No high frees when player with the ball is responsible for the high contact

Kane McGoodwin

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2001
Posts
49,523
Likes
38,516
Location
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
And the new rule is stupid and encourage a rolling maul **** fest, and the umpires won't even adjudicate it properly. Its the tacklers fault for not tackling good enough that's why players can milk frees. Instead of appeasing to weak tackling the tacklers should just get better.

So which one am I?


Not if you strong enough keep their hands down, if you aren't then its your fault you're not strong enough if they dispose the ball. Again a rule to help weak tacklers, and tackling isthe main factor in the rolling mau, so its going to have a negative on the brand of footy being played.
What has the new rule got to do with weak tackling?

It's addressing weak milking of fees, most of which have come about even though the tackling player has good technique & would have had a fair tackle if not for the tackled player's number 1 priority to drop for a free kick.

Other sports have too much acting & the AFL should be commended for addressing this blight on the game.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
And the new rule is stupid and encourage a rolling maul **** fest, and the umpires won't even adjudicate it properly. Its the tacklers fault for not tackling good enough that's why players can milk frees. Instead of appeasing to weak tackling the tacklers should just get better.

So which one am I?


Not if you strong enough keep their hands down, if you aren't then its your fault you're not strong enough if they dispose the ball. Again a rule to help weak tacklers, and tackling isthe main factor in the rolling mau, so its going to have a negative on the brand of footy being played.
Tacklers tackle exactly how they are trained to.

All you've done is show you have a very tenuous grasp on physiology, movement science and football coaching. Tackling higher makes it incredibly difficult to get your arms free to dispose. That's why it's coached that way. Tackling to "keep their hands down" is impossible to do. If you tackle lower, you need to drag their arms in. Players are trained to raise their arms to keep them free. If you're tackling forearms you're going to have to drag their forearms down from head height or above, which is easy to break, or more likely to cause head high contact

You sound about as so switched on as one of KBs rants to get people listening to his show. Somehow tackling the forearm would prevent rolling mauls but tackling the upper arm causes a rolling maul.

As I said, you can tell the people who's only interaction with the game is from their sofa. Maybe get off the couch and engage in some physical activity and sport
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
No you don't. You tackle low they easily dispose.
Wow!! So you want them to tackle higher which can of course lead to even higher contact and still not want the player with the ball protected.
I agree with Mike123, it's a rule for the weak. There is tackle after tackle made in our game, many stick and others don't. The ones that don't simply cannot be allowed to go high because the player tackling is not strong enough to pin the arms. I mean how strong do you think these guys like Selwood are? They have a guy who has pinned both their arms and they just raise one arm and the tackle goes high.....
Bloody supermen these guys.
 

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,618
Likes
23,029
AFL Club
Collingwood
Tacklers tackle exactly how they are trained to.
They're obviously not trained properly then.

All you've done is show you have a very tenuous grasp on physiology, movement science and football coaching. Tackling higher makes it incredibly difficult to get your arms free to dispose. That's why it's coached that way. Tackling to "keep their hands down" is impossible to do.
No its not, if you're strong enough you can do it, if you're not can't. The only people showing they very tenuous grasp on physiology, movement science and football coaching are the people for this rule.

If you tackle lower, you need to drag their arms in. Players are trained to raise their arms to keep them free. If you're tackling forearms you're going to have to drag their forearms down from head height or above, which is easy to break, or more likely to cause head high contact
So, It how it should be. The player with the ball should hold the cards and have the advantage not the tackler.

You sound about as so switched on as one of KBs rants to get people listening to his show. Somehow tackling the forearm would prevent rolling mauls but tackling the upper arm causes a rolling maul.
And you've completely ignored the argument and put your own spin on it, something KB would do.

As I said, you can tell the people who's only interaction with the game is from their sofa. Maybe get off the couch and engage in some physical activity and sport
Oh so you think I don't play game? Well mate you're completely wrong there buddy. Maybe your not as smart as you think. Should probably get your head out of your arse and stop making assumptions.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Tacklers tackle exactly how they are trained to.

