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

sprockets

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
3,253
Likes
3,954
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
By the way, it's been stated in here (I think) that the closest umpire called it play on. Now, EVERYONE ON THE GROUND would have seen it from their own angle and seen that the tackle ended up high. My question is, if an umpire called it play on he did so for a reason, that reason being that he saw the tackle start between the elbow and shoulder and correctly interpreted it. What SHOULD have happened is that umpire SHOULD have approached the other umpire and told him what had actually happened, with the result being a ball up.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PowerForGood

Self-imposed Suspension to 2019.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
14,798
Likes
12,169
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
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.
Another thing that I didn't notice until now on this video was how low Polec went in order to try and lay the tackle fairly.
His head is below Powell-Pepper's shoulder, so a good 30-40 cm lower down to try and lay a tackle on a player with the ball.
Oh well.......
 

greatwhiteshark

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Posts
9,484
Likes
8,446
Location
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
By the way, it's been stated in here (I think) that the closest umpire called it play on. Now, EVERYONE ON THE GROUND would have seen it from their own angle and seen that the tackle ended up high. My question is, if an umpire called it play on he did so for a reason, that reason being that he saw the tackle start between the elbow and shoulder and correctly interpreted it. What SHOULD have happened is that umpire SHOULD have approached the other umpire and told him what had actually happened, with the result being a ball up.
The AFL said 2 umpires were going to pay it high and other one closest to the goal said he had a blocked view.
Like I said before it is impossible to umpire other than just calling play on for everything.
 

PowerForGood

Self-imposed Suspension to 2019.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
14,798
Likes
12,169
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
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.
I like this post because of the last couple of paragraphs.... I agree that the AFL is now primarily an entertainment vehicle to the detriment of the sport overall. We always call it "the greatest game in the world" yet we are changing the rules so rapidly that we now have the athletics competition we see now compared to the football we saw 20 years ago.
 

PowerForGood

Self-imposed Suspension to 2019.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
14,798
Likes
12,169
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
The AFL said 2 umpires were going to pay it high and other one closest to the goal said he had a blocked view.
Like I said before it is impossible to umpire other than just calling play on for everything.
Interesting isn't it - so what actually happened was the umpires furthest away from the action made an incorrect call.
I don't know if that is better or worse.
 

Bloodied52

Premium Platinum
Joined
May 24, 2017
Posts
5,332
Likes
5,126
Location
Old South Grandstand
AFL Club
Sydney
I agree with the idea, somewhere above of fines being issued for staging. The following penalties would eradicate staging.

5% of annual contract for staging in H&A season + 50 metre penalty
10% for staging in Finals + free in the goal to oppo team.

Staging/diving is a disgusting blight on the game. Most clubs have one or two players that try it on. One or two clubs have professional divers.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
3,253
Likes
3,954
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
The AFL said 2 umpires were going to pay it high and other one closest to the goal said he had a blocked view.
Like I said before it is impossible to umpire other than just calling play on for everything.
The AFL also said they made the right call... But at least that clears up who apparently said what, thanks.
 

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
Interesting isn't it - so what actually happened was the umpires furthest away from the action made an incorrect call.
I don't know if that is better or worse.
That the umpires who had a view made a call is worse than having the call made by the ump who couldn't see it?
 

nob2210

Team Captain
Joined
May 25, 2006
Posts
452
Likes
254
Location
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
leeds united
I see this quite simply. Players are now taught to tackle the arms in order to receive a free kick/pin the ball. It is a high risk/high reward manuoveur. Your tackle may slip high, or you may bring a player head first in to the ground. That's your risk. But if you don't want to take that risk, tackle the hips and hope for a disruption of possession. You choose...
 

PowerForGood

Self-imposed Suspension to 2019.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
14,798
Likes
12,169
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
That the umpires who had a view made a call is worse than having the call made by the ump who couldn't see it?
Not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the umpire furthest away from the ball made (not overruled) an incorrect call (in my opinion) that decided a final.
Gotta be sure about what you call if you make a decision like that.
 

