1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Pls excuse my ignorance rjay but I don’t understand what you’re saying here. 

Someone posted 'Dropping the knees, to get the ball should not be punishable.'

I was saying it never has been and it still isn't. If a player bends down to get the ball it's not punishable...but if a player then drops or if a player leads with their head it should be.

I hope that makes some sense.

and how often did selwood end up with cuts and blood on his head from this technique. instead of people being worried about head injuries they kept saying how brave he was. he's been called duckwood for as long as i can remember.

Why is this conversation only happening now and not 10 years ago?

 

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

and how often did selwood end up with cuts and blood on his head from this technique. instead of people being worried about head injuries they kept saying how brave he was. he's been called duckwood for as long as i can remember.

Exactly, and his half-wit brother was no different. 

I hate seeing players do this and would love to see it umpired out of the game. 

The new ruling is a good step in the right direction but another large grey area has been created

The umpires have zero chance of getting every high contact infringement adjudication judged correctly ... no chance

So what we will be left with are inconsistent outcomes with regards to the umpiring decisions made ... and that will be no fault on the umpires (at all)

We could ping players for shrugging their arms up or dropping their body/knees but again, it's impossible to judge these types of actions correctly (in real time)

The only way to fix the problem is to ping the stagers retrospectively and start handing out 3 match suspensions

Otherwise, the problem will stay and the angst will continue on

By the way, the ruling is 15 years too late but the league hasn't gone far enough, regardless

9 minutes ago, Macca said:

The only way to fix the problem is to ping the stagers retrospectively and start handing out 3 match suspensions

Otherwise, the problem will stay and the angst will continue on

By the way, the ruling is 15 years too late but the league hasn't gone far enough, regardless

Agreed, Macca. That one paid to Kozzy was justifiable as seen from one angle but not so when viewed from the opposite angle. And that’s with the luxury of slo-mo. I like your suggestion of penalising the offenders retrospectively. Except maybe a one-match suspension would suffice. Three seems a little harsh. 🤔 

Amazing that Selwood has done this his whole career but now suddenly it's an issue.

AFL are a joke

9 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Agreed, Macca. That one paid to Kozzy was justifiable as seen from one angle but not so when viewed from the opposite angle. And that’s with the luxury of slo-mo. I like your suggestion of penalising the offenders retrospectively. Except maybe a one-match suspension would suffice. Three seems a little harsh. 🤔 

Not harsh in terms of a detterent

We ping players for 10 weeks for having a $10 bet on footy

And the encroachment area in terms of players giving away 50m is a good rule in the sense that players do not want to encroach

They get caught out occasionsally but thems the breaks

The abuse/dissent rule is workable now once the rulings didn't include frivolous indiscretions

So they can get it right (or close enough to right) once they (the AFL) thinks things through

 

Was there no player before Selwood who dropped at the knees and/or raised the arms to get a head-high free kick? He may be the most proficient, but I find it hard to believe that Selwood was the first. Having said that, I can't think of anyone.

1 hour ago, Macca said:

The new ruling is a good step in the right direction but another large grey area has been created

The umpires have zero chance of getting every high contact infringement adjudication judged correctly ... no chance

So what we will be left with are inconsistent outcomes with regards to the umpiring decisions made ... and that will be no fault on the umpires (at all)

We could ping players for shrugging their arms up or dropping their body/knees but again, it's impossible to judge these types of actions correctly (in real time)

The only way to fix the problem is to ping the stagers retrospectively and start handing out 3 match suspensions

Otherwise, the problem will stay and the angst will continue on

By the way, the ruling is 15 years too late but the league hasn't gone far enough, regardless

'Macca', I would start with players who put their head down and deliberately use it as some kind of battering ram.

The outcome if the goes wrong is life for them and the poor player who was at the end of it.

3 or 4 weeks seems reasonable to me.

The dropping, ducking one I would put on notice (as it now is) but if it still persists then as you say 3 weeks for that...

9 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Why is this conversation only happening now and not 10 years ago?

 

Jack Ginnivan

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Was there no player before Selwood who dropped at the knees and/or raised the arms to get a head-high free kick? He may be the most proficient, but I find it hard to believe that Selwood was the first. Having said that, I can't think of anyone.

