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

Sttew

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
18,035
Likes
14,584
Location
Who's asking?
AFL Club
Geelong
The umpires have a lot of explaining to do. During the Cats V Tigers Joel Selwood was a total embarrassment to the game. Every single tackle he flaps his arms like an aggressive chicken.

....and still gets given the free kicks. Don't the umpires see the stats on this guy? Don't they read the rules?
Two 'high' frees were awarded to Joel and he had already played on and disposed of the ball by the time the umpire finished blowing his whistle. The ball was called back. If Selwood had been playing for a free he would have stopped in his tracks and waited for the ball to be handed to him. Put your Selwood hate glasses away.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

momentbymoment

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Posts
3,864
Likes
4,245
AFL Club
Sydney
All the usual subjects will be practising their chicken wing moves now that self inflicted highs are fashionable again. Selwood will be looking to get 8 at least ...
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
420
Likes
898
AFL Club
Collingwood
Yes, they brought in a new rule this year that says if the ball carrier causes his own head high contact he can go **** himself. Terrific. But guess what. It's impossible to enforce. Just like a whole bunch of other amendments to the rule book in recent times. You try determining the cause of high contact in real time. Good luck with that. The AFL make the umpires job more difficult year upon year. This new rule is only enforceable if play stops and we go to the video tape, just like the goal review. Do we really want that? I bet that's the path they go down too. It wouldn't surprise me at all. Pretty soon games will go twice as long because we'll be constantly checking replays. Or we can throw out all the bullshit rule changes of the past 10 years, and the people who made those changes can issue a public apology and leave.
 

sr36

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
10,131
Likes
12,771
Location
Vietnam
AFL Club
Collingwood
Two 'high' frees were awarded to Joel and he had already played on and disposed of the ball by the time the umpire finished blowing his whistle. The ball was called back. If Selwood had been playing for a free he would have stopped in his tracks and waited for the ball to be handed to him. Put your Selwood hate glasses away.
Right on. The complaints about some players playing for frees in this way may be justified, but the whole Selwood hate thing is ridiculous. He's freeing his arms and or breaking tackles. Free kicks are a by-product of the most effective way for him to break a tackle or get out a handball. He's good enough to force the tackle up so that he or at least his arms can get free, he should continue to do so. It's as though people want him to allow the tackle and not try to get the ball free.
 

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Posts
11,960
Likes
12,995
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
At the very least Selwood will make the free kick happen and continue on with the play if possible.

Numerous players like Shuey and McClean will force the high contact and just fall to the ground.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Jordan Lewis said that at the beginning of the season, there was an AFL directive stating precisely if the initial contact was below the shoulder and it ends up being above the shoulder, it is not deemed a high tackle. Apparently it came about following a controversial call in the preliminary final between Bulldogs and GWS in 2016.

Now, if the umpire knew that, and he would have, he's made an error in judgement. He's obviously not seen the initial contact. Controversial, yes, but it's all part of the rich tapestry that is football. Nothing's fair in football, different clubs receiving advantages over others, etc, so how can we expect the umpiring to be spot on?

A Port supporter mate of mine got it into perspective when he said, "Yeah, it possibly cost us the game, but we weren't going much further in the finals anyway". He also added how many chances Port had to seal the game and didn't take them. I've always found it odd, after all the mistakes players make, that we point at one decision at the end of the game and say it cost us the match.
No one ever said the umpiring needs to be spot on. WHAT NEEDS TO BE SPOT ON ARE THE RULES AND HOW UMPIRES A TAUGHT TO PERCEIVE THEM.
There is too many little things that cause the spirit of the game to get flushed down the toilet , the fairness of a rule that was supposed to be made up to stop players kicking out of bounds??????? When a player gets a free against him because a ball bounces of another players foot leg body hits the second player who is standing a foot away from the boundary , and a bloody boundary umpire runs in and spreads his arms OutOnTheFull, RUBBISH.
How is that winning the ball on merit!!!!!!
That rule and all its different scenarios should be dropped. Kicking out by accident having someone see it happen (an umpire I mean) and that person trying to figure out a deliberate or not, is a joke.
Of course there are some deliberates, but very very few, very very few.
What a pity some of you will put up with the changing for the worse of our game.
To suggest the rule about round the neck in real time , have an umpire guess whether the tackle started low or high or where ever, is absolute stupidity, with Shuey that umpire saw what he saw.
When they start SEEING WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE. You better get worried because that's how the sting comes along in sport , if you want to put up with guess work and grey rules , you go for it.
But ours is a simple game. Those fools with too much bullshit time, and too much sponsor money, who go around "fiddling" need to change or leave. Our competition is losing out and getting less skilled , and worst there are less real footballers playing now .
If you don't understand that , then you will be blind to the deterioration of the game as compared to it in the early very early 2000's the 90's and the 80's, this is not modernisation of our game, this is the underminmg of our sport.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Jordan Lewis said that at the beginning of the season, there was an AFL directive stating precisely if the initial contact was below the shoulder and it ends up being above the shoulder, it is not deemed a high tackle. Apparently it came about following a controversial call in the preliminary final between Bulldogs and GWS in 2016.