PowerForGood

Self-imposed Suspension to 2019.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Posts
14,798
Likes
12,169
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool FC
I see this quite simply. Players are now taught to tackle the arms in order to receive a free kick/pin the ball. It is a high risk/high reward manuoveur. Your tackle may slip high, or you may bring a player head first in to the ground. That's your risk. But if you don't want to take that risk, tackle the hips and hope for a disruption of possession. You choose...
If thats the way forward then that is simple enough and fair enough but its not what the interpretation is this year.
 

(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
Just a thought to see what people think. The initial contact is upper shoulder, and it rides up to his neck, but that is at the start of the tackle. He then not only continues with the tackle, but does so with force, basically slinging Shuey to the ground by his neck.

Now, for the player with the ball charging head down, contact to the head is play on, however, the player making contact is still expected to exercise care. If he makes a deliberate forceful bump to the head, it's still a free. Otherwise the rule effectively gives permission to knock out players running head first.

Could the Shuey interpretation be that the initial contact is play on, but that the aggressive way the tackle continued constituted the high contact?

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
Just another quick point on the video of the contact. The both players, are both lowered on their bended knees, as the tackle goes through , how the hell does anyone interpret that , "even" maybe? and because the hand ended up flat around the throat, its a free, every time!
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Posts
11,776
Likes
4,036
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
isnt the responsibility on the port guy to not be a weak bitch and to stick the tackle in a legal manner?

you can see shuey lifts his arm slightly forcing the tackler high but thats in super slow mo...
Yeah sure the tackler decides all these things in ten millionths of a second??????????????????????????
 

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 the idea, somewhere above of fines being issued for staging. The following penalties would eradicate staging.

5% of annual contract for staging in H&A season + 50 metre penalty
10% for staging in Finals + free in the goal to oppo team.

Staging/diving is a disgusting blight on the game. Most clubs have one or two players that try it on. One or two clubs have professional divers.
Problem is with fines and things how would it be if the Shuey thing, that looked almost like a natural movement , and both players with bended knees, be made an infringement to the bloke with the ball.,
Also staging with absolute maximum know how like Selwood does, he has developed that into his skill and plays on it and he'd wind up not playing full stop, because he does it without even thinking. What I reckon is needed is the rule looked at totally and if the hands or arms of the tackler wind up actually gripping or grabbing the neck or shoulder then only then its a free, and I mean actually having hold of the bloke above the shoulder or on the neck, with no eror for judgement, the tackle actually has to be holding on, like as before you just had to touch above the shoulder with a finger even and it was deemed a free. That was bad enough but now they've changed it , to stop the duck it has just gotten worse.
In this game how are you supposed to lay a perfect legal tackle coming out of a pack in traffic everywhere , it is very rare to see in those conditions a tackle and the bloke with the ball not try to release his arms to give the ball off. Its natural.
And these days the bloody umpires let the tackles and packs go forever, it becomes an umpires own personal decision WHAT EVER happens, or he sees to dtermin whether its a legal tackle or a legal dodge, that is why the rules should never have been introduced in such a stupid fashion , the head high with the fear of litigation for head injuries drove this insanity which has changed the rules and the game to a load of frustration.
Every one of us on here, can only say, maybe it was a free maybe it wasn't ,that thinking should not be there at all, we should be able to tell if a player is caught , or pushed in the back or drops the ball or is flung tackled to the ground and how hard, or is scragged around the neck , to me unfortunately to the umpire as well Shuey got scragged , but gee wiz watching the video over and over who knows these days.
Because the AFL have screwed with everything , and they will have the blame, rightly so, levelled at them totally, because we have allowed these dictators who have f****d up this sport top get away with murdering what we used to call the best game in the world, well it has dropped off and is a fraud sometimes.
I still say we need the AFL disbanded and the clubs take back our game, and someone like a Kerry Packer take over the reigns and not allow any more fiddling.
Because I tell you in 5 years you won't recognise it. Sometimes when it is pack ridden , you don't recognise it.
And when we're all here arguing about a free, well that happens every week more than once when in the past maybe twice or so a year.
Yes I do love this game, but its losing its character and what it should be. For money !
And two new idiotic ideas.
Called GC and GWS. The standard is lowered.
 