I can't think of anyone 'La Dee', I don't remember it being done at all in my playing days.

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Jack Ginnivan

and because he was stupid enough to admit it and claim it was a "skill"

1 hour ago, Macca said:

The new ruling is a good step in the right direction but another large grey area has been created

The umpires have zero chance of getting every high contact infringement adjudication judged correctly ... no chance

So what we will be left with are inconsistent outcomes with regards to the umpiring decisions made ... and that will be no fault on the umpires (at all)

We could ping players for shrugging their arms up or dropping their body/knees but again, it's impossible to judge these types of actions correctly (in real time)

The only way to fix the problem is to ping the stagers retrospectively and start handing out 3 match suspensions

Otherwise, the problem will stay and the angst will continue on

By the way, the ruling is 15 years too late but the league hasn't gone far enough, regardless

It would be great if we had FT umpires who could study tape, become accustomed to players techniques etc

They could not only identify the players who tend to do it but also know what to look for. Serial offenders have the benefit of doubt removed, if it looks like they ducked (including dropping the knees, shrugging the arm, leading with the head) ping them for holding the ball. After all apparently ducking is prior opportunity.

26 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and because he was stupid enough to admit it and claim it was a "skill"

Same as Cody Weightman. His once bountiful free kick harvesting has mostly dried up since he blabbed to the media about his “skills”. What this shows is that the AFL’s policies are driven by media influence rather than the opinions of medical professionals, fans or generally for what’s the greater good of the game. We see the same with suspensions with the severity of penalties or lack of administered according to how the media presents incidents.

Edited July 20, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

21 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

It would be great if we had FT umpires who could study tape, become accustomed to players techniques etc

They could not only identify the players who tend to do it but also know what to look for. Serial offenders have the benefit of doubt removed, if it looks like they ducked (including dropping the knees, shrugging the arm, leading with the head) ping them for holding the ball. After all apparently ducking is prior opportunity.

Wouldn't matter if the umpires were full time in this instance, Gonzo ... the infringements themselves are painted grey

It's like diving in soccer ... partially fixed with retrospective penalties or on the spot via VAR

Not totally fixed but it's miles better

Re footy ... even with retrospective bans the players are still going to milk contact from time to time

But they've at least got to try and fix things as it's getting worse (the milking of high contact frees)

They've ignored the issue for too long

38 minutes ago, rjay said:

I can't think of anyone 'La Dee', I don't remember it being done at all in my playing days.

Back in the day if you played for frees you rarely got them and then ran the risk of never getting a free kick for the game

The umps frowned upon the stagers and rightfully so

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Back in the day if you played for frees you rarely got them and then ran the risk of never getting a free kick for the game

The umps frowned upon the stagers and rightfully so

...and some of them would let you know about it with a few choice words.

10 minutes ago, Macca said:

Back in the day if you played for frees you rarely got them and then ran the risk of never getting a free kick for the game

The umps frowned upon the stagers and rightfully so

Fifty years ago Kevin Bartlett perfected bouncing the ball just before being tackled and received a free kick for being held every time. That wasn't staging, but was a clever use of the rules as they were in place at the time. There is no question that KB "played for frees". The then VFL changed the rule to make clear that a player bouncing the ball was considered to be in possession of the ball at all times.

What we know from history is that players and coaches will always try to find ways to use the rules to their teams' advantage, that is, to play for frees. Playing for frees with the head high tackle rule is significantly more problematic, however, because of the potential for physical, long-term harm.

We will never stop players and coaches using the rules to their teams' advantage. That's one of the reasons why the AFL is forced to make regular rule changes. Only a couple of weeks ago, the AFL changed the "protected space" rule to stop teams creating 50 metre penalty opportunities because teams with the ball had found a way to cause a defender to run accidentally into the protected area.

It's easy to complain about the umpires, to complain about players who play for frees and to complain about the AFL changing rules (or the "interpretation" of a rule) but the reality is that the game is always evolving, and not always for the greater good.  

