On 17/05/2016 at 05:40, hells bells said:

The umpires would view it that it is not ducking as the players are not ducking their heads, rather dropping their body.  

They would argue that the player infringed was "going lower" at the ball.

i don't agree with it, but that's what I think is happening.

there is a difference between ducking INTO a player, versus ducking UNDER or AROUND a player's tackle (so to speak!). the latter is a perfectly acceptable manoeuvre. after all a player is not obliged to just let a tackler tackle him how he pleases

Luke Hodge in the commentary on the weekend was talking about how Toby McLean was "the best in the business" at milking the high tackle free. He then said "he might get hurt one day doing it but he's as good as I've seen."

Thank you Luke Hodge, I understood what you were implying.

  On 17/05/2016 at 07:50, daisycutter said:

there is a difference between ducking INTO a player, versus ducking UNDER or AROUND a player's tackle (so to speak!). the latter is a perfectly acceptable manoeuvre. after all a player is not obliged to just let a tackler tackle him how he pleases

Dammit, that's actually a very good point! I had a good high dudgeon going about the under-ducking, but you've toppled me dc.

However, on a separate well-covered beef on this thread - the throwndball - I think we can all still have a dudgeon of very-well-founded height. Two angles of inquiry: 1. Has there been any media discussion of this, either arising from the very noticeable application of the technique on Sunday or earlier; and 2. Is there anyone here on 'Land who can find examples and slomo them and post them?

Whilst I am confused about holding the ball I can't get my head around deliberate out of bounds.

When the Bulldogs player used a volleyball like dig to smash it out of bounds and it was just called a throw in. I couldn't help but agree with the drunk bloke behind me who was yelling that the Bulldogs player used the very same action the umpires use to signal deliberate.

It is noticeable that the actions that umpires use to signify holding the ball and deliberately out of bounds are very dramatic gestures.  This is drawing a long and silly bow, but could that be a factor in making the umpires act as if they were the centre of attention etc as many complain?  Perhaps if deliberate was indicated by standing on one leg with an arm in the air and holding the ball by squatting down ......

  On 18/05/2016 at 03:44, sue said:

It is noticeable that the actions that umpires use to signify holding the ball and deliberately out of bounds are very dramatic gestures.  This is drawing a long and silly bow, but could that be a factor in making the umpires act as if they were the centre of attention etc as many complain?  Perhaps if deliberate was indicated by standing on one leg with an arm in the air and holding the ball by squatting down ......

You can always tell when it's going to be holding the ball.

First the ump blows the whistle.

If it's a ball up the ump crosses his arms and runs in quickly.

But if it's holding it, there is a monster pause while the ump is motionless, then he bends down and sweeps his arms out in a huge dramatic motion.

I don't think it's attention seeking. I think it's that it's drummed into them that holding the ball is a big decision, momentous, don't pay it lightly, imagine what Eddie will say on Monday morning, you have to be 100% sure, etc.

The conflicting message sent by the umps department to the umps accounts for 95% of bad umpiring in my view.

They're now going to crack down on deliberate rushed behinds, as if that is something even worth cracking down on.

And they will claim with a straight face that "rule of the week" is not a real thing. (Maybe because it's rule of the month?)

  On 18/05/2016 at 04:45, Ted Fidge said:

They're now going to crack down on deliberate rushed behinds, as if that is something even worth cracking down on.

And they will claim with a straight face that "rule of the week" is not a real thing. (Maybe because it's rule of the month?)

That's the advantage of playing on Sundays - you have 2 days to know what the rule of the week is.  Trouble is, if there is enough fuss about it being wrong on Friday & Saturday, they may back off by Sunday.  Why is the AFL making me so cynical? Help....

  On 16/05/2016 at 00:52, Skuit said:

Slight edit where fans sometimes get it wrong.

It is the immediate disposal when you have had prior opportunity that bugs me. A player should be allowed to maintain possession when being tackled, while looking for a good option, for as long as they need to right up until the point that they can no longer dispose of the ball. 

