When will commentators make players accountable for "lowering the centre of a gravity"

[gillon]

"The tackler just needs to go lower" - Cameron Ling

If the tackler goes lower the tackle itself becomes useless. The point of a tackle is to pin the arms so the player can't get rid of the ball properly. They may not be "ducking", but they're essentially stopping where they are, and driving themselves into the tackler with their knees bent. If it's obvious the intention is to receive a free then it should be play on, or holding the ball if they don't get rid of it legally.

 

[wowlace]

"The tackler just needs to go lower" - Cameron Ling

If the tackler goes lower the tackle itself becomes useless. The point of a tackle is to pin the arms so the player can't get rid of the ball properly. They may not be "ducking", but they're essentially stopping where they are, and driving themselves into the tackler with their knees bent. If it's obvious the intention is to receive a free then it should be play on, or holding the ball if they don't get rid of it legally.

You can't go too low, lest you're called for contact below the knees. You need to find the sweet spot, kinda like GHB.

 

[SuperSub17]

It astounds me that anybody can think that an otherwise fine tackle that is made into a high one by the player with the ball is the fault of the tackler.

Joel Selwood started doing this s**t in 2009. 7 years later and what have we done to stop it?

 

[kickazz]

If the tackler goes lower the tackle itself becomes useless. The point of a tackle is to pin the arms so the player can't get rid of the ball properly.

Sort of.

The tackle is not useless, as any tackle requires the ball carrier to dispose of the ball. The point of the tackle is to ensure that there is a way to dispossess a player and stop them from essentially running the length of the field doing what they want.

When tackling, you have two broad options:

A tackle around the waist. Pros: watching hips means player less likely to dodge you; easier to perform tackle legally. Cons: ball carrier might be able to get a more effective handpass away.

A tackle around the upper arm: Pros: Better chance of getting HTB or at least affecting a poor disposal. Cons: Requires more strength, more likely to slip up and be a free against.


I'm not disputing that the ball carrier at times contributes to the high tackle and it's not always from honest evasion. But why is the above so hard for so many to understand?

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Why doesn't the players? They would get fined if it's against the AFL.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

That L Thomas free for basically pulling the Swans arm around his neck was worse.

 

[kickazz]

It astounds me that anybody can think that an otherwise fine tackle that is made into a high one by the player with the ball is the fault of the tackler.

Joel Selwood started doing this s**t in 2009. 7 years later and what have we done to stop it?

Wrong. Even from Geelong alone Chapman was shrugging tackles like this, before Selwood started playing.

Eddie just made a big deal of Selwood, probably because he was in very good form at the time, and the sheep have followed since.

Ducking is a problem, as is players just falling down with the pill almost, but blanket statements saying that the tacklers has no influence on the tackle being high are, well, just not that bright.

 

[kickazz]

That L Thomas free for basically pulling the Swans arm around his neck was worse.

It was a disgrace. There was no attempt to make the play, to avoid the tackle. His intention was to stop play, he actively sought out the arm and held it above his shoulder.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Or throw full pelt tackle at shoulder level, if they bend the knees the ducker will likely be concussed and you can't get done by MRP for the duck contributed to the impact.

 

[Power Raid]

it should be a free hit if the player ducks or pulls the arm up in the tackle

 

[_GT_]

A blight on the game really. Thing is blokes like Thomas are getting multiple, preventable head knocks a match. Over a long career, are they going to have issues like boxers do? Not a smart thing to do for your post footy career.

 

[SuperSub17]

Wrong. Even from Geelong alone Chapman was shrugging tackles like this, before Selwood started playing.

Eddie just made a big deal of Selwood, probably because he was in very good form at the time, and the shell have followed since.

Doesn't really change the point. It has been happening for ages - players and supporters have been complaining about it, but what has been done to try to stamp it out? It is a blight on the game.

Ducking is a problem, as is players just falling down with the pill almost, but blanket statements saying that the tacklers has no influence on the tackle being high are, well, just not that bright.

Of course they have some influence on it, depending on how far you're willing to take it. If they didn't tackle at all we wouldn't have a problem, would we?

It's fairly simple the way I see it. If you contribute to the high contact yourself you shouldn't get a free kick, whether that's ducking, dropping the knees, shrugging or whatever. If fans can call this instantly when it happens, why can't umpires?

 

[Milux]

Definatly is a blight on the game at the moment. Hewitts just as bad. And no im not defending matheison. Should be stamped out.

I think if the arm that isnt holding the ball lifts up in the air and contributes to the high it should be play on if not holding the ball.

