Head High Contact - Worth it for a Free Kick?

[Maze]

Nah, great move from the AFL. They should've done it 15 years ago! Since I was a kid the player with the ball did not get a free kick for too high if they ducked their heads. Dropping the knees, shrugging the arms, leading with the head is all just an extension of that. Can't believe anyone can disagree with that, players who duck, shrug, drop the knees are cheats - plain and simple. And yeah that includes players on my team as well.

Hardly cheating. Cheating is when players block and scrag, blatantly breaking the rules. Unfortunately the so called experts that call this cheating call blocking intelligent play...

 

[Spearman]

Adjudicating the arm raisers will be relatively easy. Some, like Ginnie, were starting the raise before the tackler's arm was near contacting.

A harder question is, what about Pendlebury's? He done that exact move before. A couple steps before contact, gathering the ball and going straight toward the side/hip of the tackler. He doesn't actually really go that much lower, maybe a little, and he doesn't really raise his arm. He just makes sure that there nowhere else the tackler's arm could go. I think that if the tackler had ole'd with that arm that Pendlebury would have gone to ground from his motion.
How does that get adjudicated?

 

[Demonic Ascent]

It doesn't matter what team or player. You make the ball your object and get it first, you get all the rights.

Maybe we should remove the rule that players have to bounce every 15m - after all the player who wins the ball gets all the rights. Maybe there should be no holding the ball - after all the player who wins the ball gets all the rights.

What an idiotic chain of thought.

 

[Goosecat]

Maybe we should remove the rule that players have to bounce every 15m - after all the player who wins the ball gets all the rights. Maybe there should be no holding the ball - after all the player who wins the ball gets all the rights.

What an idiotic chain of thought.

LOL, yes you do have idiotic chains of thought.

 

[hawkman]

No they haven't. They've sanctioned high contact and said it won't be paid. It's only a matter of time before a player stumbles/trips/swerves/dodges/shrugs/fends etc etc and cops it high/gets knocked out, with the umps incorrectly adjudicating the ball-getter caused it.
That's only possible because the AFL has introduced a sanctioned high hit exception. They introduced yet another grey area to the detriment of employee safety. Players will adapt and worry even less about getting the ball-getter high knowing they have an out. It is sanctioning high contact and is doomed.

It has been allowed for decades. Players for as long as I can remember haven't received a free kick if they duck into a tackle.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Hardly cheating. Cheating is when players block and scrag, blatantly breaking the rules. Unfortunately the so called experts that call this cheating call blocking intelligent play...

Of course it is cheating. Grabbing the ball and then searching for an opponents arm/body with your head to get a free kick is not within the rules or the spirit of the game.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Unfortunately, the AFL have basically ticked off on poor tackle technique. 30 years ago the waist was tackled, to stop this players deliberately tackle the arms to try and prevent the ball getting out. This now creates the risk of the tackle going high instead of going the midpoint where good tackles should go. Protect the ball player not poor and lazy tackle technique

30 years ago you could flatten someone with a bump and you'd be a hero instead spending the next 6 weeks suspended.

Also maybe Collingwood players were taught to leave the arms free when tackling. It probably explains all the lost Grand Finals.

 

[JyeDye]

Maybe we should remove the rule that players have to bounce every 15m - after all the player who wins the ball gets all the rights. Maybe there should be no holding the ball - after all the player who wins the ball gets all the rights.

What an idiotic chain of thought.

Wouldn't bother. These posters think the player with the ball can straight headbutt someone and that should be their free kick.

 

[JyeDye]

30 years ago you could flatten someone with a bump and you'd be a hero instead spending the next 6 weeks suspended.

Also maybe Collingwood players were taught to leave the arms free when tackling. It probably explains all the lost Grand Finals.

All the posters that disagree with the change all use the same ranty language going on about how they were taught as kids. Nobody gives a * about what you were taught in your under 10's in the 1960s. Can't tell if they are all the same person or there is a particular demographic that doesn't like change.

 

[Maze]

Of course it is cheating. Grabbing the ball and then searching for an opponents arm/body with your head to get a free kick is not within the rules or the spirit of the game.

Maybe you could point out where it is that breaks the rules.....

 

[Goosecat]

Wouldn't bother. These posters think the player with the ball can straight headbutt someone and that should be their free kick.

Wouldn't bother, these posters think the player without the ball can cover their lack of ability to make the play by grabbing something, anything to stop that talented actual play maker from you know, making the play.

 

[Maze]

30 years ago you could flatten someone with a bump and you'd be a hero instead spending the next 6 weeks suspended.

Also maybe Collingwood players were taught to leave the arms free when tackling. It probably explains all the

Of course it is cheating. Grabbing the ball and then searching for an opponents arm/body with your head to get a free kick is not within the rules or the spirit of the game.

Yes your right....of course it's cheating. Stupid of me to doubt it...

 

[Maze]

All the posters that disagree with the change all use the same ranty language going on about how they were taught as kids. Nobody gives a * about what you were taught in your under 10's in the 1960s. Can't tell if they are all the same person or there is a particular demographic that doesn't like change.

Seems that someone has an issue with comprehension.....

 

[FourthTimeAround]

Do I trust the AFL on this? Yeah, I’m still salty.

