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

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,598
Likes
23,018
AFL Club
Collingwood
Rolling maul is a nonsensical buzzword. From memory statistically stoppages aren't high compared with historically
This rule helps tackling and tackling helps rolling mauls. Its somewhat a buzzword but that doesn't mean you should be putting rules in place that envourage that kind of play.

I actually would prefer if it was play on unless it is an obvious deliberate or negligent high hit. Stagers should also face tribunal sanctions.
Staging and diving should be face with sanctions but players trying to get out of tackles should be protected by the umpires.

Our entire discussion has been around your point that players are tackling incorrectly
Which under the old rule they weren't otherwise they wouldn't be giving away frees. Its just an simple concept yet you've mentioned to spin entire conversion around it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Oh FFS, no one has said they are tackling the wrong way, what has been said is some do it better than others. But you keep saying everyone tackles the same way, the same strength of tackle etc. What game have you been watching where every tackle is perfect and correct. They are humans and they make mistakes and miss judge things. They don't all tackle perfectly.
where have I said any of that? I've said the way they tackle is correct and how it's coached and given the reasons for that. My entire premise has been tackling around the bicep/chest is correct and that's what's coached. Again, you've managed to quote me but not actually make a point relating to mine

Mike specifically stated they're tackling wrong, because they should be tackling low

If you're going to argue probably best not to misrepresent what's being said

Oldmanshoutsatcloud.jpg
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
This rule helps tackling and tackling helps rolling mauls. Its somewhat a buzzword but that doesn't mean you should be putting rules in place that envourage that kind of play.



Staging and diving should be face with sanctions but players trying to get out of tackles should be protected by the umpires.



Which under the old rule they weren't otherwise they wouldn't be giving away frees. Its just an simple concept yet you've mentioned to spin entire conversion around it.
You'd have to first show that stoppages have drastically increased and that tackling is the cause

Sigh. I'll dumb it down again for you "from a scientific and physiological perspective they're tackling correctly"

Again, they are tackling correctly. If you want to make claims under "old rules" then you're arguing against yourself. If you rely on the rules as to what is right or wrong, then you are wrong by your own reasoning
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,484
Likes
8,449
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
where have I said any of that? I've said the way they tackle is correct and how it's coached and given the reasons for that. My entire premise has been tackling around the bicep/chest is correct and that's what's coached. Again, you've managed to quote me but not actually make a point relating to mine

Mike specifically stated they're tackling wrong, because they should be tackling low

If you're going to argue probably best not to misrepresent what's being said

Oldmanshoutsatcloud.jpg
You are stating the bleeding obvious, all AFL clubs are coached the correct way with expert after expert involved and Mike and I were not arguing that. we were arguing that the players don't get it right in practice all the time and hence tackles slide high. The player with the ball should get a free kick when that happens even if they helped the tackle high. Duckers should not get free kicks and neither should head leaders. But the player with the ball should be allowed to drop his knee and raise his arm, the onus should be on the tackler to not let it slide high.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
You are stating the bleeding obvious, all AFL clubs are coached the correct way with expert after expert involved and Mike and I were not arguing that. we were arguing that the players don't get it right in practice all the time and hence tackles slide high. The player with the ball should get a free kick when that happens even if they helped the tackle high. Duckers should not get free kicks and neither should head leaders. But the player with the ball should be allowed to drop his knee and raise his arm, the onus should be on the tackler to not let it slide high.
Mike explicitly said they shouldn't be tackling like that and they should tackle lower down the body

Again, misrepresenting the argument. I don't get the point of being disingenuous when it's all literally in text in the thread.
 

mike123

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Posts
26,598
Likes
23,018
AFL Club
Collingwood
You'd have to first show that stoppages have drastically increased and that tackling is the cause
Tackling and out of bounds are the only causes for stoppages lol. Can't even believe you're attempting to argue this.

Sigh. I'll dumb it down again for you "from a scientific and physiological perspective they're tackling correctly"

Again, they are tackling correctly. If you want to make claims under "old rules" then you're arguing against yourself. If you rely on the rules as to what is right or wrong, then you are wrong by your own reasoning
If they were tackling correctly under the old rules they wouldn't give away a free kick. You can argue what ever you want but nothing is going to change that.
 

DemonTim

Cancelled
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Posts
11,394
Likes
8,060
AFL Club
Melbourne
Tackling and out of bounds are the only causes for stoppages lol. Can't even believe you're attempting to argue this.



If they were tackling correctly under the old rules they wouldn't give away a free kick. You can argue what ever you want but nothing is going to change that.
Again. You'd have to show an increase and that the increase coincides with an increase in tackling. You'd also need to define "rolling maul" since it seems to change depending on which random radio host is trying to get callers

And yet, they changed the rules to ensure tacklers weren't penalised for doing the right thing. You seem to be trying to paint my point as "smacking someone in the head while tackling is correct". Not at all my point and not at all what I've stated. Your logic could be used to argue against every single rule in every single sport globally "don't have that rule, just get the players to not do x"

Simple question. Is tackling the bicep and chest the correct way to tackle to prevent a player disposing while the ball is in hand?
 

Ian Dunross

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Posts
4,571
Likes
6,704
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Glenelg Tigers
No its not.

There was already a rule change for this, which I'm for. This is different issue all together stop bringing it up.