All you've done is show you have a very tenuous grasp on physiology, movement science and football coaching. Tackling higher makes it incredibly difficult to get your arms free to dispose. That's why it's coached that way. Tackling to "keep their hands down" is impossible to do. If you tackle lower, you need to drag their arms in. Players are trained to raise their arms to keep them free. If you're tackling forearms you're going to have to drag their forearms down from head height or above, which is easy to break, or more likely to cause head high contact

You sound about as so switched on as one of KBs rants to get people listening to his show. Somehow tackling the forearm would prevent rolling mauls but tackling the upper arm causes a rolling maul.

As I said, you can tell the people who's only interaction with the game is from their sofa. Maybe get off the couch and engage in some physical activity and sport
You have now twice said you can tell who doesn't play the game, that is a big call yes?? I think there would be man many posters on BF that would gladly put their credentials up against yours. If some one does not agree with you then they have not played does not sound like someone who I would want to have coaching anyone.
This is an opinion board, if they don't see it as you do that's ok, you never actually know who you may be responding to or what they have done.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
What has the new rule got to do with weak tackling?

It's addressing weak milking of fees, most of which have come about even though the tackling player has good technique & would have had a fair tackle if not for the tackled player's number 1 priority to drop for a free kick.

Other sports have too much acting & the AFL should be commended for addressing this blight on the game.
It's got heaps to do with weak tackling, if you tackle Selwood and pin his arms and he tries everything to get out of it but can't and you awarded a free kick or there is a ball up then that's great. 5 minutes later I tackle him the exact same way, he easily tries the same manoeuvre and raises his arm and my tackle slips high you want that to be ok.
You should be coming over to me and telling me in no uncertain terms to toughen up and make my tackles stick.
It's got lots to do with weak tackling.
 

Kane McGoodwin

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2001
Posts
49,523
Likes
38,516
Location
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
It's got heaps to do with weak tackling, if you tackle Selwood and pin his arms and he tries everything to get out of it but can't and you awarded a free kick or there is a ball up then that's great. 5 minutes later I tackle him the exact same way, he easily tries the same manoeuvre and raises his arm and my tackle slips high you want that to be ok.
You should be coming over to me and telling me in no uncertain terms to toughen up and make my tackles stick.
It's got lots to do with weak tackling.
This rule has nothing to do with weak tackling.

Do you honestly think the serial acting offenders for frees are good for our game?

This rule change won't impact too much on Selwood, but it will impact on Mclean, Matheson, etc whose #1 priority in a contest is to milk a free.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
This rule has nothing to do with weak tackling.

Do you honestly think the serial acting offenders for frees are good for our game?

This rule change won't impact too much on Selwood, but it will impact on Mclean, Matheson, etc whose #1 priority in a contest is to milk a free.
Nothing can be perfect, forever and a day there will be players who push the boundaries. It is called sport. Would it be great if they were all robots and no one did but that is not reality. They will become a talking point, a rule change should not occur though.
 

Kane McGoodwin

Hall of Famer
Joined
May 21, 2001
Posts
49,523
Likes
38,516
Location
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
Nothing can be perfect, forever and a day there will be players who push the boundaries. It is called sport. Would it be great if they were all robots and no one did but that is not reality. They will become a talking point, a rule change should not occur though.
So you refuse to answer whether clear regular milking of frees is a good look for the game...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
They're obviously not trained properly then.



No its not, if you're strong enough you can do it, if you're not can't. The only people showing they very tenuous grasp on physiology, movement science and football coaching are the people for this rule.



So, It how it should be. The player with the ball should hold the cards and have the advantage not the tackler.



And you've completely ignored the argument and put your own spin on it, something KB would do.



Oh so you think I don't play game? Well mate you're completely wrong there buddy. Maybe your not as smart as you think. Should probably get your head out of your arse and stop making assumptions.
You have no understanding of physiology I've already showed that, and you definitely don't play, because you're actively arguing against what is currently coached, and seem like you just learned its coached that way

I gave you a basic understanding of the physiology of why it is the correct way to tackle. I've responded to everything you've said. Don't throw stones in that glass house champ.

