For what it's worth, it was very obvious on television, might not have looked so clear cut at the ground. Nothin like a slow-mo replay to make clear that someone started to slide under of their own accord.

It was clear as day for all to see. Where I was sitting we were all heralding the arrival of the modern day Darren Bewick.

Angus Monfries I salute you! Good to see a time honoured Essendon tradition is being upheld.

I agree that Essendon's had a lot of stagers,esp. Lloyd and Wanganeen(wasn't it great to see him diving against the Bombers when he went to Port! Essendon supporters soon learnt why other teams' supporters didn't like it)

BUT!!! I still reckon Greenie made a bad mistake. All players will try to fall forward when stationery and attacked from behind. The tackler must pin at least one arm , and pull him to one side. I reckon most umps would have HAD to pay Monfries that free. Brad was all over him.

I agree that Essendon's had a lot of stagers,esp. Lloyd and Wanganeen(wasn't it great to see him diving against the Bombers when he went to Port! Essendon supporters soon learnt why other teams' supporters didn't like it)

BUT!!! I still reckon Greenie made a bad mistake. All players will try to fall forward when stationery and attacked from behind. The tackler must pin at least one arm , and pull him to one side. I reckon most umps would have HAD to pay Monfries that free. Brad was all over him.

No it's propping and dropping...and it was pretty obvious to boot. The rapid reduction in pace gives the chaser little to no time to make the proper adjustments to the tackle.

A savvy umpire would have been on to it. Unlike "ducking your head" which lets face it is a sensible bit of self preservation, this practice is a cynical way out of a bad situation. I'd like to see the ump's onto this practice pronto lest we see our game pick up one of soccer's more unfortunate blights.

It may well be that I wear my red and blue coloured glasses while watching the footy, but I've never seen Green do that.

Yep, you're right. It must be your red and blue colored glasses.

Green does it. I've seen it.

Monfries and Green are not alone though. I noticed it in the Carlton vs St Kilda game a couple of Friday nights ago. A Carlton player [can't remember who] virtually dropped to his knees as soon as he felt contact from behind. The player chasing has no real option other than to fall onto their back. At normal speed, the umpire has to pay a free kick for in the back.

It's like the player on the bottom of the pack with a guy sitting on top of him. The guy on top stops the ball from coming out and the player underneath gets penalised.

It's very difficult to umpire that sort of situation.

A Carlton player [can't remember who] virtually dropped to his knees as soon as he felt contact from behind.

Pretty sure it was Marc Murphy that night. And he's a serial dropper..

Monfries and Green are not alone though. I noticed it in the Carlton vs St Kilda game a couple of Friday nights ago. A Carlton player [can't remember who] virtually dropped to his knees as soon as he felt contact from behind. The player chasing has no real option other than to fall onto their back. At normal speed, the umpire has to pay a free kick for in the back.

As the rules currently stand, a player would be silly not to do it as it is a fairly easy way to draw a free kick. It's not diving though, as the player being tackled just lets the tackler's momentum take them forward and to ground. A good tackle won't let that happen.

My view is that a tackle that carries a player forward shouldn't be a push in the back as they're not using their hands to do it (ie. It is not a "push").

My view is that a tackle that carries a player forward shouldn't be a push in the back as they're not using their hands to do it (ie. It is not a "push").

The umpires though deems that if a player tackles a player forward and causes unnecessary contact in the back with the follow thru, regardless of not using their hands, the umpire will officiate it as "in his back" or a "push" and will award the free kick.

The free kick was there. There's no rule preventing the player from falling forward. There is a rule preventing players from pile driving into thier numbers. There's no doubt that Monfries contributed to the contact by falling forward. The umpires are fully aware of that, they cannot do anything other than give the free as there has been no rule passed to prevent diving.

It's not the umpires task to pass that rule, that directive needs to be discussed by the rules committee.

My view is that a tackle that carries a player forward shouldn't be a push in the back as they're not using their hands to do it (ie. It is not a "push").

So if a player is standing there and you run full pelt into their back and the whiplash causes permanent neck damage, as long as they tackle them it's ok?

So if a player is standing there and you run full pelt into their back and the whiplash causes permanent neck damage, as long as they tackle them it's ok?

Have you any idea the amount of force that would take? Besides which, a tackle of the force required to do that would almost certainly cause the same injury if executed in the twisting motion that is legal. It would probably do more damage because of the sideways forces on the neck as well.

If a tackle uses undue force it is reportable (see Darren Milburn). That wouldn't change if a tackle during which a player is carried forward incidental to the tackle was legal.

Under the current rule, explain why a high mark where the player who is being marked over is pushed forward by the marker's body weight is not paid a free kick? How is that different?

Often in these situations there's no free kick for in the back because of 'sprawling' (where the tackled player's knees buckle and he deliberately falls forward to get a free). But this instance wasn't one of those, it was a free kick to Monfries.