Seeing players stand up in a tackle, get their arms free, and then have the composure to look for a target, no matter how many 360's they have done, is one of the great things to watch in our game. This mandatory free if you do a  360 is crap and really frustrating when a player waits for the options, dishes it off only to have a free called because he held it too long, even though play didn't stop. 

  On 16/05/2016 at 01:35, Devil is in the Detail said:

I still love it when the umpires say the ball was disposed/knocked out in the tackle and call play on. I see that is incorrect disposal when being tackled.

It's not - rule "15.2.4 Application - Specific instances where play shall continue" states 

For the avoidance of doubt, the field umpire shall allow play to continue when
(a) a player is bumped and the football falls from the players hands
(b) a players arm is knocked which causes the player to lose possession of the football

  On 16/05/2016 at 01:51, drdrake said:

The unwritten law knocked out in a tackle. 

It's not unwritten, see my previous post.

Is "In the spirit of the game" still in the rule book?

  On 18/05/2016 at 06:36, 3Dee said:

Is "In the spirit of the game" still in the rule book?

not in freo

  On 18/05/2016 at 06:36, 3Dee said:

Is "In the spirit of the game" still in the rule book?

Close.

 

D.   PURPOSE OF LAWS
These Laws explain how a Match of Australian Football is played and seek to attain the following objectives:
(a)  to ensure that the game of Australian Football is played in a fair manner and a spirit of true sportsmanship; and
(b)  to prevent injuries to Players participating in a Match so far as this objective can be reasonably achieved in circumstances where Australian Football is a body contact sport.

 

 

15.  FREE KICKS
15.1  INTERPRETATION
15.1.1  Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks
It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:
(a)  ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner;
(b)  provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession;
(c)  protect Players from sustaining injury; and
(d)  a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in accordance with these Laws.

The rules are simple:If a team wears red and blue,they will give away free kicks for nothing.If a team plays against a team wearing red and blue,they will be given free kicks for nothing.The same applies for 50 meter penalties.

I couldn't be bothered reading the last page, but earlier in the thread we were talking about the Bulldogs players being coached to drop their leg/shoulder to get free kicks for high tackles. Someone compiled this video of Toby Mclean in 2016 and it's damning. What a disgraceful footballer. He has been paid 18 free kicks in 2016, mostly for high tackles, and has 0 against. It's completely rubbish. I hope someone knocks his head off. Lachine Hunter can go with him the soft little cheating c*nt.
 

 

  On 18/05/2016 at 08:37, Lord Travis said:

I couldn't be bothered reading the last page, but earlier in the thread we were talking about the Bulldogs players being coached to drop their leg/shoulder to get free kicks for high tackles. Someone compiled this video of Toby Mclean in 2016 and it's damning. What a disgraceful footballer. He has been paid 18 free kicks in 2016, mostly for high tackles, and has 0 against. It's completely rubbish. I hope someone knocks his head off. Lachine Hunter can go with him the soft little cheating c*nt.
 

 

Wow that vid needs to go viral

Clint Eastwood should pay young Toby a visit (Run him out of town)

  On 17/05/2016 at 05:00, hells bells said:

When the Bulldogs are averaging a positive 9 Free Kick differential, it can't be luck.

It is a tactic and they are being coached. It's just that some players will be better at it than others.

IF the bloody maggots paid the throws the differential would be the other way  

  On 18/05/2016 at 03:44, sue said:

It is noticeable that the actions that umpires use to signify holding the ball and deliberately out of bounds are very dramatic gestures.  This is drawing a long and silly bow, but could that be a factor in making the umpires act as if they were the centre of attention etc as many complain?  Perhaps if deliberate was indicated by standing on one leg with an arm in the air and holding the ball by squatting down ......

Of course they love the theatre of it all and do like being the center of attention 

  On 18/05/2016 at 08:37, Lord Travis said:

I couldn't be bothered reading the last page, but earlier in the thread we were talking about the Bulldogs players being coached to drop their leg/shoulder to get free kicks for high tackles. Someone compiled this video of Toby Mclean in 2016 and it's damning. What a disgraceful footballer. He has been paid 18 free kicks in 2016, mostly for high tackles, and has 0 against. It's completely rubbish. I hope someone knocks his head off. Lachine Hunter can go with him the soft little cheating c*nt.
 

