Most dishonest players in the comp? Your top 10

[Luv_our_club]

Mate it's not hard to actually google something.

If I came on here and said 'Harry Himmelberg is a way better player than Josh Kennedy and easily the better forward' do you not think at some point someone would point out that one has a heap of Coleman medals and averages 2-3 goals a game, the other barely scrapes up a goal every match he plays?

You want to use some stupid factless opinion to have a ping at the culture of another club, and one of your pieces of 'evidence' was fairly easily refuted, the answer is pretty clear - get better evidence.

Mate, stats and perceptions of umpiring don't go together. Otherwise "free kick Hawthorn" would never have existed.

The stats don't tell you much.

 

[PhatBoy]

Out of Ablett, Danger and Selwood, I have mad respect for Ablett. He wins his own ball and doesn't play for frees. The umpires for some reason however often over protect him. It is not just me who says it = AFL players say it. It is something that great players often get.

How? What protection is this? If he was being protected, he'd be given a heap more free kicks, and he would be penalised a lot less. That's how umpire protection works.

 

[PhatBoy]

Mate, stats and perceptions of umpiring don't go together. Otherwise "free kick Hawthorn" would never have existed.

The stats don't tell you much.

Free kick hawthorn was a myth anyway, I don't have a problem admitting that. It was a total fabrication.

Fact: If a player is getting preferential treatment from umpires and protection from them, they won't be penalised by them nearly twice as often as they are rewarded by them. Particularly when that player isn't exactly a thug.

 

[Luv_our_club]

How? What protection is this? If he was being protected, he'd be given a heap more free kicks, and he would be penalised a lot less. That's how umpire protection works.

The biggest free kick differential over the last decade for a WHOLE TEAM is like 10+ for a single season. And that was rare.

Stats in umpiring are not like other footy stats. They don't often reveal what is going on.

 

[PhatBoy]

The biggest free kick differential over the last decade for a WHOLE TEAM is like 10+ for a single season. And that was rare.

Stats in umpiring are not like other footy stats. They don't often reveal what is going on.

I'd say they reveal plenty when you're trying to make the claim that you are and go almost 2:1 against the player you're claiming gets looked after.

And no, the biggest free kick differentials for a team over a season are closer to 100. The Bulldogs were +92, the Pies +88 just last year. Pies were +111 the year before, Dogs +112 a few years before that. In fact the one constant in FK differentials over the last decade as that Collingwood are always in the positive. Only once in the last 11 years has theirs been negative.

 

[Wojcinski]

Out of Ablett, Danger and Selwood, I have mad respect for Ablett. He wins his own ball and doesn't play for frees. The umpires for some reason however often over protect him. It is not just me who says it = AFL players say it. It is something that great players often get.

Name a single AFL player that has said it and provide the source

 

[Cursed Cat]

Joel Selwood.

Has spent 10 years rolling his shoulders to forced players tackles high. Did it again last week. Even more baffling is how the AFL and umpires have allowed him to do it.

Yeah Selwood should totally just stand still and let blokes tackle him, that'd be the gentlemanly thing to do.
F*ck me.

The onus is on the tackler to execute the tackle without infringing above the shoulders; if Selwood's technique causes the tackler to infringe, stiff s**t, the free kick is conceded.

Been going on for 13 bloody years now, Selwood is not doing a thing wrong in attempting to shrug the tackle. If footballers had an ounce of sense they'd be targeting his hips.

The free kick awarded to Selwood against St Kilda was a free kick every day of the week, every week of the season, every season since the comp began, the dickhead Saints player went high and got him high. Learn to tackle dipshits.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Name a single AFL player that has said it and provide the source

And if I do, what will happen then (think about it, because it could happen)?

 

[Luv_our_club]

Yeah Selwood should totally just stand still and let blokes tackle him, that'd be the gentlemanly thing to do.
F*ck me.

