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

[ScarlettFever]

I don't think it will be too hard. Exactly as you said. If the tackle starts below the shoulder and the player with the ball raises the arm to force the tackler high, then it's play on.
Basically any high contact that's initiated by the ball carrier. Don't lead with the head into contests. Don't raise the arm in a tackle (you can if you want to shrug the tackle, but play on or get caught holding). Don't drop the knees/lower the body when you see a tackle coming.
They'll get a few wrong, but it should be good.

I hope you are right and it would seem easy enough in theory but in the end it comes down to interpretation and, like with most Afl rules, different umpires will have varying views of how it should be interpreted which will lead to inconsistency.

I didn't think the deliberate rush behind rule would be that hard to officiate but I was befuddled by a number decisions in 2016, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[40porpoise]

Honestly the only way I see it being interpreted properly is if the umpire uses player bias.

Guys like Mathieson, McLean and Selwood are automatically guilty until proven innocent, whilst others are given the benefit of the doubt until proven to be serial offenders.

Otherwise it's going to be impossible to adjudicate on the spot whether a player has ducked or raised their arm.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I hope you are right and it would seem easy enough in theory but in the end it comes down to interpretation and, like with most Afl rules, different umpires will have varying views of how it should be interpreted which will lead to inconsistency.

I didn't think the deliberate rush behind rule would be that hard to officiate but I was befuddled by a number decisions in 2016, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

Unfortunately we are always at the mercy of the interpretation of just about every rule in the game. This 'tactic' was starting to become a blight on the game with more and more people calling for it to be put to an end. This rule should help do that, but they will never get it right 100% of the time. It's a shame that it's gotten to a point where they have to bring a rule in for it, but I'm glad they have. I'm not going to get upset about it might be adjudicated, until I see how it is.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Take that Dylan Grimes!

well there you go, thought I'd see Miles' name before Grimes' in this thread, but Grimes is an offender I agree. Minor one though, that behaviour is not endorsed at Richmond.

I hate the knee drop more than the salute, hoping we'll see a lot less of Puopolo as a result of this rule change.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Honestly the only way I see it being interpreted properly is if the umpire uses player bias.

Guys like Mathieson, McLean and Selwood are automatically guilty until proven innocent, whilst others are given the benefit of the doubt until proven to be serial offenders.

Otherwise it's going to be impossible to adjudicate on the spot whether a player has ducked or raised their arm.

Not really. Most of the time it's a fairly obvious movement. If the spectators at the game and at home can see it and the players can see it enough to get annoyed by it and complain to the umpire about the call, then the umpires can see it.

 

[Vindicater]

And Hawthorn fans hopes for James Sicily being a good player are now dashed.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Yeah good luck officiating this one.
Lets add some more GREY areas into the game.

 

[Effes]

Christensen will have to make some changes I suppose.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I just hope blokes who pick the ball up and stay low still get rewarded.

A bloke who picks the ball up, comes up and then goes back down should have no protection - but if you get low to pick up the ball and stay low, you should retain every protection.

Guarantee this rule causes more confusion though as it is interpreted differently.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I can live with some grey area and mistakes when it comes to lowering of the knees as long as every instance when the arm of the player with the ball goes up is called an automatic play on. That's by far the most annoying free kick and the most pathetic way to play.

Most of the worst offenders like Shuey combine the two anyway and the telescope arm is an easy spot.

Once the rule beds in and the blatant arm-raising cheating is eliminated it shouldn't be too difficult to distinguish between legitimate low movement in traffic and the Shuey-esque drop to one knee where you'd have no chance of continuing to run if the free isn't paid.

So in summary as long as Walters can get away with his ducking at times and Shuey can't lift his arm - you'll be happy?

I am not sure why lifting your arm is "cheating" - it is no different to positioning your body to get an in the back free kick.

