Puopolo and Selwood ducking into the tackle to draw the free - is this a fair rule application?

[frggr]

That's a bloody masterpiece.

 

[captain blood 17]

Just more proof that Hawk supporters don’t actually watch footy.


Sent from my iPad using righteous Bhodi manpower

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Joel Selwood cops a lot of flack for his ducking tactics and rightly so, but Paul Puopolo is just as bad.

As a neutral observer watching the game today, I was amazed at how often this guy not only ducked like Selwood, but also flopped and dived time after time. I am amazed that he doesn't receive nearly as much criticism as Joel, as he is just as bad if not worse.

An absolute blight on the game.

Should be play on/prior opportunity if you drop the knees or duck into a tackle. Umpires still not calling this correctly.

And while on that...if youre tackled correctly initially and the tackle slips low (legs) in your effort to muscle your way through the tackle....also play on. If you try and break the tackle thats prior opportunty for mine.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Basically where we are at with this is that there is no onus anymore on the tackler.
If the AFL were serious with their line of the head is sacrosanct then they would be saying we don’t care how it occurs you can’t get the player with the ball high and it would force the coaches to instruct their players to tackle lower.
The only time the head is sacrosanct now is if it is bumped, other than that the AFL approves that you can tackle now around the neck.
I am still in the corner of this rule rewards the weak tackler.

 

[Power Raid]

Anyone contributing to head high contact should not get a free.

The AFL have stamped out the ugly and dangerous leading with the head. It’s time to to go one step further with the raising of arms and not award a free.

The tackler would have to let go immediately (reasonable definition) or be penalised though.

This preserves the head high rule but stops players drawing a free from incidental contact resulting from their action.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Anyone contributing to head high contact should not get a free.

The AFL have stamped out the ugly and dangerous leading with the head. It’s time to to go one step further with the raising of arms and not award a free.

The tackler would have to let go immediately (reasonable definition) or be penalised though.

This preserves the head high rule but stops players drawing a free from incidental contact resulting from their action.

How come half the tackles on Selwood stick and the other half he can raise his arms and force it high? The weak tackler he can force it high, the strong tackler he can’t. So let’s reward the weak and not protect the strong.
I have no issue with Selwood or whoever does it, head high is head high and it should be a free kick. The coaches and players need to change how they tackle, the ball carrier does not.
The coaches created this by telling their players to tackle higher. Put it back on them to get the right result, don’t penalise the ball carrier, he can do as he wants just don’t get him high.

 

[Grrr]

Basically where we are at with this is that there is no onus anymore on the tackler.
If the AFL were serious with their line of the head is sacrosanct then they would be saying we don’t care how it occurs you can’t get the player with the ball high and it would force the coaches to instruct their players to tackle lower.
The only time the head is sacrosanct now is if it is bumped, other than that the AFL approves that you can tackle now around the neck.
I am still in the corner of this rule rewards the weak tackler.

Players are taught to wrap up a players with one arm when they tackle, and try to wrap the other around the bicep area to stop them freeing their hands. When you grab Selwood that way he slides his arm up forcing the tacklers arm up. As Timmy from TT mentioned earlier, prior opportunity, holding the ball.
People saying players have to tackle better, well in general they do, but there the player with the ball is given so much latitude to hold the ball for so long these days. Go back 20 years they would be holding the ball every time.

 

[Grrr]

Cyril showing that it's possible to tackle Joel around the hips:

Duckopolo proving that he can't stop ducking, as he ducks into a hug from Cyril who gets him high:

/thread

Looks like a late tackle, Selwood has already got rid to the ball. So no evidence really.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Anyone contributing to head high contact should not get a free.

The AFL have stamped out the ugly and dangerous leading with the head. It’s time to to go one step further with the raising of arms and not award a free.

The tackler would have to let go immediately (reasonable definition) or be penalised though.

This preserves the head high rule but stops players drawing a free from incidental contact resulting from their action.

Agree.

Raising the arms should constitute prior opportunity. If the tacklee has chosen to raise the arms to break the tackle rather than dispose of the ball, then thats play on and he has to release immediately or be pinged for holding the ball.

 

[hk89]

Just more proof that Hawk supporters don’t actually watch footy.

