.

2e gets Ginni around the shoulder, then Ginni grabs 2es arm and drags it high, then rolls about with his arms out looking for the ump


View attachment 1499224

Yes the high contact rules might be borked at the moment but flopping about for frees instead of trying to get the ball doesn't help the umps

Should have been a free kick to Tuohy for holding the man

 

[Demons09]

Why has Ginni avoided suspension for the chicken wing tackle?

 

[Maddo11]

Why has Ginni avoided suspension for the chicken wing tackle?

Same reason Harmes got off; he's a ViF