Collapsing, charging with your head - the AFL are to blame for this crisis

[replicant]

What an insipid episode of Whistleblowers this week. No Hayden Kennedy by the way.

Nat: 'So... high free kicks'
Mollison: 'The free kicks were there. The onus is on the tackler. That's how we've been coached. I'm happy with them'

Could've done without the episode then hey?

Whistleblowers is the most useless thing on the AFL site.

Why not just get an umpire on to say "We're happy with that" and end the episode. Don't bother with questions, clips or comments. None of that makes any difference.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Selwood doesn't duck, he drops and shrugs. But am completely happy with any of these things being called 'play on' and it wouldn't affect his contributions or bother me at all.
Puopolo however, would find his goal tally would drop of course!

Couldn't help yourself could you?

 

[JoondalupJ]

North seem to be training to draw the head high free.

Imagine the legal implications if someone was permanently injured!
See http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...s/news-story/d3259b0f1e45f667c8a6b165155f624d

Surely the AFL is now forced to act!

Yep, and that's what their coach said on 360!

 

[romeohwho]

Couldn't help yourself could you?

Haha nope I couldn't. Soz!

 

[djpaulydemon]

The interesting thing here is that the AFL expects the umpires to be able to interpret if the player pushes the arm up or if the player drops to their knees when tackled, yet they believe it should be a free kick for a high tackle.

 

[Last of the Roys]

The interesting thing here is that the AFL expects the umpires to be able to interpret if the player pushes the arm up or if the player drops to their knees when tackled, yet they believe it should be a free kick for a high tackle.

It is interesting what the umpires are directed to do, but they don't really have interpret players dropping to their knees or raising an arm. Simplifying the directions I am sure they just say unless a player ducks or drives with their head then any high contact is paid as a free kick against (so all they have to interpret are those two things - ducking and driving).

 

[Effes]

Interesting Christensen was pinged HTB today when he did his usual move.

Very simple solution to this issue.

Very interesting comments from Alastair Clarkson after the game today regarding Stewart getting a free kick for a high one.

EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS COMMENTS. AFL HOUSE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS COMMENTS

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Interesting Christensen was pinged HTB today when he did his usual move.

Very simple solution to this issue.

I have long believed that if you opt to try and lift the tackler's arm up, you are actively doing something other than attempting to dispose of the ball. So that should be your prior.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Interesting Christensen was pinged HTB today when he did his usual move.

Very simple solution to this issue.

Very interesting comments from Alastair Clarkson after the game today regarding Stewart getting a free kick for a high one.

EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS COMMENTS. AFL HOUSE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS COMMENTS

It's ok, Hawthorn benefitted from it - the league will now seek to outlaw it somehow.

 

[Effes]

It's ok, Hawthorn benefitted from it - the league will now seek to outlaw it somehow.

AC was brilliant. Told the truth. He clearly illustrated what fools the AFL are.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Has anyone else noticed how the commentators will always emphatically say it was the correct decision whenever someone draws a free for buckling at the knees? It's happened twice in the Freo-Bombers game. The Daniher one in particular was as blatant as they come yet they are all trying to say it was clearly the right call and not criticising the players.

 

[Glorious couch life]

To echo Effes - Clarkson's presser after today's game is well worth a look, particularly for those who can't see beyond the advantage their team is gaining by having players drawing frees by directing contact to their head. He neatly summarised the issue, and acknowledged that every club (including Hawthorn) has their share of culprits.
And I thought that by reiterating that North Melbourne are actively coaching players to win free kicks in this matter, he's added a sense of urgency to finding a solution to this.
His comments really highlighted the absurdity of a situation where the AFL says protect the head at all costs, and yet we've got a club teaching their players to play in a manner that will encourage head high contact.

 

[WestCoast05]

but it makes no sense for Lindsay Thomas to be the focal point of discussion here

He has become the focal point not because of the number of high frees (Selwood gets that award, even though he is not the only one who does it), he became the focal point because he took it to the next level in order to draw the free.

I guess him stopping mid-chase and then throwing himself backwards and downwards into the opposing players arms became an ominous symbol to everyone about if this is the start of some players going to ridiculous lengths

I think deep inside, even as a North supporter who wants to back his man (even though I don't agree with that approach), you know it is against the spirit of the game and would like to see this whole staging/ducking aspect of footy burnt at the stake.

 

[Glorious couch life]

Has anyone else noticed how the commentators will always emphatically say it was the correct decision whenever someone draws a free for buckling at the knees? It's happened twice in the Freo-Bombers game. The Daniher one in particular was as blatant as they come yet they are all trying to say it was clearly the right call and not criticising the players.

Happened in today's Haw/Mel game too - from Hawthorn players adopting the tactic unfortunately. Although I really shouldn't expect much in the way of informed commentary when listening to Basil Zempilas and Tim Watson.
It's infuriating at times and I often find myself wondering if these clowns even know what's getting us fans all worked up or they just refuse to acknowledge the issue.