sprockets

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Posts
3,253
Likes
3,954
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Richmond
Just another quick point on the video of the contact. The both players, are both lowered on their bended knees, as the tackle goes through , how the hell does anyone interpret that , "even" maybe? and because the hand ended up flat around the throat, its a free, every time!
You clearly don't know the rules. It doesn't matter one iota that Polec's hand ended up around Shuey's neck. The rule states that if the tackle starts legally and the person being tackled forces the tackler's arm up it's play on. Take a look at the AFL interpretation video and STFU!
 

Badesumofu

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Posts
7,188
Likes
8,148
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Roger Federer
I'm sure a video entitled 'Luke Shuey Cheating' is going to present a totally fair and reasonable view of what occurred. When you see it in normal motion it's relatively clear that Shuey's 'arm lift' is actually nothing more than a running motion. The tackle slipped high because the tackler was careless.
 

citizen-erased

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
14,963
Likes
10,737
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
isnt the responsibility on the port guy to not be a weak bitch and to stick the tackle in a legal manner?

you can see shuey lifts his arm slightly forcing the tackler high but thats in super slow mo...
weakness would probably help in this situation, as the tackle would break.
the strength meant that Shuey lifts his arm and the pressure from the tackle goes to his head. otherwise Shuey would just get his arm free.
What tacklers need to do these days is tackle the forearm and not the bicep, and try knock the ball from a players hands.
It does mean a rather unnatural approach to go lower on a player approaching you, reducing your agility and movement, but you won't catch them high.
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Posts
6,658
Likes
10,986
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
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.
That's a bit disingenuous. If he was playing for the free (not saying he does, but IF), wouldn't he be trying to hide it? You can't play for the free and stop dead in your tracks because if the umpire doesn't call it, you look stupid and get caught. Even if playing for the free, you have to assume that the umpire isn't going to call it, so playing on would be the natural response.

Personally I just don't buy the 'he's trying to shrug the tackle' argument. So many other players can and do shrug tackles without putting their head/neck in the direct firing line, but if it's a genuine tactic to evade a tackle, I don't have a problem with it, but they shouldn't call it as a high free. And that goes for all the culprits that use the tactic, legitimate or not, Marc Murphy included (he doesn't do it very often but it annoys me when he does).
 

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
weakness would probably help in this situation, as the tackle would break.
the strength meant that Shuey lifts his arm and the pressure from the tackle goes to his head. otherwise Shuey would just get his arm free.
What tacklers need to do these days is tackle the forearm and not the bicep, and try knock the ball from a players hands.
It does mean a rather unnatural approach to go lower on a player approaching you, reducing your agility and movement, but you won't catch them high.
There are players that are relatively good at doing tackles in these situations, and they dont just wrap an arm around the upper body, they reach around the body and grab that opposite arm and hold it in. I`m sorry, but its elite sport, and small things like holding the arm, or just wrapping over it so a lift causes your arm to slide up are the things they need to be able to get right. NFL offensive lineman can make small movements to induce a false start from the opposition. This isn't considered cheating by him, but a mistake by the player he fooled. Tackling Shuey in this situation so he couldn't induce a high free kick was possible. Players get payed a lot of money in order to do the difficult things in footy, if he isn't up to, maybe a new career?
 