Now, if the umpire knew that, and he would have, he's made an error in judgement. He's obviously not seen the initial contact. Controversial, yes, but it's all part of the rich tapestry that is football. Nothing's fair in football, different clubs receiving advantages over others, etc, so how can we expect the umpiring to be spot on?

A Port supporter mate of mine got it into perspective when he said, "Yeah, it possibly cost us the game, but we weren't going much further in the finals anyway". He also added how many chances Port had to seal the game and didn't take them. I've always found it odd, after all the mistakes players make, that we point at one decision at the end of the game and say it cost us the match.
I have to say, to your Port mate , because he may have thought Port weren't going anywhere further in the finals is NOT THE POINT, it doesn't matter which team it is, in a circumstance where there are many , who cares which team it is, if its the Oonagilabi seconds and they lose the grand final its still either a right or wrong interpretation , how ever far your going, nothing is perfect , but making umpiring mistakes in multiples which happens regularly now because of rules that are too hard to call except by guessing or interpreting your own ideas is WRONG? Surely it means the rules need to be more simple a straight forward, for me , the AFL has gone all out to complicate the game.

WHY?

If you want to go back to interpretation of rules, Paddy Ryders thing, please don't forget this, his exact same situation happened to The Dockers with Sandilands who never raised an arm or called out, but contested a ball up, ,it was round three this year, and the TV had the sound and the action available it was last Monday night.
The ump called play on, in that round 3 match, where as the Eagles scored a goal last Weekend from that umpire.

Another thing we seem to have no choice over , a Port goal, on camera that was without a doubt touched because you can see the fingers get flipped forward then back in a claw like manner , and the thumb move, it was not a goal, but the camera blokes for some reason left it up to the umpire, which I believe should happen all the time by the way, but that was not a goal, how come that is happening , why are cameras used to confuse and create debate every week post games. No cameras , the umpires do a pretty damned good job behind the posts.
In fact the goal boys and girls are the best of the bunch I reckon.
Now I've written two or three long posts on BF, and I still find it amazing that the AFL take no notice of their base , and their actual cattle that make them the money, that's us, whether you agree or disagree they have gone too
far in the mangling of the game.

When the umpires are not seen or heard , the game, you know, is a good one, when you see blatant stuff time and time again that you don't understand , well to me its like having a rule where as one boxer has rules where he has just gloves and the other is allowed to have a horseshoe or two in his gloves. Its unfair.

Our game is too good to be allowed to be decided by decisions that can have two or three different interpretations in the three different umpires heads. (yes in a split second too)
Which obviously happen every weekend. Or we wouldn't be talking about it and I wouldn't be frustrated by the weekly garbage we talk about.
I will now leave this conversation , unless of course something else sets me off, ha ha ha ! Which you can bet it will!
 

im_a_lazy_sod

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 27, 2007
Posts
10,838
Likes
8,054
Location
Block 108 as loud as any
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Everton-EFFC-PGFC-Tranmere-Atalanta
Just review all tackles and fine players where the MRP deems they are responsible for the tackle. They hand out fines in other sports for diving/staging - it's the same thing, though almost impossible to spot in real time (other than the blatant ducks)

Not going to happen though

I admire players that try and duck & weave out of a tackle to get a possession away - but not when they have no interest in getting rid of the ball or breaking/avoiding the tackles
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Because even if Dixon or Boak kick their goals eagles could still have won 5 clearances in a row and kicked 5 goals. But that decision was literally the game changer.
No the game changer was the goal for Port on Camera that was not a goal, so Eagles by 8 POINTS FOLKS , HEH HEH HEH !
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
What? Open your other eye and you won't see anything like you describe. It should have been play on.
As we are finding out now as the week goes past and since the Eagles kicked that last goal the reason was

IT WAS AROUND THE NECK FREE KICK, THAT STARTED ABOVE THE SHOULDER, AND WOUND UP AROUND THE NECK! Its that simple.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Posts
21,191
Likes
21,615
AFL Club
West Coast
Thread starter #465
Such a good policy change.

