Honest Teams v Cheating Teams

[Footy_Fan2007]

Yep Geelong have cheated on the ground for 5 years in every game. My god it's funny how people claim to love the game of AFL but in fact know nothing about it at all.

 

[danielnajdek]

Yep Geelong have cheated on the ground for 5 years in every game. My god it's funny how people claim to love the game of AFL but in fact know nothing about it at all.

I find it funny how Geelong supporters can't admit that Selwood lifts his arms to draw high contact and drops his knees to draw high contact.But anyways see ya in round 24.See who's the real team by then

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

I find it funny how Geelong supporters can't admit that Selwood lifts his arms to draw high contact and drops his knees to draw high contact.But anyways see ya in round 24.See who's the real team by then

...no its not as simple and devious as you wish to make it sound.....

...re read simon nesbit's post....selwood plays within the rules...

...and yes rd 24 will be interesting......

 

[danielnajdek]

...no its not as simple and devious as you wish to make it sound.....

...re read simon nesbit's post....selwood plays within the rules...

...and yes rd 24 will be interesting......

yea plays within the rules still think its cheating. annoys me when he gets every free kick yet ball gets sweet nothing

 

[jonbe54]

Selwood has found a way of exploiting the rules, its a shame because it devalues his obviously classy skills but certainly well within the rules.

Blame the white maggots having the imagination of a termite
Blame the rules commitee for having the collective IQ of a frontal lobatomy graduate
Blame the AFL supporting the rules commitee instead of shooting on sight
Above all find someway of getting rid of that rotting mummy Bartlett and his ego

But don't blame Selwood, or Johnson, or any other Geelong player for shamelessly exploiting the grey areas of modern rule making.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Nah, meant something different SJ. I wasn't talking about the "run" they get from the umps (in terms of the ridiculous notion of every game has equals FF/FA).

Scarlett gets away with a hell of a lot on the video replay, but show me a star defender that doesn't?

You'd be hard-pressed to see a free paid and argue it wasn't there (either way), but in the last 18 months or so the Cats have started to be picked up for many of their 'smart bodywork' type plays, and (more importantly) aren't getting as many "created" frees.

What I am trying to say is that Geelong are very good at doing things without getting penalised (eg Ling's arm-bar, Scarlett's wrap-around); and also very good at 'milking' frees (Chapman, Selwood, formerly Bartel's knee-drop). Within the rules/interpretation - not cheating, just smart.

 

[bucksisbest]

With Selwood he plays to attract the whistle when, he is stuffed, the major problem is the umpires have not black banned him like they have other players. For instance Leon Davis finds it very hard to get a free kick, particularly for holding the man as they have him picked as someone who over accentuates contact without the ball.

Some of the free kicks Selwood got last night were far more disheartening and frustrating than the Pendlebury decision.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Selwood has found a way of exploiting the rules, its a shame because it devalues his obviously classy skills but certainly well within the rules.

Blame the white maggots having the imagination of a termite
Blame the rules commitee for having the collective IQ of a frontal lobatomy graduate
Blame the AFL supporting the rules commitee instead of shooting on sight
Above all find someway of getting rid of that rotting mummy Bartlett and his ego

But don't blame Selwood, or Johnson, or any other Geelong player for shamelessly exploiting the grey areas of modern rule making.

...its a moot point whether selwood exploits or plays within the rules...

...surely geelong and its players are not the only shameless exploiters of rules in the AFL...

...its your forum and i thank you for an interesting take on last nights game!......

...roll on rd 24......

 

[jonbe54]

...its a moot point whether selwood exploits or plays within the rules...

...surely geelong and its players are not the only shameless exploiters of rules in the AFL...

...its your forum and i thank you for an interesting take on last nights game!......

...roll on rd 24......

Certainly every team exploits the rules - one of the skills of any league coach is rule exploitation. Geelong and in particular Selwood are at the moment the biggest exploiters. It's not a good look but neither was Bartlett with his staging for free kicks. Nothing illegal from my point of view just not a good look for such a talented player.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

This could all be solved by a simple umpire instruction.

Any player who causes the high contact from an otherwise legal tackle should be called to play on, no free kick awarded.

If a tackle is high in its original instance then it should be a free kick.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

This could all be solved by a simple umpire instruction.

Any player who causes the high contact from an otherwise legal tackle should be called to play on, no free kick awarded.

If a tackle is high in its original instance then it should be a free kick.

...not as simple as that......

...jack trengove would dispute that with his legal tackle on dangerfield......

...dangerfield who is currently killing the GCFC at the moment!......