 

[NoobPie]

It shifts the balance further towards those who wait for their opponent to get the ball rather than to get the ball themselves. It was bad enough when they invented the no sliding rule and changed the holding the ball rule from simply having to attempt a disposal to actually having to dispose the ball legally and this shifts the balance even further in favour of the tackler. The game has never been more biased in its favouritism for the tackler over the person who actually tries to get the ball. This is a tragedy in sporting terms.

You have a marginal point there (bolded). Ultimately though players taking possession and then instinctually trying to generate high contact is clearly a blight on the game. It also encourages players to put there heads/necks at risk where player safety should be a mutual responsibility, placing the responsibility absolutely on to the tackler has created objectively undesirable practices while actually increasing the risk to head and neck.

the idea that tacklers are going to deliberately try to engineer high tackles that look like the guy who is being tackled caused it is plainly ridiculous. Where is the incentive to do that? You risk giving away a high tackle for no benefit

 

[ManOfClay]

Honestly the only way I see it being interpreted properly is if the umpire uses player bias.

Guys like Mathieson, McLean and Selwood are automatically guilty until proven innocent, whilst others are given the benefit of the doubt until proven to be serial offenders.

Otherwise it's going to be impossible to adjudicate on the spot whether a player has ducked or raised their arm.

A horrible precedent.

Would be Brad Scott on Lindsay Thomas all over again every week

 

[Boxhead_31]

That's the rule change as announced today.

But when is the player with the ball "responsible for the high contact"?

Does it cover the arm raise? The more shruggish arm raise?

Jake Niall has reported:

"This covers situations of ducking, driving the head into the tackler or slipping down on contact."

I assume this is slipping down?

View attachment 321575

 

[jim boy]

suspect it may lead to more high and dangerous tackles, as tackling players will now be happy to tackle around the shoulders given that they will not be so likely to give away a free kick

 

[Big_Birdy]

The ducking/shrugging will be hard to adjudicate, but changing the rules for players who slip is brilliant.

If you aren't good enough to keep your feet you should never be rewarded.

Another added bonus is there should be no confusion for the below the knees rule now. If you go to ground at least you ain't getting the free if the opponent doesn't.

 

[Feerits Elf]

What happens if your natural running style is low with head down (even before the tackle) is it still incumbent on the tackler to not whack you in the head? Or can it be argued that the running player needs to run with better technique and therefore the tackler can tackle at a "normal" height and take out the running player?

Nah, that's just the running player's "natural arc".

 

[HBF]

Lindsay Thomas will struggle to get a kick now.

 

[bzparkes]

Lindsay Thomas will struggle to get a kick now.

Not like he gets free anyway.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

suspect it may lead to more high and dangerous tackles, as tackling players will now be happy to tackle around the shoulders given that they will not be so likely to give away a free kick

That's a pretty wild assumption. Players have always been able to tackle from the shoulders down. That hasn't changed. It will take an action from the player with the ball to negate the free.

 

[compact72]

Feel sorry for umpires. They cop it enough already, let alone with all these new rules next season.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I think all we have is Michael Walters

Now he can focus on goals more

 

[#gosaintas]

Poppy and Sicily are stuffed now

 

[Suma Magic]

View attachment 321838

 

[ApplecrossWC]

if they crack down on throwing the ball as well then the dogs are stuffed

 

[Clems Knee]

So every time a commentator says that a player "draws a free kick" (as if that's a good thing), now it will be play on? Great.
Initiating high contact to yourself, bending at the knees or raising the arm in order to get the free (not just to break a tackle or change direction) is a form of cheating as far as I'm concerned.
Teams like Geelong (and their exports) and West Coast were becoming unwatchable because of the levels of "drawing the free kick" that they had reached.
Hopefully now we can watch the great players playing football instead of trying to get cheap free kicks.

I'd like the AFL to also introduce the "Mr Flappy" rule in honour of Dean Cox. Players demonstratively asking for free kicks all the time should be fined or given free kicks against them. Play the game and leave the umpiring to the umpires and the crowd.