Wow!! So you want them to tackle higher which can of course lead to even higher contact and still not want the player with the ball protected.
I agree with Mike123, it's a rule for the weak. There is tackle after tackle made in our game, many stick and others don't. The ones that don't simply cannot be allowed to go high because the player tackling is not strong enough to pin the arms. I mean how strong do you think these guys like Selwood are? They have a guy who has pinned both their arms and they just raise one arm and the tackle goes high.....
Bloody supermen these guys.
Lol another who has no idea on the understanding on how easily manipulated the leverage of the joints are from the different points

You have now twice said you can tell who doesn't play the game, that is a big call yes?? I think there would be man many posters on BF that would gladly put their credentials up against yours. If some one does not agree with you then they have not played does not sound like someone who I would want to have coaching anyone.
This is an opinion board, if they don't see it as you do that's ok, you never actually know who you may be responding to or what they have done.
Go for it, if being told you're wrong is not something you want from a coach, you probably dislike every decent coach.

I'd be happy to discuss with someone who disagrees, if they could actually justify the point. All I've seen is a person posting a large body of text that says "nah it's wrong and I can't justify why. ROLLING MAUL!"
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
So you refuse to answer whether clear regular milking of frees is a good look for the game...
It is not a good look but it just is the way it is, and to be honest as a spectator now I could not give a crap how it looks I just want my team to win.
It will just now move on to another facet of the game for that less than 1% of the players that do these things.
And the other thing is what you call milking a free I might see as fair game, every time these players are tackled now they are deemed to milk a free even when they don't. That is not a good look.
 

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,618
Likes
23,029
AFL Club
Collingwood
This rule has nothing to do with weak tackling.

Do you honestly think the serial acting offenders for frees are good for our game?

This rule change won't impact too much on Selwood, but it will impact on Mclean, Matheson, etc whose #1 priority in a contest is to milk a free.
Clear milking is only a problem because weak tacklers allow them to.
 

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,618
Likes
23,029
AFL Club
Collingwood
You have no understanding of physiology I've already showed that, and you definitely don't play, because you're actively arguing against what is currently coached, and seem like you just learned its coached that way

I gave you a basic understanding of the physiology of why it is the correct way to tackle. I've responded to everything you've said. Don't throw stones in that glass house champ.


Lol another who has no idea on the understanding on how easily manipulated the leverage of the joints are from the different points


Go for it, if being told you're wrong is not something you want from a coach, you probably dislike every decent coach.

I'd be happy to discuss with someone who disagrees, if they could actually justify the point. All I've seen is a person posting a large body of text that says "nah it's wrong and I can't justify why. ROLLING MAUL!"
But I do play so you're wrong champ. You're clearly not as smart as you think are. You have responded but most of your responses have been weak, (just like the tackling) and flat out wrong and other you are either spinning arguments, or you just flat out don't have the mental capacity to comprehend them.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
But I do play so you're wrong champ. You're clearly not as smart as you think are. You have responded but most of your responses have been weak, (just like the tackling) and flat out wrong and other you are either spinning arguments, or you just flat out don't have the mental capacity to comprehend them.
Okay, easy for you then

How is the physiology I explained flat out wrong? How will it cause rolling mauls? Why is it being coached if it's incorrect? Why did it come as a surprise that it's coached this way if you play?

You've yet to actually justify your point, you just post random comments that go in circles with no actual justification.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
You have no understanding of physiology I've already showed that, and you definitely don't play, because you're actively arguing against what is currently coached, and seem like you just learned its coached that way

I gave you a basic understanding of the physiology of why it is the correct way to tackle. I've responded to everything you've said. Don't throw stones in that glass house champ.


Lol another who has no idea on the understanding on how easily manipulated the leverage of the joints are from the different points


Go for it, if being told you're wrong is not something you want from a coach, you probably dislike every decent coach.