Such poor implementation.

Was so frustrating earlier in the season to see Jelwood do exactly what shouldn't be rewarded and continue to get frees.

So it was no surprise that Shuey got the free.

Hopefully they tighten the interpretation to the original policy intention for 2018.
 

El_Scorcho

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Posts
24,304
Likes
50,134
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Aston Villa, San Antonio Spurs
It was a great policy change, but they need to go further with it.

"High contact" and the way it is adjudicated is a shit free and it has lead to 15 years of diving and staging, burrowing headfirst into packs etc to try to win a free. It's a blight on the game. The standard shouldn't be just any contact over the shoulder and it's a misguided attempt to stop head injuries that has led to players actively trying to get hit in the head.

They should only pay a high tackle when the tackle starts high and/or puts undue force on the head or neck, not for incidental contact.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
3,253
Likes
3,954
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
As we are finding out now as the week goes past and since the Eagles kicked that last goal the reason was

IT WAS AROUND THE NECK FREE KICK, THAT STARTED ABOVE THE SHOULDER, AND WOUND UP AROUND THE NECK! Its that simple.
I agree with some of what you stated in your other rants, about the AFL making it too complicated with interpretations, finicky, insignificant stuff and whatnot but that tackle clearly started at BETWEEN THE ELBOW AND SHOULDER. Anyone that doesn't have eyesight problems can see it (on the video). Take another look...

Not only that but Shuey raised his arm to push Polec's arm above the shoulder. It's THE classic case of what the AFL stated was PLAY ON at the beginning of the season.
 
Last edited:

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
I agree with some of what you stated in your other rants, about the AFL making it too complicated with interpretations, finicky, insignificant stuff and whatnot but that tackle clearly started at BETWEEN THE ELBOW AND SHOULDER. Anyone that doesn't have eyesight problems can see it (on the video). Take another look...

Not only that but Shuey raised his arm to push Polec's arm above the shoulder. It's THE classic case of what the AFL stated was PLAY ON at the beginning of the season.
Well in slo mo yes, but it wasn't in slo mo was it?
And you don't need to tell me about the rules the AFL create as they go, or tell me that all their umpires aren't different with perception, they are. Another umpire on the ground said it was a free as well, the one who didn't never saw it, and the fact is to the ump that called it , it looked like an infringement. And to some it was, others it wasn't.
With the around the neck, I say that anything that is an attack vigorously above the shoulder, or grabbing the neck or the head is a free, so to suit everyone ant knee drop or arm lift is deemed play on, well then we go back wards and then the argument becomes what it still is, but arse about, did he drop and lift , or was that tackle too or high too low, I mean this is the crap the AFL has left the followers of the game with, and they have stuffed up badly.
My point is this should never happen but it does happen , Selwood has made a special craft out of getting frees, that act with Shuey was his habit of loosening himself from a tackle, but Selwood has it perfected he drops and raises, its blooody disgraceful, Poppy at Hawthorn has an action of arm lifting to break a tackle, , as well as the fact that the tackle was rough, but how many are rough, tackling and corner cutting and direct approaching running players has disappeared the players now bar a handful don"t even know how to cut a corner and attack, the worst part about the Shuey thing is that maybe it could have gone both ways, what does that say about the rules. I mean what does that say about the AFL .
 

Pedro59

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Posts
2,609
Likes
1,478
Location
northern rivers NSW
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I agree with some of what you stated in your other rants, about the AFL making it too complicated with interpretations, finicky, insignificant stuff and whatnot but that tackle clearly started at BETWEEN THE ELBOW AND SHOULDER. Anyone that doesn't have eyesight problems can see it (on the video). Take another look...

Not only that but Shuey raised his arm to push Polec's arm above the shoulder. It's THE classic case of what the AFL stated was PLAY ON at the beginning of the season.
Shitt
I was in Thailand and the first time I have seen it
what a poor decision
Yes we kicked ourselves out of the groind anyway .....but enough of the Selwood free kick farming
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,484
Likes
8,446
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
I agree with some of what you stated in your other rants, about the AFL making it too complicated with interpretations, finicky, insignificant stuff and whatnot but that tackle clearly started at BETWEEN THE ELBOW AND SHOULDER. Anyone that doesn't have eyesight problems can see it (on the video). Take another look...