The onus is on the tackler to execute the tackle without infringing above the shoulders; if Selwood's technique causes the tackler to infringe, stiff sh*t, the free kick is conceded.

Been going on for 13 bloody years now, Selwood is not doing a thing wrong in attempting to shrug the tackle. If footballers had an ounce of sense they'd be targeting his hips.

The free kick awarded to Selwood against St Kilda was a free kick every day of the week, every week of the season, every season since the comp began, the dickhead Saints player went high and got him high. Learn to tackle dipshits.

This was in 2017 but the umpires are not enforcing it:

"Under the new tightened interpretation, if a tackle is reasonable and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a "shrug, drop, arm lift or duck, play on should be called".

The AFL interpretation also reads: "if the tackle is not reasonable, a free kick should be paid against the tackler, regardless of the actions of the other player."

 

[Wojcinski]

And if I do, what will happen then (think about it, because it could happen)?

So in other words you made that up too?

 

[Captain_Bender]

Gary Ablett Sr

 

[Luv_our_club]

So in other words you made that up too?

Lol... I'm not fact checking myself for nothing. If you put down stakes I will ante up, but otherwise go fish for it yourself.

 

[Cursed Cat]

This was in 2017 but the umpires are not enforcing it:

"Under the new tightened interpretation, if a tackle is reasonable and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a "shrug, drop, arm lift or duck, play on should be called".

The AFL interpretation also reads: "if the tackle is not reasonable, a free kick should be paid against the tackler, regardless of the actions of the other player."

I disagree that the umpires don't enforce it; Selwood wins plenty of free kicks for Too High, no doubt there - but there are plenty not paid his way, too - either way, the onus is not on Selwood to adjudicate the infringement, as you have correctly pointed out.

The one paid on Monday night was a free kick every day of the week - yes; Selwood tried to avoid getting tackled, but he was bolt upright and whoever the dud Saints player was that tried to tackle him never even started low with his technique, it was sloppy and he was penalized accordingly.

 

[Luv_our_club]

I disagree that the umpires don't enforce it; Selwood wins plenty of free kicks for Too High, no doubt there - but there are plenty not paid his way, too - either way, the onus is not on Selwood to adjudicate the infringement, as you have correctly pointed out.

The one paid on Monday night was a free kick every day of the week - yes; Selwood tried to avoid getting tackled, but he was bolt upright and whoever the dud Saints player was that tried to tackle him never even started low with his technique, it was sloppy and he was penalized accordingly.

Selwood gets tackled on the arm, lifts, and so often gets brushed on the shoulder and the ump rewards him. It is insane. You have might have your goggles on if you don't see that since 2017 every game.

I can't comment on Monday night. Don't remember it, i think i stopped watching because you were too good.

 

[Cursed Cat]

Selwood gets tackled on the arm, lifts, and so often gets brushed on the shoulder and the ump rewards him. It is insane. You have might have your goggles on if you don't see that since 2017 every game.

I can't comment on Monday night. Don't remember it, i think i stopped watching because you were too good.

Sorry mate but your anecdotes mean less than nothing to me (and that post is borderline incomprehensible, at any rate); I'll leave it to the umpires to make the calls.

 

[PhatBoy]

Selwood gets tackled on the arm, lifts, and so often gets brushed on the shoulder and the ump rewards him. It is insane. You have might have your goggles on if you don't see that since 2017 every game.

I can't comment on Monday night. Don't remember it, i think i stopped watching because you were too good.

EVERY player gets rewarded for being brushed on the shoulder though. Believe it or not I actually hate it. Being raised on league, seeing someone penalised for, say, reaching over someone's shoulder from behind during a tackle sickens me. It's not protecting anyone because no one is in danger. However ALL players benefit from it. Selwood gets more free kicks than anyone else because he gets players' arms into that position more than anyone else. But it is a myth that they let those tackles go on other players and call them on Selwood.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Sorry mate but your anecdotes mean less than nothing to me (and that post is borderline incomprehensible, at any rate); I'll leave it to the umpires to make the calls.