I'd be happy to discuss with someone who disagrees, if they could actually justify the point. All I've seen is a person posting a large body of text that says "nah it's wrong and I can't justify why. ROLLING MAUL!"
Haha, you sound like one of those 23 year old graduating sports science guys who has never kicked a ball in his life. Let's make something that is very simple very complicated. Cheers for the laughs.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Haha, you sound like one of those 23 year old graduating sports science guys who has never kicked a ball in his life. Let's make something that is very simple very complicated. Cheers for the laughs.
I'm 29 and work in sport ;) but yes I'm sure those who make a living and have qualifications in sport are muss less educated on the topic than yourself

Again, if you can't explain the physiology (you know the entire thing that underpins the game) then you can't justify your point on why it's "wrong"
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Okay, easy for you then

How is the physiology I explained flat out wrong? How will it cause rolling mauls? Why is it being coached if it's incorrect? Why did it come as a surprise that it's coached this way if you play?

You've yet to actually justify your point, you just post random comments that go in circles with no actual justification.
Just because it is coached does not mean every player can do it, they are coached I would think very well how to tackle, some will be much better at it than others.
Christ players are coached how to kick still in the AFL yet half of them couldn't hit a barn door 20 m in front of them.
Coaching is one thing, implementation is another. Some blokes are very weak tacklers and if you cannot see that then I guess that's your issue.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Just because it is coached does not mean every player can do it, they are coached I would think very well how to tackle, some will be much better at it than others.
Christ players are coached how to kick still in the AFL yet half of them couldn't hit a barn door 20 m in front of them.
Coaching is one thing, implementation is another. Some blokes are very weak tacklers and if you cannot see that then I guess that's your issue.
Huh? That is just a non sequitur

You're coached to tackle the bulk of the arm as it gives less leverage, and also allows easier positioning to stop a player moving and disposing. That is what's being called "bad tackling" so unless the claim is that all coaches are coaching incorrectly because 2 randoms on big footy say so, I can't see your point

None of what you've said relates to that
 

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,618
Likes
23,029
AFL Club
Collingwood
Okay, easy for you then

How is the physiology I explained flat out wrong? How will it cause rolling mauls? Why is it being coached if it's incorrect? Why did it come as a surprise that it's coached this way if you play?

You've yet to actually justify your point, you just post random comments that go in circles with no actual justification.
I've already justified my point but you've just ignored it.

The physiology you explained is wrong because you said it impossible for the tackler to keep his opponents hands down. Its not because if you're strong enough you can do it. It causes rolling mauls because this rule makes it easier to tackle, and constant tackling is the main source of the rolling maul. Its being coached incorrectly because tackler wouldn't give away so many frees if it was.

These are all points I've mentioned before that you seemed to have ignored.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
I'm 29 and work in sport ;) but yes I'm sure those who make a living and have qualifications in sport are muss less educated on the topic than yourself

Again, if you can't explain the physiology (you know the entire thing that underpins the game) then you can't justify your point on why it's "wrong"
You see against n you just assume, I never once said that I am an expert in sports science, it plays a role in all sports. But one thing I know like the back of my hand is the sport itself, I have lived it and breathed it as a player and coach for near on 40 years. Now I will say I stepped away a couple of years ago because relating to the young men these days got much harder for me. I could get them to play and work through different game plans but I struggled in the end with understanding their excuses and life is so tough for them World.
Back on point working in sport does not mean you know why a tackle slips high or a tackle that is pinned and held. We all know a very very small minority milks for some kicks but that is just the way it is.
I am not wrong, I just don't agree with you.
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,491
Likes
8,455
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Huh? That is just a non sequitur

You're coached to tackle the bulk of the arm as it gives less leverage, and also allows easier positioning to stop a player moving and disposing. That is what's being called "bad tackling" so unless the claim is that all coaches are coaching incorrectly because 2 randoms on big footy say so, I can't see your point

None of what you've said relates to that
If the player tackled can force that tackle high then of course it's a bad tackle.
 
Top Bottom