citizen-erased

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Posts
14,963
Likes
10,737
Location
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
There are players that are relatively good at doing tackles in these situations, and they dont just wrap an arm around the upper body, they reach around the body and grab that opposite arm and hold it in. I`m sorry, but its elite sport, and small things like holding the arm, or just wrapping over it so a lift causes your arm to slide up are the things they need to be able to get right. NFL offensive lineman can make small movements to induce a false start from the opposition. This isn't considered cheating by him, but a mistake by the player he fooled. Tackling Shuey in this situation so he couldn't induce a high free kick was possible. Players get payed a lot of money in order to do the difficult things in footy, if he isn't up to, maybe a new career?
not sure it was that easy to stay low given Shuey too was on the ground.
Polec could have been smarter though. just needed to press and hassle, rather than try the desperate tackle.
You see it a bit in forward lines these days where players would prefer to leave the ball carrier and mark the space around them to reduce the risk of giving away a free.

But then Shuey lifted his arm and the AFL said this would be deemed prior opportunity (you have time to try break a tackle, you have time to dispose of it - i like this).
But umpires are human and it wouldn't have been easy to see.
Should it have been a free? no
But you can't blame the ump for calling it. so move on.
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Posts
6,658
Likes
10,986
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
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.
It's not as hard as some pretend. They will always get some wrong, but they could easily get more right. If a player leads with the head, or leans forward into the tackler, they've initiated. Most of the time that's obvious. If a player lifts the arm to force the tackler's arm high, regardless of whether that's a deliberate attempt to draw high contact, or a genuine attempt at shrugging the tackle, play on. That's normally fairly obvious too, by a fast, sudden and unnatural looking flick of the arm and a lot of the time the ball carrier looks like they are cuddling the tackler's arm. Surely one of the umpires can see this movement? Even if the first umpire calls a free for high contact, the other umpires could overrule and say they saw the contact initiated by the ball carrier. They can then either call holding the ball, or a ball up.
They will never get it 100% right, but they could easily make it better.
 

Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods

Sir Cripps of Carlton House
Joined
Mar 26, 2015
Posts
6,658
Likes
10,986
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Melbourne Tigers Philadelphia 76ers
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.
I don't think anyone is saying he should allow the tackle. I think some deliberately take the 'Selwood hate' too far because they know it gets Geelong supporters wound up, but I reckon that hate stems more from the fact that he's allowed to get away with it. If he wants to use that tactic to break a tackle or free his arms to dispose of the ball, I say fine, do that, but it's play on if it accidentally gets him high.
If he manages to dispose of the ball and Geelong maintain possession, then good for him and them, but if the pressure and tackle force a holding the ball, incorrect disposal or turnover, then good on the tackler for initiating what started out as a legal tackle and too bad for Selwood or whoever for taking the tackler on. Fix that and I reckon most of the Selwood hate disappears with it.
 

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 don't think anyone is saying he should allow the tackle. I think some deliberately take the 'Selwood hate' too far because they know it gets Geelong supporters wound up, but I reckon that hate stems more from the fact that he's allowed to get away with it. If he wants to use that tactic to break a tackle or free his arms to dispose of the ball, I say fine, do that, but it's play on if it accidentally gets him high.
If he manages to dispose of the ball and Geelong maintain possession, then good for him and them, but if the pressure and tackle force a holding the ball, incorrect disposal or turnover, then good on the tackler for initiating what started out as a legal tackle and too bad for Selwood or whoever for taking the tackler on. Fix that and I reckon most of the Selwood hate disappears with it.
Nope it has to work both ways, can't be holding the ball either. You can't give all the benefit to the tackler. Can't be no free kick if it goes high but a free kick to the tackler if you are still holding it while being dragged down by your neck. It's either play on or a ball up. Unless of course if player drops the ball.
There is only one way out of a tackle and thats by going low and shrugging, good tackles won't allow this but weak tackles will. Most tackles are pretty good and thats why the likes of Selwood and Shuey can't do what they do all the time. It is only the weak tackles they can do it. It is not cheating, staging or anything else.
In my view they have the ball and can do as they please, the tackler has one responsibility which is to not get him high. Why is this so complicated? I just don't get it or where some of you are coming from.
 
Top Bottom