1. Anecdote, not "anecdotes".
2. "borderline incomprehensible, at any rate" Is that your best effort at clear and concise communication?
3. "I'll leave it to the umpires to make the calls" Fatuous, redundant, why bother posting in the first place?

My message is: Don't criticize other people's post when you are speaking s**t in a glass house.

 

[Luv_our_club]

EVERY player gets rewarded for being brushed on the shoulder though. Believe it or not I actually hate it. Being raised on league, seeing someone penalised for, say, reaching over someone's shoulder from behind during a tackle sickens me. It's not protecting anyone because no one is in danger. However ALL players benefit from it. Selwood gets more free kicks than anyone else because he gets players' arms into that position more than anyone else. But it is a myth that they let those tackles go on other players and call them on Selwood.

I agree. Most players would get rewarded.

But the rules now say that it matters how the infringing hand gets there, and that's what makes Selwood's free unfair.

I think the contact with Selwood's shoulder is often so light and inconsequential, after his involvement in getting it there, that the umpires should have an easy out and call play on. But they have failed to fulfill their role in the rule change.

This is my last word on the subject. I am repeating myself.

 

[PhatBoy]

I agree. Most players would get rewarded.

But the rules now say that it matters how the infringing hand gets there, and that's what makes Selwood's free unfair.

I think the contact with Selwood's shoulder is often so light and inconsequential, after his involvement in getting it there, that the umpires should have an easy out and call play on. But they have failed to fulfill the role in the rule change.

I actually agree with most of that I just disagree that they adjudge it differently on Selwood than they do on others. The amount of frees that get paid each round to players who literally just cop a limp brush across the neck or face incidentally in the act of trying to win the ball is huge, relative to the actual damage any of those incidents do.

 

[Cursed Cat]

1. Anecdote, not "anecdotes".
2. "borderline incomprehensible, at any rate" Is that your best effort at clear and concise communication?
3. "I'll leave it to the umpires to make the calls" Fatuous, redundant, why bother posting in the first place?

My message is: Don't criticize other people's post when you are speaking sh*t in a glass house.

Um, nice try, but no.
My post was perfectly comprehensible (although evidently you still struggled a bit!); re-read #190 though, if that's the best you can do (and you know what? I reckon you can do better!) then you're going to get some feedback every now and then.
Because sentences like: "You have might have your goggles on if you don't see that since 2017 every game." are ugly to read.

Sorry to have hurt your feelings though brother, have a lil' lie down, maybe when you wake up 2020 will be all over and the Hawks might've tanked their way to a decent draft pick!

 

[peternorth]

Dont have a problem with the selwood tactic. I dont recall that its outlawed (shrugging of tackle so that hand makes contact with areas above the shoulders).
Others mentioned that other players do the same. I dont recall also whether a geelong opponent has executed the same tactic, received the free kick, and simultaneously getting booed by geelong fans for shrugging the shoulders.

 

[Rustin Cohle]

Gary Ablett Sr

Anyone who think umpire are worse now than in the past should watch this video.

 

[elbarton]

Name a single AFL player that has said it and provide the source

I don’t even necessarily agree with the sentiment, but I thought this was pretty well known

 

[Sttew]

It is hard to see how the tackler can avoid his arm going up because that is where Selwood forces it to go. Unless you let go or don't tackle in the first place it is going high.

I think umpires should treat this the same way they treat ducking.

Tacklers are so hellbent on pinning the arms of the footballer. If they tackled around the waist then a Joel Selwood cannot draw high contact by shrugging his shoulders.

You could not possibly expect an umpire to make a split second judgement call on whether the footballer with the ball has shrugged his shoulder and drawn a high tackle or whether it was just a crude high tackle?

 

[Optimistic Dog]

Which ever the Kelly brothers are nicknamed Ned