Not just Hawk fans that call him "Junk time Jack". You've criticised Roughead for not scoring enough goals against your team, while dominating when having a height mismatch against Geelong, despite kicking twice as many goals against your backline than Geelong's. The trend of the game at the end suggested if it went for 5 more minutes, the result might have been different, so I'm not sure how you call a fighting comeback "junk time". Perhaps if you watched footy without your "OMG we won our first flag in nearly 40 years" goggles, you might be able to contribute something more sensible.

 

[Power Raid]

How come half the tackles on Selwood stick and the other half he can raise his arms and force it high? The weak tackler he can force it high, the strong tackler he can’t. So let’s reward the weak and not protect the strong.
I have no issue with Selwood or whoever does it, head high is head high and it should be a free kick. The coaches and players need to change how they tackle, the ball carrier does not.
The coaches created this by telling their players to tackle higher. Put it back on them to get the right result, don’t penalise the ball carrier, he can do as he wants just don’t get him high.

why? because the head is sacrosanct

it either is or it isn't.

If it's not, then no free as there is no issue with head high contact. If it is, then you have to prevent players deliberately putting their head at risk.

Judging by Diesel Williams and John Platten, I'd say the head is sacrosanct.

 

[frggr]

why? because the head is sacrosanct

it either is or it isn't.

If it's not, then no free as there is no issue with head high contact. If it is, then you have to prevent players deliberately putting their head at risk.

Judging by Diesel Williams and John Platten, I'd say the head is sacrosanct.

But not that sacrosanct if you can deliberately knee a bloke in the head and only get a week.

 

[Grrr]

why? because the head is sacrosanct

it either is or it isn't.

If it's not, then no free as there is no issue with head high contact. If it is, then you have to prevent players deliberately putting their head at risk.

Judging by Diesel Williams and John Platten, I'd say the head is sacrosanct.

Williams and Platten copped round house hooks, elbows and anything else that their opponents could get away with, as you could in those days, that is a bit different to round the neck from a slipped tackle that this topic is about.
The head is sacrosanct, but the high shoulder/neck isn't. Players have learned not to duck looking for a free, the raised arm will go as well in 5 minutes if the umps stopped calling it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

why? because the head is sacrosanct

it either is or it isn't.

If it's not, then no free as there is no issue with head high contact. If it is, then you have to prevent players deliberately putting their head at risk.

Judging by Diesel Williams and John Platten, I'd say the head is sacrosanct.

I don't understand your post. I will ask again, why do half the tackles on Selwood stick and the other half get forced high?

 

[frggr]

I don't understand your post. I will ask again, why do half the tackles on Selwood stick and the other half get forced high?

Oh, I know the answer to this!

The former half are good tackles.
The latter half are bad tackles.

 

[Grrr]

I don't understand your post. I will ask again, why do half the tackles on Selwood stick and the other half get forced high?

because sometimes you are in a better place to tackle, the player doesn't see you coming, the player see's you coming, Max Gawn or Caleb Daniels, different angles are harder to tackle from... i.e. no two tackles are the same for any number of reasons. Obviously some tacklers are better than others, but why is it only Selwood that causes this discussion.

 

[frggr]

because sometimes you are in a better place to tackle, the player doesn't see you coming, the player see's you coming, Max Gawn or Caleb Daniels, different angles are harder to tackle from... i.e. no two tackles are the same for any number of reasons. Obviously some tacklers are better than others, but why is it only Selwood that causes this discussion.

Because he's good at breaking tackles and because he's an outstanding player outside of that. He's more visible.

 

[captain blood 17]

Not just Hawk fans that call him "Junk time Jack". You've criticised Roughead for not scoring enough goals against your team, while dominating when having a height mismatch against Geelong, despite kicking twice as many goals against your backline than Geelong's. The trend of the game at the end suggested if it went for 5 more minutes, the result might have been different, so I'm not sure how you call a fighting comeback "junk time". Perhaps if you watched footy without your "OMG we won our first flag in nearly 40 years" goggles, you might be able to contribute something more sensible.

Nah, if you recall, your "fightback" only occurred in the last 5 minutes after Butler got cute as the game was over. The trend of the game was we were in front the whole game and even blew it out to 39 points. You were never gonna win it. So, yeah, that really is the definition of junk time. And Roughy kicked 4, but lets face it, he kicked 4 and wasn't even the best forward on the ground. Bit like Mitchell racks up 42 possies and wasn't even the best mid on the ground.
Oh, and thanks for pointing our we are reigning premiers. #feelsgood

 

[Grrr]

Because he's good at breaking tackles and because he's an outstanding player outside of that. He's more visible.

