How hard is it to see the the tackle doesn't stick till his arms are around his neck. They are running opposite ways and polecs initial touch on him is 1 swinging arm not a tackleLifts the arm, then dives:
Collapsing, charging with your head - the AFL are to blame for this crisis
- Thread starter Effes
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Hawthorn United
Brownlow Medallist
The way Shuey went down, I would've expected a bigger force from Polec's upper body, but there isn't.
Simple physics, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction.
I see Shuey's action, but very little reaction from Polec in terms of force.
Shuey did all he could to win the free kick and ultimately the game. You can argue there's staging involved there too, but that's just another rule they introduced and stopped enforcing.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
- Aug 7, 2013
- 7,938
- 17,011
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Rams, 76's, Brewers
Selwood's 3rd season with 70+ frees and this one came despite only playing 20 games.
That new rule worked a treat.
That new rule worked a treat.
cleomenes
Cancelled
- Nov 18, 2010
- 1,483
- 2,052
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Over the last couple of seasons, the umpiring of head high tackles in general has improved out of sight. The duckers, divers shruggers have mostly been curbed, with only the occasional mistake now. Well done all concerned in the interpretation of the rules in this area.
Aside from a few brief flirtations with a strict interpretation, the holding the ball/ incorrect disposal situation remains unsatisfactory. Failure to penalise players who barge, clutching the ball tightly to their chests, is a major contributor to congestion. More work needed.
The contact below the knees change has been shown to be an over reaction to one nasty injury. This rule should have been left alone.
The interchange remains the biggest contributor to congestion. The AFL has no taste for removing it, and so will continue to tinker with other rules to try to remove some of the effect that interchange has had. Perhaps they could look at reducing interchange players to 2, and allowing more reserves who could come on for injury only. They could be players who remain available to play in the reserves. They don't come on unless a player cannot return to the field.
Shepherding players out of marking contests continues to be a blight. If a player places himself for no other purpose than to keep an opponent from competing for a mark, it is obvious to the umpire and should be penalized. If it were not allowed, the incentive for 7 defenders/5 attackers would be reduced. If the intention is unclear, play on.
The last touch rule, that seems to be clearly on the minds of administrators, should be avoided like the plague.
Aside from a few brief flirtations with a strict interpretation, the holding the ball/ incorrect disposal situation remains unsatisfactory. Failure to penalise players who barge, clutching the ball tightly to their chests, is a major contributor to congestion. More work needed.
The contact below the knees change has been shown to be an over reaction to one nasty injury. This rule should have been left alone.
The interchange remains the biggest contributor to congestion. The AFL has no taste for removing it, and so will continue to tinker with other rules to try to remove some of the effect that interchange has had. Perhaps they could look at reducing interchange players to 2, and allowing more reserves who could come on for injury only. They could be players who remain available to play in the reserves. They don't come on unless a player cannot return to the field.
Shepherding players out of marking contests continues to be a blight. If a player places himself for no other purpose than to keep an opponent from competing for a mark, it is obvious to the umpire and should be penalized. If it were not allowed, the incentive for 7 defenders/5 attackers would be reduced. If the intention is unclear, play on.
The last touch rule, that seems to be clearly on the minds of administrators, should be avoided like the plague.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
the umpiring is getting better but there are still a few players that know how to cheat the system
duckwood, we're looking at you!
duckwood, we're looking at you!
The 10m area of protection around a player taking a kick from a free kick/mark should extend to the player on the mark. I.e. a team-mate to the kicker shouldn't be able to come in and blindside the man on the mark.
cleomenes
Cancelled
- Nov 18, 2010
- 1,483
- 2,052
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Forgot to mention this change in my rules rant. The protection of the area beside a player has been a good change. Related to this is the failure to make the set shot situation fair. I don't believe a player should be allowed to play on if he is granted the extra time for a set shot. He should have to play on within the time a player gets in normal play or not at all. And players who crib angle while the mark is being set should be told to play on. These are fairness things rather than game changers like the congestion rules.
I would like to see the kick reversed in the cases where a player tries to shepherd the man on the mark before play on is called. That would be far better than making the kicker have another go as happens now.
The 10m area around the man on the mark will prevent the shepherder being ready to block him the second the kicker plays on.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
also wouldn't mind a free kick immediately awarded against anyone who swans their neck back, staging for a free.
There goes Gray and Wingard. Just being honest.