 

[Pie 4 Life]

How about the boundary throw in where it was punched back over the line in the last quarter and called deliberate right after Selwood put his arms up? Or when Bartel was tackled high (free kick deserved) fell down like he'd been shot. Chapman and Johnson are serial duckers/stagers as well.

It's brought them much success, but its frustrating as all hell.

And yes I know Didak is a stager too, he frustrates me when he does that as well.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The key thing for me (specifically regarding Selwood), is that he plays on, or attempts to most (80%?) of the times he's awarded a free kick.

It reflects the fact that he's looking for a playing advantage, not an umpiring one.

 

[kevind]

I cannot believe the rubbish I am reading today.

What would yuo have selwood do just take the tackle and get caught holding the ball. It is an art and a skill to duck your head and draw a free kick. Selwood is a superstar and there is not one person on this board who would not have him in out team. It is up to the umpire to deterimind if the free kick. Players have been doing it for ever in a day and like all teams we have plenty of blokes who have done it and will continue to do it. How anyone can criticise selwood for this is beyond me.

We lost to a better side who deserved to win. Suck it up and stop looking like a whining bunch of sooks.

+1 and well said.

We were beaten by a side who were far better than us. They could have had the game won at quarter time. Selwood is a star. He beat our blokes to the ball time after time. If they can't tackle him properly, that is our fault, not his.

The subsequent posts on this board after the loss are an embarrassment. Blaming the umpires, the style of play of opponents ect. The people indulging in this just sound like very bad losers. We lost because Geelong played better. It is time to admit it, children!!!!

 

[crownie]

Selwood must be a target player by the pies because the last 3 or so games they have been reckless and over agressive with tackling him. I actually dont notice it as much against other teams but every freekick he got last night was deserved, he must know that extra pressure on him comes with playing against the pies.

 

[The Casey Cat]

This could all be solved by a simple umpire instruction.

Any player who causes the high contact from an otherwise legal tackle should be called to play on, no free kick awarded.

If a tackle is high in its original instance then it should be a free kick.

Agree totally. All this talk of Geelong supporters refusing to concede Joel initiates the contact is rubbish. What we refuse to concede is that he is a dishonest cheat. There is a difference.

IT IS HIS WAY OF TRYING TO BREAK THE TACKLE! Watch the start of the 09 GF if you like. Yes you are all right that in initiating the high contact in trying to break the tackle Joel should not be given a free kick but it's not his fault the umpires don't do there ####en job properly! Is not up to Joel to make it easy for them either but it is his job to try and break tackles if he can so he can dispose of the footy.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

LMAO so your telling us the trainers decided to call for a stretched because Geelong were about to enter their 50 hahahahaha. Bit of a long bow to draw don't you think

Agree. The trainers number one concern would be the player. I doubt very much they would give delaying tactics a thought in an incident like that. Too cynical.



...having said that, and re Selwood: he breaks free often and plays for the free as well. But can anyone tell me how he pins the opponents arms around his neck? Or are there players just slow on the uptake, or so desperate to stop him, they would rather cough up a free than let him stream down the field?

 

[Pie eyed]

Agree totally. All this talk of Geelong supporters refusing to concede Joel initiates the contact is rubbish. What we refuse to concede is that he is a dishonest cheat. There is a difference.

IT IS HIS WAY OF TRYING TO BREAK THE TACKLE! Watch the start of the 09 GF if you like. Yes you are all right that in initiating the high contact in trying to break the tackle Joel should not be given a free kick but it's not his fault the umpires don't do there ####en job properly! Is not up to Joel to make it easy for them either but it is his job to try and break tackles if he can so he can dispose of the footy.

Agree fully.
Pretty much what I have contended all along on the Selwood ducking issue.
Players and coaches will and should take full advantage of such anomalies.

 

[mdc]

...having said that, and re Selwood: he breaks free often and plays for the free as well. But can anyone tell me how he pins the opponents arms around his neck? Or are there players just slow on the uptake, or so desperate to stop him, they would rather cough up a free than let him stream down the field?

The arms often start on the shoulder, and then through his shrug maneuver Selwood causes the arm to slide until it lands on the neck (pic below). Letting go before the head-high contact is good in theory, but I doubt it's possible in reality given how quick it happens.

As has been mentioned, tacklers have to learn to either grab him round the hips and concede the handball or be ready to concede the around-the-head free kick. Not sure most Geelong supporters would agree with The Sim Dog in saying that the umpires should stop paying those frees, but it'd certainly be nice . I'm not holding my breath though, so in all likelihood our players just have to adjust.

