Toast Stamp out Selwood-like high frees: Clarkson

[Rioli2Gunstall]

They just showed it on AFL 360 after talking about clarkos commetns and Whately started going on about the irony of it after puopolo ducked and the players immediately remonstrating like a complete flog salty cat. And robbo and one of the coaches defended poppy and said it wasnt a duck and its a free every day of the week and he was just taken high. He didnt drop at all was just collected across the shoulder.

 

[BlueWaterHawk]

Watch the replay here, go a minute into the video so you can see the reverse angle slow motion and then tell me what was there for the rchmond players to get aggro about

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/al...s/news-story/68c856af293c3a89a14494f49038fa8d

yep, the reverse angle shows it was simply a crude tackle. Poppy isn't historically innocent, but citing that tackle as a line in the sand is stupid.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Gralin]

yep, the reverse angle shows it was simply a crude tackle. Poppy isn't historically innocent, but citing that tackle as a line in the sand is stupid.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Yeah his first one earlier in the game was the shrug and dip but he came up out of the tackle with a chance to dispose of the ball, if it had been play on that would have been the right call.

That one should have been a 50 the way the tigers carried on, also can't believe only two people got fined for the melee and no mention of knees to Rioli's head

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The tackle started high, it's that simple. There was no shrug. Clear free kick for over the shoulder.

 

[Gralin]

And the still before the first would show Poppy changing direction to try and wrong foot the tackler

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

And the still before the first would show Poppy changing direction to try and wrong foot the tackler

 

[kazzooka]

I think Sicily's action on Selwood started a chain reaction whereby Clarko had to comment on it and also called out poppy and Sicily for doing the same thing (I remember Sicily did it a few times in 2016 but hasn't really been prolific with it. I suspect Clarkson spoke to him about it and Sicily now rightly views it as cheating and tries not to).

This caused Scott to comment, get everyone in the media talking about it and then the Richmond players doing a Sicily impression after the poppy free (not sure why they didn't do it on his first one which was a "selwood" but the one that ticked them off was a legitimate high tackle).

I think hopefully from now on every time a player "selwoods" they get knocked down and called out it will stop very quickly.

 

[Baz_hawk]

Grimes looked like he'd pooed his pants when Cyril dragged him out of the way. Weak flog.

 

[Slysh]

The tackle started high, it's that simple. There was no shrug. Clear free kick for over the shoulder.


View attachment 481039

View attachment 481041

View attachment 481042

View attachment 481044

View attachment 481045

Very clearly different to the Joel one a week earlier, yet Poppy is being being treated very differently.
and just for comparison the Joel one.

 

[BlueWaterHawk]

You're all spot on. The media can be idiotic at times creating stories from nothing.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[QuietB]

I hate Chris Scott, Selwood and Geelong as much as anyone but we're kidding ourselves if we thought Scott wouldn't hit back at what Clarko said.

I really don’t think Clarko would care.

Hawks players would love what Clarko has done.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

retweet retweet retweet

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Very clearly different to the Joel one a week earlier, yet Poppy is being being treated very differently.
and just for comparison the Joel one.

Can you show the wrong footing that Pop did?

You're a star at this, by the way.

 

[Slysh]

Can you show the wrong footing that Pop did?

You're a star at this, by the way.

This is about as good as i could get

 

[SSSSSS]

I'm loving the heat it has put on Geelong, Selwood and Scott. We have them firing back at us, along with the whole media. A little bit of us vs them to galvanize the boys for a big season is going to be welcome.

 

[seysearles]

Watch the replay here, go a minute into the video so you can see the reverse angle slow motion and then tell me what was there for the rchmond players to get aggro about

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/al...s/news-story/68c856af293c3a89a14494f49038fa8d

Not fussed if it was there or not. The fact that the Richmond defence just spontaneously decided to attack him tells you that he has a reputation for doing it and that the players are sick of the shrugging (or you may argue the 'perceived shrugging' in this case) which is good. I just hope they maintain the same attitude against Selwood and don't go easy on him because of his status us a 'leader of men'.

 

[Towmotar]

Its probably already been mentioned, but as much as the Selwood arm raising should be called out, there was a pretty weak link between that action and concussions. I'm surprised Clarko went down that road.
Drawing free kicks by raising the arms and inducing high contact is a terrible look and hardly makes players like Selwood any more endearing, but its legal. For now.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Its probably already been mentioned, but as much as the Selwood arm raising should be called out, there was a pretty weak link between that action and concussions. I'm surprised Clarko went down that road.
Drawing free kicks by raising the arms and inducing high contact is a terrible look and hardly makes players like Selwood any more endearing, but its legal. For now.

No its not legal for now, the rules were changed some time ago to state something along the lines that if the initial contact of the tackle was to a legal area and the slipped up then it was to be deemed to be play on, same goes for a tackle around the waist that slipped down below the knees was deemed to be play on.
Somebody on here posted the rule in here somewhere.

 

[Towmotar]

No its not legal for now, the rules were changed some time ago to state something along the lines that if the initial contact of the tackle was to a legal area and the slipped up then it was to be deemed to be play on, same goes for a tackle around the waist that slipped down below the knees was deemed to be play on.
Somebody on here posted the rule in here somewhere.

I may be late to the party here, but if that's the case its one of the most under applied rules of the game.

 

[Bumps"N"Grins]

I may be late to the party here, but if that's the case its one of the most under applied rules of the game.

True

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

View attachment 481051

I think an important key also to this one is the fact that Pop is already well flexed and bent/ half squatting at the knees due to the fact he is wrong footing his opponent before contact is made.

 

[B&GBlood]

I may be late to the party here, but if that's the case its one of the most under applied rules of the game.

That is the very point the pages of and pages of argument have been making. No free for incidental contact that doesn't start high, Play on!

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

Its probably already been mentioned, but as much as the Selwood arm raising should be called out, there was a pretty weak link between that action and concussions. I'm surprised Clarko went down that road.
Drawing free kicks by raising the arms and inducing high contact is a terrible look and hardly makes players like Selwood any more endearing, but its legal. For now.

It was a simple textbook media play. Got everyone talking about it even more and then better yet hooked Duckwood’s coach into a bite to gain more traction. It’s due to air every time Duckwood gets another high free and before we play them again.

 

[Rioli2Gunstall]

Also showed on on the couch where they all agreed poppy did nothing wrong and it was a standard high tackle. Cant believe "the voice of reason" whately went straight for the jugular with his comments on that one, got it very wrong whately showing some of that hawk jealousy.
Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for sit down selwoods tactics. As for the rule i thought it came in around 2016 that if the person being tackled caused the tackle to go high it was play on or holding the ball, as said above its a very under umpired rule.

 

[Gralin]

Not fussed if it was there or not. The fact that the Richmond defence just spontaneously decided to attack him tells you that he has a reputation for doing it and that the players are sick of the shrugging (or you may argue the 'perceived shrugging' in this case) which is good. I just hope they maintain the same attitude against Selwood and don't go easy on him because of his status us a 'leader of men'.

He literally did nothing wrong in the tackle the richmond blokes carried on after, should have been a 50, it was a dummy spit from a beaten defender

Ducking is just the latest poorly umpired situation that players have worked out how to exploit for frees.

Clean this one up and the next one will appear.

Start umpiring it correctly and nobody will care if a player ducks to try and break a tackle because it will either work or be htb