Not only that but Shuey raised his arm to push Polec's arm above the shoulder. It's THE classic case of what the AFL stated was PLAY ON at the beginning of the season.
Can I ask you how is he deemed to of tackled Shuey until is left arm also gets hold of him, have a look where his right arm is by the time his left arm becomes part of the tackle. His arm is wrapped around his neck before his left arm touches Shuey. Shuey certainly shrugged his arm but that is just a flailing arm, he wasn't even being tackled when he did that.
It is impossible to umpire, they have stuffed it up as usual and left themselves open to these things.
It is very simple, other than ducking your head which is clear to see then all high contact is a free kick. The coaches and players will quickly adapt and change the way they tackle. Which is what should be the case.
You watch this weekend, it will be open slather on head high contact, play on is all you will hear the rest of the season now and guys will be getting their heads ripped off.
 

Pedro59

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Posts
2,609
Likes
1,478
Location
northern rivers NSW
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Can I ask you how is he deemed to of tackled Shuey until is left arm also gets hold of him, have a look where his right arm is by the time his left arm becomes part of the tackle. His arm is wrapped around his neck before his left arm touches Shuey. Shuey certainly shrugged his arm but that is just a flailing arm, he wasn't even being tackled when he did that.
It is impossible to umpire, they have stuffed it up as usual and left themselves open to these things.
It is very simple, other than ducking your head which is clear to see then all high contact is a free kick. The coaches and players will quickly adapt and change the way they tackle. Which is what should be the case.
You watch this weekend, it will be open slather on head high contact, play on is all you will hear the rest of the season now and guys will be getting their heads ripped off.
Oh so in reverse to what you are saying
If Polec coat hangered him in the neck it doesn't count if the other arm hasn't got hold of him and the "tackle hasn't started" ?

That is ridiculous argument
 

Cold Sober

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
2,526
Likes
2,482
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Man U .White Sox;Storm,Victory
AFL are a bloody joke, they talk about the image of our game then condone the acts of 'KING CORMORANT'. They may as well make it official and call it the 'CORMORANT MANEUVER', or 'THE SHUEY SHUFFLE'.
While I'm on a roll, players are being injured because umpires stopped playing holding the ball, forcing the hand grab tackle upon us, which also has become a non free kick to the tackler. In my eyes this has resulted in players being held onto longer and only one place to go, head first into the dirt.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
3,253
Likes
3,954
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Well in slo mo yes, but it wasn't in slo mo was it?
And you don't need to tell me about the rules the AFL create as they go, or tell me that all their umpires aren't different with perception, they are. Another umpire on the ground said it was a free as well, the one who didn't never saw it, and the fact is to the ump that called it , it looked like an infringement. And to some it was, others it wasn't.
With the around the neck, I say that anything that is an attack vigorously above the shoulder, or grabbing the neck or the head is a free, so to suit everyone ant knee drop or arm lift is deemed play on, well then we go back wards and then the argument becomes what it still is, but arse about, did he drop and lift , or was that tackle too or high too low, I mean this is the crap the AFL has left the followers of the game with, and they have stuffed up badly.
My point is this should never happen but it does happen , Selwood has made a special craft out of getting frees, that act with Shuey was his habit of loosening himself from a tackle, but Selwood has it perfected he drops and raises, its blooody disgraceful, Poppy at Hawthorn has an action of arm lifting to break a tackle, , as well as the fact that the tackle was rough, but how many are rough, tackling and corner cutting and direct approaching running players has disappeared the players now bar a handful don"t even know how to cut a corner and attack, the worst part about the Shuey thing is that maybe it could have gone both ways, what does that say about the rules. I mean what does that say about the AFL .
"Slo mo", no mo or fa mo, the tackle STARTED BETWEEN THE ELBOW AND SHOULDER and SHUEY PUSHED POLEC'S ARM TO ABOVE THE SHOULDER, the very thing the AFL stated at the start of the year is (and changed the rule to) PLAY ON. The tackle DIDN'T start above the shoulder AS YOU CLAIMED!
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,484
Likes
8,446
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Oh so in reverse to what you are saying
If Polec coat hangered him in the neck it doesn't count if the other arm hasn't got hold of him and the "tackle hasn't started" ?

That is ridiculous argument
The whole situation is ridiculous, it simply cannot be umpired.
 
Top Bottom