 

[hcd199]

He has become the focal point not because of the number of high frees (Selwood gets that award, even though he is not the only one who does it), he became the focal point because he took it to the next level in order to draw the free.

I guess him stopping mid-chase and then throwing himself backwards and downwards into the opposing players arms became an ominous symbol to everyone about if this is the start of some players going to ridiculous lengths

I think deep inside, even as a North supporter who wants to back his man (even though I don't agree with that approach), you know it is against the spirit of the game and would like to see this whole staging/ducking aspect of footy burnt at the stake.

If I were to accept that Thomas "took it to the next level", that would suggest no-one has ever sought out high contact in that fashion before - as though this is something entirely new/unexpected/different from what we see frequently already from plenty of players. I don't accept that: why, then, was it Thomas who sparked the furore last year too, despite hardly being the only exemplar of such tactics? That suggests to me the "next level" argument has come about after-the-fact; that's not why he's being singled out...

"Spirit of the game" is a very malleable phrase, and I'm not sure seeking out free kicks is necessarily contrary to it - it's not controversial to try and knock the ball into an opponent's foot near the boundary to get an out on the full free, for instance - but I would agree that it's undesirable for players to seek out high contact (especially given it makes a mockery of the very "head is sacrosanct" idea that the rule promotes), and that, if possible, the rules of the game ought to be changed to further discourage such actions. What I don't agree with is Lindsay Thomas being presented as anything more than one of many players in the league who currently employs a particular tactic; sure, he does it, and I don't like that he does it, but my point is about equal treatment (by media, supporters, &c.), not trying to suggest Thomas isn't "culpable" here.

 

[WestCoast05]

If I were to accept that Thomas "took it to the next level"

Yes of course how of silly me.
Funny how the commentators, AFL 360, On the Couch and from what I saw the majority of the non-North Melbourne got it so wrong, we're lucky to have you to shed the light on the issue.

It has become a major issue and it should come as no surprise when someone goes overboard with a duck that player may just have a spotlight thrown on them during the week's discourse of footy. And I say good. Hopefully the reaction causes some players to rethink the way they go about their footy. Who knows maybe it will be Luke Shuey's turn one of these weeks to draw that attention on to themself.

And of course it is going to be the non-objective supporters of whichever teams player ends up in the spotlight who become the enablers and bemoan that focus has been unduly placed in the name "but-miss-he-was-talking-too!".
The thing is though, I find more ppl bemoaning Selwood in this area, not Lindsay, and then just as yourself non-objective Geelong supporters come out to say that there is nothing to see here, move along.

 

[HairyO]

AC was brilliant. Told the truth. He clearly illustrated what fools the AFL are.

He criticised the AFL. i wouldnt be surprised if they investigate him and give him a $5k fine.

Other than that it was brilliant and insightful and nailed it exactly.

 

[hcd199]

Yes of course how of silly me.
Funny how the commentators, AFL 360, On the Couch and from what I saw the majority of the non-North Melbourne got it so wrong, we're lucky to have you to shed the light on the issue.

It has become a major issue and it should come as no surprise when someone goes overboard with a duck that player may just have a spotlight thrown on them during the week's discourse of footy. And I say good. Hopefully the reaction causes some players to rethink the way they go about their footy. Who knows maybe it will be Luke Shuey's turn one of these weeks to draw that attention on to themself.

And of course it is going to be the non-objective supporters of whichever teams player ends up in the spotlight who become the enablers and bemoan that focus has been unduly placed in the name "but-miss-he-was-talking-too!".
The thing is though, I find more ppl bemoaning Selwood in this area, not Lindsay, and then just as yourself non-objective Geelong supporters come out to say that there is nothing to see here, move along.

I'm not denying that playing to get high frees "has become a major issue", but if you're suggesting no player has ever done what Thomas did on Friday night, you're kidding yourself. If it's all about the specific incident and not the player, why was Thomas in the spotlight last year, prompting a rule change which seemingly only stifled his free kick count (0 frees in his next month of football)? Why wasn't there this same level of furore when, say, Mathieson received three times as many frees for high contact as Thomas had at that stage in just his first game (yes, it sparked some discussion on this forum, but in the wider media)?

I hardly see how drawing attention to the undue singling-out of a player amounts to being an "enabler", especially since I'm not denying that Thomas has employed the tactics, nor claiming that it's desirable for him to do so. But for some strange reason, Thomas seems to attract disproportionate attention for his actions on the field (even beyond receiving high frees - the suspension for a high tackle in Round 6 this year, despite other players having done similarly with no sanction, is but one example), and I don't see what the problem is with calling people out on that.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Unfortunately hcd199, Thomas is (in part) subject to the almost absolute lack or original thought in the media.

