Toast Stamp out Selwood-like high frees: Clarkson

[Towmotar]

Is there any footage/incidents where the rule has actually been applied?
Again, I haven't had time to red the full thread.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I think that even if the second Poppy WAS a textbook Selwood arm lift, it would and should have still been paid. The revamped rule is about incidental high contact, it's not a green light to rip someones head off.

And the non-50 is the real talking point here, as it's pretty obvious it wasn't a legal tackle.. Didn't watch any of the TV shows, but was the non-50 brought up at all?

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Is there any footage/incidents where the rule has actually been applied?
Again, I haven't had time to red the full thread.

Selwoods last week, he was tackles similarly about 5 seconds prior to the one that caused all the fuss......play on

 

[Randy Campbell]

I'll turn you into me.

I don't know why you feel the need to lie
and cause so much pain
maybe it's something inside
maybe it's something you can't explain.

 

[essaynode]

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

Great vision. Although it was Richmond 27 who caught Puopolo high, the vision at 0:56 shows how much shorter Puopolo is compared to some of the other players. His head is literally at their armpit height.

My hope, as expressed by others here, is that every team in the AFL goes after Selwood the way that Richmond went after Puopolo when he win a head-high free kick by using his shoulder lift or knee bending tactics.

 

[Jack Gun Cyril Stun]

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.

Lol...Who does the voice of reason follow again?

 

[m0zza]

Great vision. Although it was Richmond 27 who caught Puopolo high, the vision at 0:56 shows how much shorter Puopolo is compared to some of the other players. His head is literally at their armpit height.

My hope, as expressed by others here, is that every team in the AFL goes after Selwood the way that Richmond went after Puopolo when he win a head-high free kick by using his shoulder lift or knee bending tactics.

To be fair, should be mentioned that Chris Scott (of all unbiased observers) commented that one of the Richmond players involved was pretty good at the method himself

 

[Noneedforaname]

Another Poppy tackle that hasn't had enough attention drawn to it, is the one against the handbagger that won him a free on the boundary line last week.

Plenty of times we see the tackler wrap a player up, they lie on the ball making no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball and it results in a ball up. Loved that Poppy released him, and the possum rolled himself out of play. Worm.

Decent tackle, effort expended all for zero reward. We see it 100s of time as week. 100s.

What Id love to see happen is when a player is tackled, and is lying prone, playing possum and often not even going through the motions, is the tackler to remove their arms, leaving the tackled lying there exposed and holding the ball. Return to grabbing their jumper, while they squirm in the fetal position. If the umpires cant play that as a free, they have no place umpiring little league.

s**t, I boo the duckwood himself for his involuntary tackle at the first sign of contact. Laughing stock. Weakling.

And forget about some sort of clarity regarding the issue until after he retires,

 

[Hawthorn United]

So where is the formal statement acknowledging that the free kick and subsequent goal was incorrect, so it can be jammed in Chris Scott’s arse.

If it was Lindsay Thomas, they would've issued a press release that evening. Selwood is a protected species.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Argy]

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

Definitely no ducking there. Head high every day of the week.

 

[Argy]

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.

Not true. Repeated head impact, even if low grade, causes cumulative brain damage. One or two concussions can be problematic of course, but aren't the real issue.

 

[JoeHawk]

Definitely no ducking there. Head high every day of the week.

Absolutely. Gary Lyon should open his eyes and stop talking crap. Poppy didn’t duck at all and the tackle was initially high.

 

[Hawthorn United]

If it takes Poppy being the fall guy for this maneuver to be called play on from now on, I'd take it. Least it means Selwood's #1 move is gone.

Poppy has more tricks in his kitbag such as his tackling and speed.

He's the hero the AFL deserves, not the hero it needs... or whatever that Batman quote is.

 

[essaynode]

Andrew Bogut says concussions must be treated with the utmost severity, opening up on his experience

“But studies are showing that’s probably the silliest thing you can do.”... and I would argue any head knock potentially contributes to subclinical brain trauma. Hence why Clarko was drawing attention to Joel's shoulder shrug tactic.

I hate the technique for two reasons:
1. It is probably not in a player's long term best interests to draw high contact.
2. I feel it unfairly penalises the tackler who fairly, and in good faith initiates a legal tackle. The rule is there to prevent you ripping another player's head off - not the way that Joel played it until the rules were changed.

Perhaps Bogut's comments will fan the flames some more.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/an...e/news-story/44173c4123de21e209bd6e7b50c5dc89

 

[grumbleguts]

Andrew Bogut says concussions must be treated with the utmost severity, opening up on his experience

“But studies are showing that’s probably the silliest thing you can do.”... and I would argue any head knock potentially contributes to subclinical brain trauma. Hence why Clarko was drawing attention to Joel's shoulder shrug tactic.

I hate the technique for two reasons:
1. It is probably not in a player's long term best interests to draw high contact.
2. I feel it unfairly penalises the tackler who fairly, and in good faith initiates a legal tackle. The rule is there to prevent you ripping another player's head off - not the way that Joel played it until the rules were changed.

Perhaps Bogut's comments will fan the flames some more.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/an...e/news-story/44173c4123de21e209bd6e7b50c5dc89

I think the rule needs a slight wording change.
It should read: "If you act like a stupid moron, wearing dark blue and white hoops, shrugging your shoulders as though your teacher asked you a simple addition question and you either don't know or don't give a s**t, collapsing your knees as thought you are about to go down on your coach again, and you started this entire ****ing travesty and your name is Joel Selwood, you will incur a free kick against you.

 

[Mr Lizard]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-30/free-kick-facts-who-gets-em-who-gives-em-away

From 31 games in his past two seasons, Joel Selwood has received 49 head-high free kicks – 23 more than the next highest, Brisbane's Rhys Mathieson.

 

[Birdofprey]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-30/free-kick-facts-who-gets-em-who-gives-em-away

From 31 games in his past two seasons, Joel Selwood has received 49 head-high free kicks – 23 more than the next highest, Brisbane's Rhys Mathieson.

Interesting article - thanks for link.

Re. Selwood, it's pretty remarkable really.

I guess we might expect that those who receive most free kicks "for" will also infringe for most "against", and this is likely to be mid-fielders exposed to frequent contests. This seems to be the case with Mitchell, Parker, and Danger, all getting a solid tally in both categories. However, I cannot see (from this article) that Selwood infringes to the same extent, and instead seems to be attracting much more "for" more than "against". I am sure there is more to the story than these selective stats, but on the surface it does suggest he (Selwood) is pretty effective in obtaining free kicks in his favor.

 

[Mr Lizard]

seems to be attracting much more "for" more than "against"

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-geelong-cats--joel-selwood

 

[Birdofprey]

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-geelong-cats--joel-selwood

View attachment 504676

Great follow up.

For a mid that plays inside the contest, that seems incredible. The dude is a free-kick machine.

 

[tommyk72]

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-geelong-cats--joel-selwood

View attachment 504676

For the first time since his first season there's less than a free a game difference between his for and against.

 

[Hawk_francais]

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/pc-geelong-cats--joel-selwood

View attachment 504676

698 career frees for holy moly... Brent Harvey had 394