Duck and Lift!!!

Remove this Banner Ad

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
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.
The insurer still covers League and Union who get head high contact all the time.....Lots of sports don't have high contact rule.
 

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's from the official AFL website:


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.

View attachment 1458555

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.
And the AFL have it wrong. That's why they need to refer to the rule book. Hence the controversy. That release you show totally contradicts the official rules. The spirit of the game always protects the ball carrier
 

JyeDye

All Australian
May 16, 2017
854
2,083
AFL Club
Carlton
And the AFL have it wrong. That's why they need to refer to the rule book. Hence the controversy. That release you show totally contradicts the official rules. The spirit of the game always protects the ball carrier
I show you the official AFL's interpretation of the rules and you are going to say they are wrong?

Please provide the evidence that backs your claims here. Again I will do it for you because unlike many many many people here and in the AFL sphere I have read the rules.


1658975706404.png


I agree the AFL and their rule book is absolute rubbish. It's why they do these interpretation update media pieces. Because their rule book is actually very bland and doesn't state how the rule is interpreted.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Couch Coach

Premium Platinum
Apr 26, 2006
1,386
1,618
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's from the official AFL website:


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.

View attachment 1458555

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.
Yes.

There is no definition of "Reasonably Applied".

The image you have posted shows an Adelaide player with arms pointing downwards and knees bent presumably in an attempt to lower his body and tackle correctly. This is a perfect example of a) tackler doing a good job and b) ball holder dropping therefore play on or holding the ball.

The Redman tackle shows no signs that he is attempting to "reasonably apply" a tackle.
1658725835798-png.1456129
 

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
I show you the official AFL's interpretation of the rules and you are going to say they are wrong?

Please provide the evidence that backs your claims here. Again I will do it for you because unlike many many many people here and in the AFL sphere I have read the rules.


View attachment 1458566

I agree the AFL and their rule book is absolute rubbish. It's why they do these interpretation update media pieces. Because their rule book is actually very bland and doesn't state how the rule is interpreted.
Haven't you just demonstrated what prohibited contact is? Also note, the spirit and intention. The afl have actually contradicted their own rules?? I'm not here to slag everyone off. I just can't understand why everyone wants to blame the ball carrier and not the tackler because their technique is poor or sloppy.....especially knowing what the player may do
 

ThatsjustDappa

Premiership Player
Feb 19, 2011
3,317
4,402
AFL Club
Geelong
Surely a player should be allowed some chance to avoid a tackle. As it's being umpired at the moment, an opponent can target the head and shoulders, and you're not allowed to avoid it. That free kick against Ginnivan they've been highlighting is a disgrace. Whether he's been milking frees in the past or not, this new rule does not protect the player with the ball, and that particular free should never happen. The player with the ball MUST be protected.

There's nothing in the rule book about avoiding a tackle so of course you can do it. If you drop the knees/raise arm and contribute to high contact, then don't expect a free kick so dispose of ball correctly etc...don't just flop and demand it...

And the player with the ball MUST be protected, that's crap...if the player contributes to the high contact, 'protected' no longer applies....doesn't mean however you can keep on wringing his neck after the tackle is applied...
 

JyeDye

All Australian
May 16, 2017
854
2,083
AFL Club
Carlton
Yes.

There is no definition of "Reasonably Applied".

The image you have posted shows an Adelaide player with arms pointing downwards and knees bent presumably in an attempt to lower his body and tackle correctly. This is a perfect example of a) tackler doing a good job and b) ball holder dropping therefore play on or holding the ball.

The Redman tackle shows no signs that he is attempting to "reasonably apply" a tackle.
1658725835798-png.1456129
I've said previously that the Redman tackle was a 50/50 call. I can see the arguments both ways. I personally feel as though the high contact was because Redman's tackling technique was weak. However, Ginnivan sill does lower his knees to initiate the high contact. The AFL I think should provide further clarity on their definition of 'reasonably applied'.

I'm personally fine with that tackle being called high, however, the clip I provided of the Adelaide player should not be high. In that instance the Adelaide player did not have poor tackling technique and instead Ginnivan just rammed his shoulder/neck into his arm. But how do we determine the difference? That's the challenge, so the AFL have just gone with the stance of that all lowering of the knees will be play-on.

Thank you for providing actual substance and discussion instead of the usual whinging going on in here.
 

Spearman

Premiership Player
Sep 15, 2017
3,481
5,345
expatriated in East Asia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Ohio State Buckeyes
Ginnivan probably would have got the free in that instance if he had got his arm earlier in an attempt to deflect or knock away the tackler's. That would have showed an attempt at evasion.
Redman should have been pinged for rough conduct and fined for the extra bit.