Whilst as an individual I might dislike Selwood's actions, HATE Schuey's efforts, find Lindsay's flopping troublesome, laugh at the absurdity of Puopolo getting no reward for "ducking" a tackle from a player two foot taller, be embarrassed at Lewis' pathetic attempting to win a free, or recently the ridiculousness of Mathiewson, Christensen, that Bulldog kid, Thomas' "reversing duck" this week and even our debutant Stewart (which was an umpire mistake - they are not paying the head-charge anymore) - the "story" is constantly changing in my mind.

For most of the members of our "esteemed" Media, new thoughts are all but impossible. It's "safe" to follow the group think, to look for incidents that reinforce a stereotype or previous discussion, than to propose new ideas.

The community backlash against Selwood and his "creation" of free kicks took a LONG time to be commented on in the media - by then he was marketed as a Champion, established as a "Positive" story and the dissenting voice was drowned out as heresy.

Chapman and his head-charge, Bartel and his knee-drop 'in-the-back', Selwood and his arm-raise - All three were called out eventually, and the first two have now been "interpreted" against (to varying effect). It is only a matter of time until the same interpretation is applied to all contact.

Some commentators (Dunstall, Brereton, Whately on ABC, early Richo, early Ling, early Lloyd) have all offered up dissenting opinions in their commentary/media shows. What I find sad is the dissenting/"new" voices in special match-day commentary have been influenced by "BT" and his backup crew drowning out any new, creative or challenging thought.

 

[Rob]

Interesting Christensen was pinged HTB today when he did his usual move.

Very simple solution to this issue.

Very interesting comments from Alastair Clarkson after the game today regarding Stewart getting a free kick for a high one.

EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS COMMENTS. AFL HOUSE SHOULD LISTEN TO HIS COMMENTS

Yep, what gives him extra credibility is he used an example of one of his own players ducking for frees as what shouldn't be paid. It makes a change from coaches only complaining about it when they lose because their opponents milked frees.

One day a light bulb is going to go off at AFL house....'hey, do you reckon we're encouraging high contact by paying all these frees?'

 

[Thewlis Dish]

I found Clarko's comments a little strange and obviously intended to deflect blame from his own player. The AFL brought in a rule several seasons ago where if a player deliberately leads with his head/ducks into a tackle, that is his prior and it's holding the ball. The umpire just didn't correctly adjudicate that particular incident correctly, which was almost the textbook example of what is holding the ball.

If he is talking about players dropping at the knees and lowering their body into a tackle, that is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with leading with the head.

 

[Effes]

Has anyone else noticed how the commentators will always emphatically say it was the correct decision whenever someone draws a free for buckling at the knees? It's happened twice in the Freo-Bombers game. The Daniher one in particular was as blatant as they come yet they are all trying to say it was clearly the right call and not criticising the players.

There are so many sycophants in the commentary ranks.

 

[Rob]

I found Clarko's comments a little strange and obviously intended to deflect blame from his own player. The AFL brought in a rule several seasons ago where if a player deliberately leads with his head/ducks into a tackle, that is his prior and it's holding the ball. The umpire just didn't correctly adjudicate that particular incident correctly, which was almost the textbook example of what is holding the ball.

If he is talking about players dropping at the knees and lowering their body into a tackle, that is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with leading with the head.

The question should be why that is considered to be a different issue? Surely if you lower your head by dropping your knees that's the same as lowering your head by bending your hips? What's the difference?

 

[Thewlis Dish]

The question should be why that is considered to be a different issue? Surely if you lower your head by dropping your knees that's the same as lowering your head by bending your hips? What's the difference?

Well I mean in the context of his comments - he specifically mentioned players leading with their heads and the potential to get hurt, and used it to take a shot at the AFL, who brought in a rule to penalise exactly that practice 2-3 years ago.

If he is saying the rule should extend to players dropping at the knees = prior opportunity, then great. I think that would be a nightmare to umpire though because half of the free kicks we see for this practice are as much due to poor tackling technique.

I am all for finding ways to eradicate this sort of thing, but can guarantee any sort of drastic action would just lead to tackling being more reckless and likely cause even more potential for harm. The onus should still be on the tackler 90% of the time.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

The question should be why that is considered to be a different issue? Surely if you lower your head by dropping your knees that's the same as lowering your head by bending your hips? What's the difference?

Well I mean in the context of his comments - he specifically mentioned players leading with their heads and the potential to get hurt, and used it to take a shot at the AFL, who brought in a rule to penalise exactly that practice 2-3 years ago.

If he is saying the rule should extend to players dropping at the knees = prior opportunity, then great. I think that would be a nightmare to umpire though because half of the free kicks we see for this practice are as much due to poor tackling technique.

I am all for finding ways to eradicate this sort of thing, but can guarantee any sort of drastic action would just lead to tackling being more reckless and likely cause even more potential for harm. The onus should still be on the tackler 90% of the time.