 

I generally don't like seeing players injured, but really guys like this are dicing with death or at least serious injury, and their dangerous antics should not be encouraged by the authorities.  Eventually one will get the injury they deserve  

In fact actively discouraging these antics, and my other pet hate, driving headlong head down into an opponent, is in the interests of all players. 

They should be penalized every time ...  would soon stop.

  On 18/05/2016 at 08:37, Lord Travis said:

I couldn't be bothered reading the last page, but earlier in the thread we were talking about the Bulldogs players being coached to drop their leg/shoulder to get free kicks for high tackles. Someone compiled this video of Toby Mclean in 2016 and it's damning. What a disgraceful footballer. He has been paid 18 free kicks in 2016, mostly for high tackles, and has 0 against. It's completely rubbish. I hope someone knocks his head off. Lachine Hunter can go with him the soft little cheating c*nt.
 

 

Wow, it's so obvious the way he hooks his arm under the tackler's arm and deliberately lifts it up. C'mon umps, you've gotta be smarter than this.

  On 18/05/2016 at 08:37, Lord Travis said:

I couldn't be bothered reading the last page, but earlier in the thread we were talking about the Bulldogs players being coached to drop their leg/shoulder to get free kicks for high tackles. Someone compiled this video of Toby Mclean in 2016 and it's damning. What a disgraceful footballer. He has been paid 18 free kicks in 2016, mostly for high tackles, and has 0 against. It's completely rubbish. I hope someone knocks his head off. Lachine Hunter can go with him the soft little cheating c*nt.
 

 

A largely unfixable problem .. most of the free kicks given to McLean needed slo-mo replay in order to make a proper evaluation and we don't have slo-mo replay.  Even if we did have slo-mo replay the games would then last 5-6 hours or more.

There are no practical solutions - nearly every "around the neck" given to McLean looked quite obvious in real time so what hope have the umpires got? (they work in real time)

I'm just surprised that it's taken this long for a player to be able to exploit the rule on "around the neck" ... we've seen Selwood shrug his arms and others drop their bodies but this bloke does both ... others will copy and refine the art.  The top junior players will have noticed more than we notice. 

My only practical solution is to do away with the 'around the neck' rule to a large extent (unless it's a Lindsay Thomas type tackle) Incidental contact to the neck, shoulder & head area could be play on - we could learn from Union & League.  The tackle should be deemed as dangerous.

A Lindsay Thomas type tackle should also be a reportable offence (as well as a free kick against)  I've always found the 'around the neck' adjudication to be questionable anyway.  A flawed rule that can (now) be easily exploited.

Otherwise, expect much more of the same and don't expect the umpires to change their evaluations.  It all happens too quickly and can only be partially fixed with a replay facility anyway.

Welcome to professional sports, AFL.

 

  On 18/05/2016 at 12:13, Macca said:

A largely unfixable problem .. most of the free kicks needed slo-mo replay in order to make a proper evaluation and we don't have slo-mo replay.  Even if we did have slo-mo replay the games would then last 5-6 hours or more.

There are no practical solutions - nearly every "around the neck" given to McLean looked quite obvious in real time so what hope have the umpires got? (they work in real time)

I'm just surprised that it's taken this long for a player to be able to exploit the rule on "around the neck" ... we've seen Selwood shrug his arms and others drop their bodies but this bloke does both ... others will copy and refine the art - by the hundreds.  All the top junior players will have noticed more than we notice.

My only practical solution is to do away with the 'around the neck' rule to a large extent (unless it's a Lindsay Thomas type tackle) Incidental contact to the neck, shoulder & head area could be play on - we could learn from Union & League. 

A Lindsay Thomas type tackle should also be a reportable offence (as well as a free kick against)  I've always found the 'around the neck' adjudication to be questionable anyway.  A flawed rule that can (now) be easily exploited.