Pendlebury has been diving like that, but rarely raises his arm. Maybe Ginnie just took it up a notch. :)
 

anchor man

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2001
2,712
2,191
Success WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dynamic Dockers &South Fr
Surely a player should be allowed some chance to avoid a tackle. As it's being umpired at the moment, an opponent can target the head and shoulders, and you're not allowed to avoid it. That free kick against Ginnivan they've been highlighting is a disgrace. Whether he's been milking frees in the past or not, this new rule does not protect the player with the ball, and that particular free should never happen. The player with the ball MUST be protected.
To most football observers it is obvious that he is NOT trying to avoid the tackle, but drop his knees so that there is high contact.
The umpire have been told that dropping of the knees and arm lifting is play on. The player with the ball should be protected by all means, as long as he plays within the rules. Ginnevan is obviously not, by dropping his knees and lifting his arm.
The continuance of the tackle should have been a free. That is the type of strangle hold after.
What other do, is irrelevant. As someone previously said, when Selwood isn't paid, he at least continues to play on with the game.
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
9,106
10,345
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers, New York Knicks
And Redman does not apply a legal tackle

He cant be expected apply a legal tackle if the person being tackling is deliberately lowering himself to get head high contact.

This is where intent comes into it. It is not Redman's intent to tackle high, it is Ginnivans.
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
9,106
10,345
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers, New York Knicks
Yes.

There is no definition of "Reasonably Applied".

The image you have posted shows an Adelaide player with arms pointing downwards and knees bent presumably in an attempt to lower his body and tackle correctly. This is a perfect example of a) tackler doing a good job and b) ball holder dropping therefore play on or holding the ball.

The Redman tackle shows no signs that he is attempting to "reasonably apply" a tackle.
1658725835798-png.1456129

this is such a bad take on it.

Redman cannot be expected to legally tackle a player who is deliberately lowering themselves to get head high contact.

This is entirely about intent.

It is not Redman's intent to tackle high, it is Ginnivans.

Like seriously Is Essendon supposed to employ Lindsay Thomas as a consultant so we can train for this? its ridiculous. id seriously hope if it was an Essendon player doing his s**t i would not be as one eyed as you are being.
 

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
To most football observers it is obvious that he is NOT trying to avoid the tackle, but drop his knees so that there is high contact.
The umpire have been told that dropping of the knees and arm lifting is play on. The player with the ball should be protected by all means, as long as he plays within the rules. Ginnevan is obviously not, by dropping his knees and lifting his arm.
The continuance of the tackle should have been a free. That is the type of strangle hold after.
What other do, is irrelevant. As someone previously said, when Selwood isn't paid, he at least continues to play on with the game.
What rule is he not playing within? At the start of the year the afl said the umps should have awarded him high frees and suddenly we hear otherwise.
 

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
He cant be expected apply a legal tackle if the person being tackling is deliberately lowering himself to get head high contact.

This is where intent comes into it. It is not Redman's intent to tackle high, it is Ginnivans.
What a cop out. Redman didn't go the hips and came in with a round arm. Is there a rule that says everyone must stand nice and still and tall for the tackler?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
this is such a bad take on it.

Redman cannot be expected to legally tackle a player who is deliberately lowering themselves to get head high contact.

This is entirely about intent.

It is not Redman's intent to tackle high, it is Ginnivans.

Like seriously Is Essendon supposed to employ Lindsay Thomas as a consultant so we can train for this? its ridiculous. id seriously hope if it was an Essendon player doing his s**t i would not be as one eyed as you are being.
U12s are coached to go low. Are the Ess players that incapable of basic instruction....wow, no wonder your last 30 seconds was such a debacle on Sun. Even elementary skills can't be taught now.
Do they all stand around and say....it's not fair, he made it hard for me!
 

HirdsTheWord

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jun 19, 2014
9,106
10,345
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
New York Rangers, New York Knicks
U12s are coached to go low. Are the Ess players that incapable of basic instruction....wow, no wonder your last 30 seconds was such a debacle on Sun. Even elementary skills can't be taught now.
Do they all stand around and say....it's not fair, he made it hard for me!

I suppose we will now blame drivers for running over pedestrians who are crossing the road at red lights.

Lol go low, what a crock of utter s**t. Kids are taught to pin arms. So unless your tackling Gumby you sound like you were taught rubbish football.

There is a reason Ginnivan is copping s**t from almost every clubs supporters in the league, and there is a reason Collingwood are the only ones defending him.