Yes its does, lower centre of gravity makes tackles easier to avoid and or shrug.
The rule change was for players who led w their head and drove it into an oncoming player

There is also a separate issue of players waiting for the tackle then dropping to one knee or lowering their body to shift the tackling arm from midriff height to neck height

It's cheating, and 99% of the football public agrees

You and a few other randoms are the odd ones out
 

B4Bear

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 6, 2011
Posts
4,779
Likes
7,326
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Interesting article the other day (Herald Sun) regarding head high free kick stats in 2016. As you'd guess, Selwood had the most (28 from 24 games), followed by Mathieson (23 from 11 games), Maclean (22 from 15), Miles (22 from 19) and Christensen (20 from 11 games). Rounding out top ten were Hewett( 18 from 24), Hunter(18 from 26), Shuey (16 from 23), Sicily (16 from 22) and Duncan (12 from 24).

When compared to their contested possession stats (eg putting yourself in the firing line to possibly be taken high) it looks a little like this.

Christenson- 1 free kick for every 3.6 contested possessions
Mathieson- 1 for every 4.8 cp
Maclean- 1 for every 5.09 cp
Hewett- 1 for every 6.6 cp
Sicily- 1 for every 7.68 cp
Miles- 1 for every 9.45cp
Selwood- 1 for every 11.75cp
Hunter - 1 for every 11.83 cp
Duncan - 1 for every 13.8cp
Shuey- 1 for every 17.8cp

A little food for thought I guess. These were only available for the top ten high free kick winners so no doubt there would be other players in the top ten high free kicks per contested possession ratio as well.
I call bullshit. FAKE NEWS ALERT....We all KNOW that Lindsay Thomas is the source of all evil and ducking.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
So you're complaining that the umpires never used to call play on when players pulled this free kick trick... yet you're also complaining about the rule change that now gives them the power to do just that.

In the past the umps weren't allowed to use their judgement because the rules stated they had to pay high contact, now the rules have been changed to give you exactly what you want yet you still complain we didn't need a rule change. :drunk:
Fair dinkum mate, I'm saying we have a new rule we don't need , because bloody umpires seem to need instruction to make a perceptive decision. TURN IT UP!
Gee wiz you can tell when someone well practised in the cheating art does it, from on the TV in your lounge room and the umps know these guys , its just rubbish, but this is the thing we deal with in our unique sport these days, bloody bulldust and over adjudication. Simple!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

MagpieJo

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 30, 2013
Posts
2,349
Likes
2,391
AFL Club
Collingwood
The rule change was for players who led w their head and drove it into an oncoming player

There is also a separate issue of players waiting for the tackle then dropping to one knee or lowering their body to shift the tackling arm from midriff height to neck height

It's cheating, and 99% of the football public agrees

You and a few other randoms are the odd ones out
Spot on.

I don't know why a Collingwood supporter is defending this, we don't have a serial offender! Pendles has done it s time or two, but he's not known for it, and I'd love to see it stamped out.

As an aside, the bulldog supporters post about the full body cringe is a classic! Great description about the feeling you get when one of your own does something not very nice!
 

Corkintheocean

All Australian
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Posts
605
Likes
668
AFL Club
West Coast
Responsibility is on the tackler to tackle correctly. The player in possession of the ball should be able to move in any direction they damn please to extricate themselves from a tackling player. Why should the person who has gained possession move at the behest of the defender's wishes? Should quicker players slowdown for chasing tacklers with less foot speed? No? Then why should they not shrug/lower their body to avoid tacklers with less effective strength and tackling technique?
 

Ian Dunross

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Posts
4,571
Likes
6,704
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Glenelg Tigers
Responsibility is on the tackler to tackle correctly. The player in possession of the ball should be able to move in any direction they damn please to extricate themselves from a tackling player. Why should the person who has gained possession move at the behest of the defender's wishes? Should quicker players slowdown for chasing tacklers with less foot speed? No? Then why should they not shrug/lower their body to avoid tacklers with less effective strength and tackling technique?
No one is saying what you're proposing

They just shouldn't receive a free kick for the high contact they induced
 

ManOfClay

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Posts
17,959
Likes
20,336
Location
On the couch
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Memphis Grizzlies
I think this rule change is hurting the Bulldogs.
Because two jlt games largely played by our vfl side is evidence?

Toby McLean has actually played well both games too. He's supposed to be the one always doing it.

It might hurt us. But there's no evidence so far
 

jatz14

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Posts
5,468
Likes
5,409
Location
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Glory W-League
Change the word induce to contribute and you have the law as it is written

Requires no mind reading
Thats a frightening thought.
Contribute what? 5%, 10%. Does it need to be 50%
Bending to pick the ball up `contributes` to head high contact.
If I do not shrug, or duck, but raise my arm for a straight fend, and inadvertently push his sloppy weak as piss tackle attempt high, I have contributed.
If `contribute` does not include intent, then the framers of the law need firing. If it does, the umps need to read minds.
 

A Swallow

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Posts
4,720
Likes
5,431
Location
Brisbane, QLD
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Liverpool F.C., LAL
Now just add if you raise the arm it's HTB. Even if you're genuinely trying to slip the tackle, it's still taking the tackler on rather than disposing of the ball. If you've got time to raise the arm, then you've got time to try and dispose of the ball; getting pinged for choosing the former would stamp it out quick smart.
This. Even before this new interpretation, I never understood why it was seen as different to attempting to stiff-arm/fend-off? It has always been (correctly) adjudicated that if you choose to attempt a stiff-arm and get wrapped up, that you gave up your opportunity to get rid of the ball, hence HTB. I hope they start realising that throwing the free arm in the air to cause high contact is exactly the same as a stiff-arm, in that you could be using that arm to dispose of the ball, yet you are choosing to take on the tackler instead.
 
Top Bottom