2017 AFL ruling

2020 Luke Shuey

13

Luke Shuey

Age

33

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.7

5star

K

13.0

5star

HB

10.7

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

4.9

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

18.7

4star

K

10.8

4star

HB

7.8

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.7

4star

CL

4.3

5star

D

17.0

5star

K

9.2

4star

HB

7.8

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.8

5star

CL

1.4

4star

 

[Xtreme]

So, this week will see a plethora of legitimate free kicks not paid for a high tackle. It will be chaos on the weekend.

Chaos or Kaos Get Smart style ?

Tackle the waist and there's no issue. Today's players are soft as butter, they'd be taking "stress leave" if they had a run in with Tony Lockett from the 80s/90s!!!

 

[H00t]

If you try and generate high contact it should be no different than taking on the tackler. Because that’s what you are doing.

If you can break free it’s play on and if not holding the ball.

Makes the ball carrier keep the ball moving whether by handball or kick rather than creating a stoppage situation.

Players are constantly trying to draw high contact or diving forward when tackled to get an in the back. Umps stop paying it and it will stop.

 

[Purple Suit]

Adjudicating the arm raisers will be relatively easy. Some, like Ginnie, were starting the raise before the tackler's arm was near contacting.

A harder question is, what about Pendlebury's? He done that exact move before. A couple steps before contact, gathering the ball and going straight toward the side/hip of the tackler. He doesn't actually really go that much lower, maybe a little, and he doesn't really raise his arm. He just makes sure that there nowhere else the tackler's arm could go. I think that if the tackler had ole'd with that arm that Pendlebury would have gone to ground from his motion.
How does that get adjudicated?

I recon that one is still a free as he doesn't raise the arm. Definitely went lower but they aren't going to just stop paying all head high contact, it'll be the obvious ones or when the player collapses after already being high. I don't think it's going to be an overcorrection into no head high frees, just chopping out 20% that are caused by 2% of the players.

 

[Demon in Hell]

A

There goes Melbourne's chance of going back-to-back

And West Coasts chance of winning another game.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Someone tell Bevo we're gonna be gunning for illegal disposal next.

Bevo blasts AFL over head-high tackle crackdown

The League has flinched under media pressure, according to the Western Bulldogs coach

www.afl.com.au

 

[Toump Ass]

How's Bevo havin' a sook about the AFL cracking down on this, pathetic.
Yeah we get it you've been coaching your players to stage for free kicks Bevo, but too bad.
You should have coached them to play footy instead.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How's Bevo havin' a sook about the AFL cracking down on this, pathetic.
Yeah we get it you've been coaching your players to stage for free kicks Bevo, but too bad.
You should have coached them to play footy instead.

Deep down he knows that is Weightman’s only trick

 

[ozaddy]

Is Bevo that lacking in intelligence to not work out they are trying the stamp out the exact same scenario as he gives Selwood credit for? I reckon any head injuries for players he coaches from now should sue Bevo first.

Sent from my CPH2197 using Tapatalk

 

[Gaspard]

I don't like Ginnivan and I don't like his tackle tactics, any more than I liked Selwood, Puopolo etc in the past. Head high tackles, however, cannot be condoned. The AFL has got itself into an indefensible bind with its reaction. Concussion will be a competition killing issue if a legally defensible response to it can't be constructed. AFL rules are attempting to deal with the various kinds of head impacts with the ground and other players, but so far they have run away from the tackling situation. They have to find a tackling rule regime ( and I don't have one) that protects players' heads. The current mess doesn't do it.

The thinking at present seems to be that blaming and crucifying one player will deal with the problem. It won't. Discussion and direction of umpires have declared open season on Ginnivan. They will successfully remove him from the game, but the problem will remain. As long as partisan half back flank thugs remain in charge of the rules, there will not even be a start to finding a real solution to this existential problem for the game.

 

[zyzzbruh]

If you try and generate high contact it should be no different than taking on the tackler. Because that’s what you are doing.

If you can break free it’s play on and if not holding the ball.

Makes the ball carrier keep the ball moving whether by handball or kick rather than creating a stoppage situation.

Players are constantly trying to draw high contact or diving forward when tackled to get an in the back. Umps stop paying it and it will stop.

Problem is trying to adjudicate what 'trying to generate' high contact is. I agree with ducking the head and the arm raise being a free against because the player is causing the high contact after the tackle. But strongly disagree with dropping the body. Players don't drop the body to win a high tackle, they do it to lower their centre of gravity to make it easier to pull themselves out of a contested situation by turning their opponent inside out. In that situation it is the opposition's responsibility to not get him high. It's almost like arguing that you can't jump at the ball because you are purposely generating contact with a spoilers fist. Copping a tackle to the head and free against because you are trying to weave yourself out of a contest is ridiculous.

 

[Pacman82]

Someone tell Bevo we're gonna be gunning for illegal disposal next.

Bevo blasts AFL over head-high tackle crackdown

The League has flinched under media pressure, according to the Western Bulldogs coach

www.afl.com.au

Bevo's genuinely lost the plot this season.. How could anyone, outside of maybe a one-eyed Cat's supporter in the heat of a close game, stick up for Selwood's sneaky underhanded tactics to draw free's. He has totally lost it this year.