The kids a stager. Your defence of him is not going to change that, if anything its going to make it worse.
 
Last edited:

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
I suppose we will now blame drivers for running over pedestrians who are crossing the road at red lights.

Lol go low, what a crock of utter s**t.

There is a reason Ginnivan is copping s**t from almost every clubs supporters in the league, and there is a reason Collingwood are the only ones defending him.

The kids a stager. Your defence of him is not going to change that, if anything its going to make it worse.
And your analogy is showing how lame your argument really is.
Blame everyone else and sook up when someone beats you.....You can't even frame what a stager is!
 

anchor man

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2001
2,712
2,191
Success WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dynamic Dockers &South Fr
What rule is he not playing within? At the start of the year the afl said the umps should have awarded him high frees and suddenly we hear otherwise.
Start of theyear is not relevant right now.
The rules have changed due to Ginnevens actions of instigating the contact by lowering his body, leaning into the tackler, and raising the arm.
Surely if the player with the ball is trying to evade a tackle, they would move their body AWAY from the person that is going to lay the tackle.
The rules have changed since round one.
 

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
Start of theyear is not relevant right now.
The rules have changed due to Ginnevens actions of instigating the contact by lowering his body, leaning into the tackler, and raising the arm.
Surely if the player with the ball is trying to evade a tackle, they would move their body AWAY from the person that is going to lay the tackle.
The rules have changed since round one.
Do you not think that's a little reactive then?? What competition changes rules half way to any issue that has existed for years??
Seems a bit questionable to me and hence the frustration
 

anchor man

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2001
2,712
2,191
Success WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dynamic Dockers &South Fr
Do you not think that's a little reactive then?? What competition changes rules half way to any issue that has existed for years??
Seems a bit questionable to me and hence the frustration
How long have you been watching the AFL. If you watch on a regular basis, you should know that they change the rules constantly over issues.
I am only guessing here, but are you a Pies supporter?
The rule was changed back some time ago when the likes of Selwood and Shuey etc were doing exactly the same. The rule has no been changed since then.
 

Spearman

Premiership Player
Sep 15, 2017
3,481
5,345
expatriated in East Asia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Ohio State Buckeyes
He cant be expected apply a legal tackle if the person being tackling is deliberately lowering himself to get head high contact.

This is where intent comes into it. It is not Redman's intent to tackle high, it is Ginnivans.
IMHO his intent was to make him earn the free. They are aware of Ginnivan's techniques and its often very hard to instantaneously compensate for them. So I think he just went made it a hard free, like a defended giving an ear massage when they have no chance at a spoil.
Only problem, JG wasn't given the free kick.
 

Maze

Debutant
Feb 1, 2021
66
45
AFL Club
Collingwood
How long have you been watching the AFL. If you watch on a regular basis, you should know that they change the rules constantly over issues.
I am only guessing here, but are you a Pies supporter?
The rule was changed back some time ago when the likes of Selwood and Shuey etc were doing exactly the same. The rule has no been changed since then.
Was it changed back some time ago or this year....the afl have backflipped on this just in last 2 weeks. The 3 illustrations they used were misleading and highly ridiculed. I struggle to take their interpretation seriously when they change week to week
 

catscollector

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 30, 2018
5,966
7,470
AFL Club
Geelong
I'm disappointed Selwood has not commented further on this whole Ginnivan fiasco. It was he who revolutionized the technique and made it an art from. At least acknowledge the kid has nothing to worry about and just keep improving as a player.
 

anchor man

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2001
2,712
2,191
Success WA
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dynamic Dockers &South Fr
Was it changed back some time ago or this year....the afl have backflipped on this just in last 2 weeks. The 3 illustrations they used were misleading and highly ridiculed. I struggle to take their interpretation seriously when they change week to week
It was changed back in 2015, I think. The years that Shuey was awarded a free for a high tackle in the prelim from memory. Cost Port a place in the GF.
But the change had been in place all that year, yet Shuey won the free kick. Caused a big outcry.
The rule was changed this year, or reinforced from what it was when Ginneven began his lean into the tackler, drop the knees and lift the arm.
There had been an outcry about why he was getting frees. The rule was there, umpires were not interpreting it properly. The AFL just reinforced the issue.
It has not been changed from week to week.
Among those that were under the microscope in 2015, was Michael Walters from Fremantle. And it is only , I believ, this year that he has realised that they are not paying him frees for doing it.
And no they haven't back flipped in the last two weeks.
The initial contact, under the rules, was NOT, a free, But the continuence of the tackle was. When Redman continued with his arm around Ginnevans neck it became a free. But not before.
 

Remove this Banner Ad