Otherwise, expect much more of the same and don't expect the umpires to change their evaluations.  It all happens too quickly and can only be partially fixed with a replay facility anyway.

Welcome to professional sports, AFL.

 

I agree with your comments about real-time decisions, but once you're aware of it, it becomes quite easy to pick. Trouble is there's no rule against it so he can't be penalised and if high contact is made I guess it's got to be paid. Frustrating but you're right. 

  On 18/05/2016 at 07:30, Ted Fidge said:

Close.

 

D.   PURPOSE OF LAWS
These Laws explain how a Match of Australian Football is played and seek to attain the following objectives:
(a)  to ensure that the game of Australian Football is played in a fair manner and a spirit of true sportsmanship; and
(b)  to prevent injuries to Players participating in a Match so far as this objective can be reasonably achieved in circumstances where Australian Football is a body contact sport.

 

 

15.  FREE KICKS
15.1  INTERPRETATION
15.1.1  Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks
It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall be awarded to:
(a)  ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner;
(b)  provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of the football their sole objective, every opportunity to obtain possession;
(c)  protect Players from sustaining injury; and
(d)  a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in accordance with these Laws.

Interestingly there's nothing there about the aesthetics of the game when over the last decade the AFL has used the umpires for this precise purpose. Not to ensure the match is played in a fair manner and protect the player going for the ball but to make sure the game flows and looks nice. Where in the rules does it give them the mandate to do that?

  On 18/05/2016 at 12:21, The Reverend said:

I agree with your comments about real-time decisions, but once you're aware of it, it becomes quite easy to pick. Trouble is there's no rule against it so he can't be penalised and if high contact is made I guess it's got to be paid. Frustrating but you're right. 

It is not so easy to pick Rev, in my opinion ... if one was to put oneself in the moment, it looks like 'around the neck' in real time.  It's a clever move but I'm not sure how what McLean does can be outlawed unless we disregard incidental contact (as I mentioned in a previous post)  I know people don't like rule changes but the rules are often exploited (look what happened with the rotations and the feet/knees in first at the contest)

Unless they tighten up (or relax) the rule on 'around the neck', the issue will probably get worse.  And the umpires act under instructions, any rule changes need to come from above.  The umpires aren't working in an autonomous way, despite what people might think.

 

David King showed some footage to the world regarding the Bulldogs' questionable disposals from the weekend on AFL360 tonight. He said they counted about 15 overall. And they didn't even show the footage of Stringer's first goal, or his first goal in the last quarter.

  On 18/05/2016 at 11:41, monoccular said:

IF the bloody maggots paid the throws the differential would be the other way  

Of course they love the theatre of it all and do like being the center of attention 

I generally don't like seeing players injured, but really guys like this are dicing with death or at least serious injury, and their dangerous antics should not be encouraged by the authorities.  Eventually one will get the injury they deserve  

In fact actively discouraging these antics, and my other pet hate, driving headlong head down into an opponent, is in the interests of all players. 

They should be penalized every time ...  would soon stop.

On 360 they showed a compilation of Dogs "throws" from the weekend.  There was only one that was a throw, I think it was Dahlhaus scooping it out the back to Bont. The rest were fine, just very quick hands. There was one where the older  (Hunter?) held the ball for a handball and punched with the top of his knuckles instead of the thumb side of his fist. There is nothing wrong with this according to the rules as the rules state you must hold the ball in one hand and hit it with a clenched fist from the other. It doesn't say which side of the fist you must hit with. It's essentially a modified flick pass but with the laws of the game. 

I also agree the dropping the knees searching for a high tackle is dicing with severe injury. There is a reason the high tackle is banned it is to protect the player going for the ball. The rules state that a player with the ball who drives his head into a stationary or near stationary target will be deemed to have had prior opportunity. Pay a couple of holding the balls against these players (Dylan Grimes is another culprit) and they'll stop doing it. Someone will get injured/paralysed playing for free kicks and the AFL will have noone to blame but themselves.