Opinion The rule change the game actually needs

[PhatBoy]

Seen rugby league players with their cauliflower ears? or heard them speak through their fractured larynxes? It's not overly pretty.
In all seriousness, I don't see a problem with the rule and my impression was that the umps interpreted it so as not to pay a free to a player who ducks into a tackle or initiates the contact anyway.

Lol.

I know this was tongue in cheek anyway but the majority of cauliflowered eared ‘league’ players are rugby Union players.

And their ears come from scrummaging, not from anything to do with the general running and tackling.

The ones with broken larynxes - your Darren Lockyers, David Barnhills, Billy Moores: it’s from an attempt to tackle an opponent and getting the ball carrier’s elbow to their throat.

In Lockyer’s case it was even attributed to the fact that he spent most of every game screaming instructions to his teammate.

 

[Turbocat]

A lot of the issue is the emphasis on defence and numbers around the ball. Do we want the game about those who create or those who stifle and shut down. I do not want netball but the number of players around the ball and ina screen shot is far greater than when the game was played 60, 40, maybe even 15 years ago. Have a look at the 07 gf.

In a lot of ways , I think the game might be better without all the tackling. Id go back to 89 which a lot say was the best GF ever... the tackle numbers were 47 to 25. The emphasis on def has change the game, and tehre is probably no going back while there is 18 on the field.

Generally id say we should protect the play maker and that we should protect the skills of the game. A player should correctly dispose of the ball once correctly tackled but that tackle best be near perfect or it will be an infringement of some sort.

Anyone that remembers or saw the Scache incident know the danger of head high contact with a player low running with head down... the responsibility of both players should be not to put you head down and drive. To me thats is ducking (when a players face is looking at the grass) is not what Selwood has ever done. Catempires photo shows what he does. He lowers him self. Some dislike it ...but its a tactical response to tackling method taught to restrain the arms. Just this week against North we saw two examples , one where Holmes got called for high.... but then later Kolo tackle the player around tummy ... and the tackle stayed.


To me the emphasis to me should be on the tackler to lower his arms, and if that means the player gets the ball out then so be it. Instead of tackling the player withe the ball go get it your self. Players going for the ball, have ball in hand need some sort of protection or you just incentiveize ... more tackling and more def.

 

[standupand]

Lol.

I know this was tongue in cheek anyway but the majority of cauliflowered eared ‘league’ players are rugby Union players.

And their ears come from scrummaging, not from anything to do with the general running and tackling.

The ones with broken larynxes - your Darren Lockyers, David Barnhills, Billy Moores: it’s from an attempt to tackle an opponent and getting the ball carrier’s elbow to their throat.

In Lockyer’s case it was even attributed to the fact that he spent most of every game screaming instructions to his teammate.

Yeah totally tongue in cheek. I don't even know what scrummaging is tbh. Not sure I'd want to know. I bet the elbows to the throat were play on.. You can tell I'm a fan right? What I will tell you is I've never watched a game of footy and thought - You know what this game needs aesthetically? More players being able to get grabbed around the head and neck.

 

[PhatBoy]

Yeah totally tongue in cheek. I don't even know what scrummaging is tbh. Not sure I'd want to know. I bet the elbows to the throat were play on.. You can tell I'm a fan right? What I will tell you is I've never watched a game of footy and thought - You know what this game needs aesthetically? More players being able to get grabbed around the head and neck.

It doesn’t need more high tackles but there needs to be more discretion imo.

 

[Cosmic Energy]

I posted something in the unpopular opinions thread covering similar territory. I’m of the view that not enough frees are paid, which leads to more stoppages. Some media types who talk about ‘soft’ frees forget they were the beneficiary of more protection than some get these days. Oddly enough Leigh Matthews used to be one who advocated more player protection and frees. Perhaps because he’s comfortable with himself and not scared of being seen as ‘soft’. Joel Selwood seemed to be his favourite player.

I feel like a while back umpires used to give the ball player more protection - anything remotely high - free. Anything remotely in the back - free. Didn’t matter who initiated contact, ducking, shrugging, falling forward or otherwise. They’d miss behind the play incidents of course but that is a different thing.