 

[Rob]

Dermott just laid the smacketh down on Lindsay. Hopefully more follow.

What pisses me off the most is the morons that firstly try and claim that dropping the knees isn't ducking (which it is), but then make it worse by trying to pretend it's somehow different. Surely it doesn't matter *how* the player initiates the high contact - only that he initiates it. And if he does initiate it, the correct call should be play on.

 

[ConcreteWaters]

If your tackle is weak enough to be shrugged, usually because you're trying to effect an illegal disposal free, it's a bad tackle and open to be penalised. Just nail a player properly.

 

[kickazz]

It's fairly simple the way I see it. If you contribute to the high contact yourself you shouldn't get a free kick, whether that's ducking, dropping the knees, shrugging or whatever. If fans can call this instantly when it happens, why can't umpires?

I recon this would be a good basis for the rule. I'd still have something to say it's a free for too high though if it's really bad like a rugby league style high tackle.

Also from what I've seen watching the game and reading big footy, the umpires actually have a much better idea than most of the fans. ;-p

 

[mike123]

I have no problem with this, the harder it is to tackle, the more the game opens up and less stoppages.

The player with ball in hand should be rewarded.

 

[STFU Donnie]

How is it within the commentators' power to hold the players accountable for anything?

 

[gillon]

If your tackle is weak enough to be shrugged, usually because you're trying to effect an illegal disposal free, it's a bad tackle and open to be penalised. Just nail a player properly.

Sort of.

The tackle is not useless, as any tackle requires the ball carrier to dispose of the ball. The point of the tackle is to ensure that there is away dispossess a player and stop them from essentially running the length of the field sound what they want.

When tackling, you have two broad options:

A tackle around the waist. Pros: watching hips means player less likely to dodge you; easier to perform tackle legally. Cons: ball carrier might be able to get a more effective handpass away.

A tackle around the upper arm: Pros: Better chance of getting HTB or at least affecting a poor disposal. Cons: Requires more strength, more likely to slip up and be a free against.


I'm not disputing that the ball carrier at times contributes to the high tackle and it's not always from honest evasion. But why is the above so hard for so many to understand?

Useless was an exaggeration, but yes.

A ball carrier will get a hand pass away 99% percent of the time if they have their arms free, unless they're in full sprint.

 

[kickazz]

Useless was an exaggeration, but yes.

A ball carrier will get a hand pass away 99% percent of the time if they have their arms free, unless they're in full sprint.

They probably will. Back when i started watching footy, tackles were lower and yeah, more handpass got away. But crucially, incorrect disposal, the "controlled fumble", etc were always penalised.

 

[Eldou]

What is wrong with players tackling properly. If you are a professional player and are tackling around the deltoids making it easy to shrug or the opponent to lower to get your arm around the neck then you are a spud. This has been going on for ten years.
MFC players are abysmal at this they continually have these frees "drawn" from them. They just need to smarten up.
I have no idea why supporters are whinging about this. Learn how to tackle 2016 style. It's literally your freaking job

 

[DrEvil_]

We used to joke about players tackling their opposition's arm with their neck, but that's exactly what Thomas did.

 

[_GT_]

What is wrong with players tackling properly. If you are a professional player and are tackling around the deltoids making it easy to shrug or the opponent to lower to get your arm around the neck then you are a spud. This has been going on for ten years.
MFC players are abysmal at this they continually have these frees "drawn" from them. They just need to smarten up.
I have no idea why supporters are whinging about this. Learn how to tackle 2016 style. It's literally your freaking job

I'll accept that better technique is part of the answer. However, laying this singularly at the feet of the tackler is a joke. The aim of the modern game is for players to keep the ball moving. Deliberate attempts to stop the play this way should be penalised. Oh, and this an opinion, not a whinge.

 

[Pie eyed]

"The tackler just needs to go lower" - Cameron Ling

If the tackler goes lower the tackle itself becomes useless. The point of a tackle is to pin the arms so the player can't get rid of the ball properly. They may not be "ducking", but they're essentially stopping where they are, and driving themselves into the tackler with their knees bent. If it's obvious the intention is to receive a free then it should be play on, or holding the ball if they don't get rid of it legally.

The tackler simply needs to lower said "duckers" centre of gravity a few inch below ground level.
If your going to get free kicked make sure they feel it for a few weeks.

 

[Power Raid]

The tackler simply needs to lower said "duckers" centre of gravity a few inch below ground level.
If your going to get free kicked make sure they feel it for a few weeks.

The AFL wants to protect the head............that must by definition make both the tackler and the tackled accountable