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Fifty years ago Kevin Bartlett perfected bouncing the ball just before being tackled and received a free kick for being held every time. That wasn't staging, but was a clever use of the rules as they were in place at the time. There is no question that KB "played for frees". The then VFL changed the rule to make clear that a player bouncing the ball was considered to be in possession of the ball at all times.

What we know from history is that players and coaches will always try to find ways to use the rules to their teams' advantage, that is, to play for frees. Playing for frees with the head high tackle rule is significantly more problematic, however, because of the potential for physical, long-term harm.

We will never stop players and coaches using the rules to their teams' advantage. That's one of the reasons why the AFL is forced to make regular rule changes. Only a couple of weeks ago, the AFL changed the "protected space" rule to stop teams creating 50 metre penalty opportunities because teams with the ball had found a way to cause a defender to run accidentally into the protected area.

It's easy to complain about the umpires, to complain about players who play for frees and to complain about the AFL changing rules (or the "interpretation" of a rule) but the reality is that the game is always evolving, and not always for the greater good.  

The custodians can't just stand idly by and only concentrate on the money and the revenues

And many of the numerous rule changes over the years (and implications) have been good for the game (and that includes coming down hard on the KB (and others) in staging for free kicks

Of course we are going to complain ... that's what any individual might do when something is obviously wrong

Let the game evolve?  Into what?

 

Edited July 20, 20222 yr by Macca

33 minutes ago, Macca said:

Back in the day if you played for frees you rarely got them and then ran the risk of never getting a free kick for the game

The umps frowned upon the stagers and rightfully so

“Stager” that’s a word that gone out of fashion. 

Edited July 20, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

1 minute ago, Macca said:

The custodians can't just stand idly by and only concentrate on the money and the revenues

And many of the numerous rule changes over the years (and implications) have been good for the game (and that includes coming down hard on the KB (and others) in staging for free kicks

What do you want to do?  Nothing?

Of course we are going to complain ... that's what any individual might do when something is obviously wrong

Let the game evolve?  Into what?  An unwatchable mess? 

No thanks

 

"The custodians can't just stand idly by and only concentrate on the money and the revenues.."

 

Maybe this is exactly what they are thinking about now .... retrospective law suits and payouts because they have failed in their duty of care.

4 minutes ago, Macca said:

The custodians can't just stand idly by and only concentrate on the money and the revenues

And many of the numerous rule changes over the years (and implications) have been good for the game (and that includes coming down hard on the KB (and others) in staging for free kicks

What do you want to do?  Nothing?

Of course we are going to complain ... that's what any individual might do when something is obviously wrong

Let the game evolve?  Into what?  An unwatchable mess? 

No thanks

 

Macca, I agree. The point I was making is that the AFL has to manage the game's evolution to ensure it continues to be enjoyable and safe for the players. The mantra that the AFL should not make rule changes and "leave the game alone" just doesn't make any sense to me.

If it were left to the coaches, they would ruin the game as a spectacle.

 

Neil Sachse who passed away recently became a quadriplegic when charging low into an oncoming player. Though his injury was accidental as he appeared to stumble, a player deliberately dropping to his knees to milk a high tackle or going in head first to a tackle is at risk of the same sort of devastating neck or head injury. Slow motion replay showed that his head hit the oncoming Fitzroy players knee.

 

Edited July 20, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

3 hours ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Agreed, Macca. That one paid to Kozzy was justifiable as seen from one angle but not so when viewed from the opposite angle. And that’s with the luxury of slo-mo. I like your suggestion of penalising the offenders retrospectively. Except maybe a one-match suspension would suffice. Three seems a little harsh. 🤔 

This is the issue now. Umpires have to second guess what they see. Kozzy from the umpires viewpoint was a clear head high tackle. From reply on the other angle you can see kozzy was part of the reason why it was high .

 Incorrect calls happen due to umpire's positioning all the time. Think about how many times you see a player blatantly throw the ball when you watching in the stands. But umpire calls play on as he can only see the back of the player and the ball being released due to the fact the player's facing the other way. End result play on. Point is umpire should only be expected to judge what he sees, not what he thinks is happening on an angle he can't see.

Edited July 20, 20222 yr by Bates Mate