Some quick lazy stats.

1970 grand final: 48 free kicks to 43
1980 grand final: 37 free kicks to 25
1990 grand final: 27 free kicks to 20
2000 grand final: 21 free kicks to 21
2010 grand final (drawn): 17 free kicks to 14
2021 grand final: 19 free kicks to 13

There were over 110 tackles in the 2021 grand final. 3 umpires (or 4?), and so few frees? Surely there were more high tackles, in the backs, holding the man, or holding the balls that could have been paid?

Anyway. If the game allows it to be preferable to tackle than to get the ball first, then that wouldn’t be a good step.

 

[Hinkley29]

Bump

looks like I went about 2.5 months early on my call. Good to see the AFL actually doing something about this now.

 

[catempire]

Bump

looks like I went about 2.5 months early on my call. Good to see the AFL actually doing something about this now.

In what sense?

 

[Hinkley29]

In what sense?

They have acknowledged that players gaming the rules to draw free kicks is bad for the game and have said they are cracking down on it.

 

[Hinkley29]

Yeah totally tongue in cheek. I don't even know what scrummaging is tbh. Not sure I'd want to know. I bet the elbows to the throat were play on.. You can tell I'm a fan right? What I will tell you is I've never watched a game of footy and thought - You know what this game needs aesthetically? More players being able to get grabbed around the head and neck.

Maybe you should watch a few more (any?) games of rugby league before commenting.

an elbow to the throat in rugby league would definitely be a penalty, definitely be put on report (suspension to follow), probably result in 10 mins in the sin bin (team playing a man short) and sometimes result in a send off (team playing a man short for the rest of the game). Rugby league is a tough game, but if you break the rules the penalties are harsh.

 

[Lana]

I posted something in the unpopular opinions thread covering similar territory. I’m of the view that not enough frees are paid, which leads to more stoppages. Some media types who talk about ‘soft’ frees forget they were the beneficiary of more protection than some get these days. Oddly enough Leigh Matthews used to be one who advocated more player protection and frees. Perhaps because he’s comfortable with himself and not scared of being seen as ‘soft’. Joel Selwood seemed to be his favourite player.

I feel like a while back umpires used to give the ball player more protection - anything remotely high - free. Anything remotely in the back - free. Didn’t matter who initiated contact, ducking, shrugging, falling forward or otherwise. They’d miss behind the play incidents of course but that is a different thing.

Some quick lazy stats.

1970 grand final: 48 free kicks to 43
1980 grand final: 37 free kicks to 25
1990 grand final: 27 free kicks to 20
2000 grand final: 21 free kicks to 21
2010 grand final (drawn): 17 free kicks to 14
2021 grand final: 19 free kicks to 13

There were over 110 tackles in the 2021 grand final. 3 umpires (or 4?), and so few frees? Surely there were more high tackles, in the backs, holding the man, or holding the balls that could have been paid?

Anyway. If the game allows it to be preferable to tackle than to get the ball first, then that wouldn’t be a good step.

They used to make decisions quicker as well, player gets tackled, they wait to see if it will get knocked out, players dive over each other. It should tackled 1 2 3 ball up or 1 2 3 holding the ball etc.

I'd also like to get rid of prior opportunity, also if a player has possession of the ball and it gets knocked out of their hands and they don't kick/handball it then it should be a free kick against.

 

[Kitcat]

Players are picking up the ball and collapsing to the ground to get a high free kick immediately a tackler touches them. Deliberately falling to the ground is not part of our game and is makes for a poor spectacle. The player has chosen to take the risk of a high tackle, so no free, and in my view, it should often be holding the ball as the player has had the opportunity to dispose of the ball but has chosen to go to ground.

 

[catempire]

They used to make decisions quicker as well, player gets tackled, they wait to see if it will get knocked out, players dive over each other. It should tackled 1 2 3 ball up or 1 2 3 holding the ball etc.

I'd also like to get rid of prior opportunity, also if a player has possession of the ball and it gets knocked out of their hands and they don't kick/handball it then it should be a free kick against.

I hope this is satire.