 

[Quicky]

I think you would be more successful tackling Selwood if you tackled the arm holding the ball and the hip on the side of the body that wasn't holding the ball. In the above photo pin the left arm and tackle the right side around the hip. It starts gettng a bit more complicated but thats the detail that AFL footballers live in. Should be added to the "Stop J Selwood" dosier.

 

[Bring back Moloney]

+1 and well said.

We were beaten by a side who were far better than us. They could have had the game won at quarter time. Selwood is a star. He beat our blokes to the ball time after time. If they can't tackle him properly, that is our fault, not his.

The subsequent posts on this board after the loss are an embarrassment. Blaming the umpires, the style of play of opponents ect. The people indulging in this just sound like very bad losers. We lost because Geelong played better. It is time to admit it, children!!!!

Thank god for a couple of sensible Collingwood posters!

It's so frustrating to read some of these comments about Selwood. It freaks me out that people saying Joel is a cheat & dishonest & not courageous, and they actually live their lives believing that!

Geelong supporters all acknowledge the fact that Selwood can induce a head high free kick due to his 'shoulder rolling' technique. But what we, and I WILL NOT accept, is that he goes in looking for free kicks on purpose! This is blatantly not true. His sole focus, and ONLY intention is to get the football. His next intention, when tackled, is to BREAK FREE of the tackle. Anyone who claims he's doing it dishonestly is completely ignorant. The fact remains, if the opposition went in harder and got to the footy FIRST, then they wouldn't have any chance of giving away a free.

Collingwood supporters seem to make up 90% of the people complaining about Joel. I think it's time you gave up, it's starting to become pathetic.

 

[Rockford]

It's a question of why he does it. He doesn't effect the shrug and lower his centre of gravity to draw a free kick, he does it to break the tackle (which I've seen him do plenty of times). There has been plenty of times when he'll be awarded the free but he's already broken contact with his opponent and is two steps clear of the contest, in hand.

I've said it before, but I'm all for them changing the rule that the free kick is only given if contact is initiated high. If a player (like Selwood) shrugs the tackle and the contact goes high as a result then it should be play on. That'll leave Joel free to break the tackle on his own merits, run clear and get another inside 50. Then everyone can worship him for the player that he is

Incidentally, not using the same technique, but I noticed Dawes try to "draw" a free kick when he got wrapped up by Chappy. Put his head down on Chapman's chest and burrowed in to him looking for high contact. Had a look and a word to the ump afterwards (I'm assuming because he didn't get the decision). I only really noticed it because it looked ridiculous, Chapman is nearly a foot shorter than him.

 

[kidkenobi]

As someone who watches the cats every week (minus interstate) i have to backup what other geelong fans have said re selwood. it is easy to see him get free kicks for high contact and simply label him a ducker, but without watching him week in week out you don't see the amount of times that through this technique he actually slips tackles all together and is able to break free, and this is what i believe his number one aim is. i'm sure however that if he knows there is a good chance he may also get a free kick if he can't break through, he'll surely see it as even more a reason to do it.

he is not breaking any rules, he never actually 'ducks' his head in which case would give the umpires a reason to not pay a free kick. it's similar to a player diving at another's feet and forcing them to fall on top of them, and then getting a free for in the back/high contact. if the contact is there the umpire doesn't have much choice, and until they make a rule specifically targeting it, it remains a legitimate and clearly effective method of playing the game.

you might not like it, but the same way harry o'brien shepards the man on the mark (which i hate and think shouldn't be allowed) the other teams should get on board and do it too instead of complaining.

 

[jonbe54]

It can't be said enough neither Selwood or Johnson is in any way a cheat, both are fine footballers who play the game hard and tough the way it should be played. They've found a way out of tackles that either works (breaks the tackle) or draws a free from the white maggots. The AFL have become paranoid about any sort of head contact (with good reason) but are also totally incompetent at framing rules.

I think (along with the majority of sensible Geelong posters) that the rule should be enforced as INITIATING high contact only - shouldn't disadvantage either Selwood or Johnson too much because they break most tackles anyway but it will stop the ugly and unnecessary free kick from a high tackle that started out as a legitimate one.

And while they are at it they urgently need to change the laws that stop players from deliberately head butting opponents shins, this is deadly dangerous and at high speed such as in a slide could easily result in a player being killed or turned into a paraplegic not to mention the innocent bloke standing there having one or both knees/ ankles shattered, its only a matter of time before this happens.

 

[shanman]

such incidents should come under the match review committee. If under review it is obvious that a player is initiating contact with their own head or ducking, or dropping - they accrue 35 demerit points. Do it 3 times in a game or over a season you're rubbed out a match and you get a rep as a cheater... watch selwood change his game overnight..

The only problem would be that such a system would be useless in a GF.