He is not more visible, although yes great player who I have nothing but admiration for, but he is not the only player good at breaking tackles, it is the way he does it that makes him more visible, and I have no problem with his tackle breaking style, if he didn't get a free for it.

 

[frggr]

He is not more visible, although yes great player who I have nothing but admiration for, but he is not the only player good at breaking tackles, it is the way he does it that makes him more visible, and I have no problem with his tackle breaking style, if he didn't get a free for it.

I don't really think he cares if he gets a free for it, either. It's not like he stops as soon as he completes the tackle break, he's usually on the move and looking to dish off.

 

[Grrr]

I don't really think he cares if he gets a free for it, either. It's not like he stops as soon as he completes the tackle break, he's usually on the move and looking to dish off.

Fine, this is not about Selwood for me, it is about the umpiring.

 

[Power Raid]

I don't understand your post. I will ask again, why do half the tackles on Selwood stick and the other half get forced high?

Why is the sky blue? Just as relevant.

There is no issue with selwood’s actions to break a tackle. If he is successful half the time great, especially if others have a lower success rate.

The issue is whether he should get a free for drawing head high contact? I think no

Clearly by his pleads and arguing though for a free, he’s doing it for free first and foremost. But that’s another issue.

 

[hk89]

Nah, if you recall, your "fightback" only occurred in the last 5 minutes after Butler got cute as the game was over. The trend of the game was we were in front the whole game and even blew it out to 39 points. You were never gonna win it.

I agree you kept us at arms length all day. Easy to say 'we were never going to win it' after we didn't win it though. Definitely some nervous Richmond fans around me at the ground when we were getting close.

So, yeah, that really is the definition of junk time.

Junk time is not when you have a team get within a couple of kicks of winning.

And Roughy kicked 4, but lets face it, he kicked 4 and wasn't even the best forward on the ground.

Lets face it , you claimed he was only able to score against s**t defences, but doubled his goal output against your mob. Seems it doesn't matter if it is Rance or a Geelong hobbit, he can still outbody and outmark his opponent.

Bit like Mitchell racks up 42 possies and wasn't even the best mid on the ground.

Better in almost every way than Cotchin, but if you can't get your team over the line and the other bloke does, it will be hard to have coach/umpire votes reflect your dominance.

Oh, and thanks for pointing our we are reigning premiers. #feelsgood

No problem, but I'm sure you didn't need me to point it out. The fact that you are in a thread about a Hawthorn player, and a Geelong player trying to convince me of how good Richmond is already makes it pretty clear you're up and about.

Richmond fans - The annoying little brother you wished your parents had never had.

 

[frggr]

Why is the sky blue? Just as relevant.

There is no issue with selwood’s actions to break a tackle. If he is successful half the time great, especially if others have a lower success rate.

The issue is whether he should get a free for drawing head high contact? I think no

Clearly by his pleads and arguing though for a free, he’s doing it for free first and foremost. But that’s another issue.

Does he argue for a free? Usually he's on the move and only stops for a whistle.

 

[captain blood 17]

I agree you kept us at arms length all day. Easy to say 'we were never going to win it' after we didn't win it though. Definitely some nervous Richmond fans around me at the ground when we were getting close.



Junk time is not when you have a team get within a couple of kicks of winning.



Lets face it , you claimed he was only able to score against s**t defences, but doubled his goal output against your mob. Seems it doesn't matter if it is Rance or a Geelong hobbit, he can still outbody and outmark his opponent.



Better in almost every way than Cotchin, but if you can't get your team over the line and the other bloke does, it will be hard to have coach/umpire votes reflect your dominance.



No problem, but I'm sure you didn't need me to point it out. The fact that you are in a thread about a Hawthorn player, and a Geelong player trying to convince me of how good Richmond is already makes it pretty clear you're up and about.

Richmond fans - The annoying little brother you wished your parents had never had.

Not one Tiger fan I know was nervous. They were pissed that it wasn't more because we started show boating and allowed those goals.

Junk time is where you are losing be around 6-7 goals, but then score a few late when the game is cooked.

11 disposals for Roughy. Not exactly blitzing with 7 marks. Rance had 19 disposals with 10 marks. Just saying.

Cotchin was best on ground according to all the media. Cotchin is also a Brownlow medallist and premiership captain. Mitchell has a long way to go to be even fit to tie Cotchins shoe laces.

I was responding to an outlandish point raised by a hawthorn supporter. You took it from there.