5 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Redmond has not changed his posture at all from previous frame. Ginnivan is now is about 6 inches lower than in the previous frame.

the free kick was already there in the previous frame.......on the shoulder

19 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

The issue I see is that with every changing of the rules there is a mighty over reaction by the Magoos and a lot of legitimate head high tackles will not be paid until we have another head or kneck injury. Tha AFL should have punished the cheats in the first place and it would have been yesterday’s news by now.!!!

If players stand tall in the tackle they won't end up in a wheelchair

Edited July 26, 20222 yr by Macca

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

And if the umps are in payback mode so be it ... they are not robots

i don't mind a bit of payback. ginnivan certainly deserves this.

but this doesn't alter the issue of whether this particular decision was right or wrong

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the free kick was already there in the previous frame.......on the shoulder

Rule 17.3.2- (c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
 

Edited July 26, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

i don't mind a bit of payback. ginnivan certainly deserves this.

but this doesn't alter the issue of whether this particular decision was right or wrong

Well, on the decision, we disagree

And we are allowed to disagree ... no big deal but one things for sure, we probably agree that the frivolous high contact free kicks have to be a thing of the past

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

incorrect call

i've watched it slo-mo frame by frame.  essendon player went in too high. no question. there was no arm raised to push it high.i don't think ginnivan went low before first contact which was high to begin with.

Maybe the Twsnbn player thought that according to the AFL this bloke was a perrenial stager and it didn't matter where he tacked him.

By the way I think that that the player Redman, who tacked Ginnivan was tackled himself not long after and was pulled down from behind and hurt by Mihocek who does it every week, when he's not kissing the maggotars

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well, on the decision, we disagree

And we are allowed to disagree ... no big deal but one things for sure, we probably agree that the frivolous high contact free kicks have to be a thing of the past

and yes that will be a good thing........depending of course on the consistency and skill of the umpires.....and the afl not changing their mind again.

btw i don't object to players trying to evade a tackle legitimately by dodging and weaving, as long as the intention is to evade and not milk. I suppose too there will always be grey areas, but that can't be helped in a 360 degree game.

9 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

Rule 17.3.2- (c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;
 

so does that mean you agree there was a free kick at time of previous frame?

13 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

did you look at the previous frame? redman's arm is already on his shoulder which is technically high and knees are not dropped. it's not likely to go anywhere else but up at that stage. having an arm around your neck is a sure way to drop someone's knees. the point being he didn't drop his knees before contact.

and why did you think the afl (after examination) said the umpire was incorrect in not paying a free?

Yes he was at shoulder height then Ginnivan dropped to ensure the high contact was seen. He also raised his arm which in this case didn't effect the tackle but was done to do exactly that...the exact behaviour the AFL are trying to get rid off

I'm happy for him to get this one given against him...I reckon it was a 50/50 that he tried to milk.

Poor Jack not...

The AFL are only making things worse by coming out and commenting on this tackle. Weak.

It really p.... me off.

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

btw for those interested, here's the next frame. at this point it is a free kick definitely. what happens after is irrelevant

Both knees bent. 

Body is stating to lean in, which changes the angle of shoulders.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

no leaning head into opponent

no dropping of knees

no raising  of arm (nor on next 3 frames where arm is around neck)

i know ginnivan is a cheat (self confessed) but frees like this one are not the ones to nail him a cheat

First contact is at the shoulder, not on top.

 

Amazing how we see different interpretations.

I have nothing against him, could develop into a good footy player.

The onus has to be on both players, duty of care and self preservation to reduce later in life acquired head injury.

Don't get the head in bad places.

 

Edited July 26, 20222 yr by kev martin

3 hours ago, rjay said:

Yes he was at shoulder height then Ginnivan dropped to ensure the high contact was seen. He also raised his arm which in this case didn't effect the tackle but was done to do exactly that...the exact behaviour the AFL are trying to get rid off

I'm happy for him to get this one given against him...I reckon it was a 50/50 that he tried to milk.

Poor Jack not...

The AFL are only making things worse by coming out and commenting on this tackle. Weak.

It really p.... me off.

The other bit that has to be taken into account is that in the same game (earlier) he had tried to milk high contact and wasn't awarded free kicks

So he has burnt his bridges and if we put ourselves into the shoes of the umpires, they were almost certainly going to be expecting more of the same (milking high contact)

JCB & kev martin also made very good points about the leaning (i.e  one shoulder dips low towards the tackler)

All very clever and it all happens in an instant but the contortionists are being found out

There will be some teething issues but hopefully, this blight on the sport will be a thing of yesterday

Interesting that there wasn't a lot of staging in the Demons/Bulldogs game (in terms of what we would have previously seen) ... those who won the ball quickly disposed of the ball

Less congestion, a more open and free flowing game and lots of attacking footy resulted.  Maybe just a coincidence but the Pies/Bombers game was quite similar

Edited July 26, 20222 yr by Macca

The AFL actually had a bit of an each way bet...

“Ginnivan is responsible for the initial high contact however (Mason) Redman then continues with the tackle in an unreasonable manner, holding Ginnivan around the neck,” an AFL statement read.

“In this instance a free kick should have been awarded to Ginnivan.

 

My call (watching it again) if they think the initial high contact was ok then it should have been illegal disposal (dropping the ball if you like)

As he gets tackled Ginnivan just drops the ball to the ground.

It would be holding the man if he disposed of it correctly, he didn't...

23 minutes ago, rjay said:

The AFL actually had a bit of an each way bet...

“Ginnivan is responsible for the initial high contact however (Mason) Redman then continues with the tackle in an unreasonable manner, holding Ginnivan around the neck,” an AFL statement read.

“In this instance a free kick should have been awarded to Ginnivan.

 

My call (watching it again) if they think the initial high contact was ok then it should have been illegal disposal (dropping the ball if you like)

As he gets tackled Ginnivan just drops the ball to the ground.

It would be holding the man if he disposed of it correctly, he didn't...

If tacklers were able to withdrawal their tackle once a player ducks in and raises his arms we wouldn’t have a problem. As players are expected to tackle hard or else risk being accused of being soft or missing the tackle, they have no choice. In reality it happens so fast that it’s physically impossible to withdraw the tackle in the time the high contact happens. A correct way to interpret it is to give the tackler the benefit of any doubt in 50/50 situations so as to discourage miscreants  from repeating. If Ginnivan won this free he will have incentive to continue doing this as the percentages will be stacked in his favour. He will still successfully draw frees.

Edited July 26, 20222 yr by John Crow Batty

23 minutes ago, rjay said:

My call (watching it again) if they think the initial high contact was ok then it should have been illegal disposal (dropping the ball if you like)

I think I read that, dropping knees, raising arm will mean prior opportunity. 

I could be wrong.

 

51 minutes ago, kev martin said:

I think I read that, dropping knees, raising arm will mean prior opportunity. 

I could be wrong.

 

Razer Ray said that prior opportunity only applies if the player leads with their head (or suchlike)

He stated that dropping of the knees or shrugging arms is not prior opportunity as (in his words) the umpires can't be sure if that has happened (all happens too quick according to Razer)

And this is coming from an umpire with vast experience

So it's play on but the way I read it, the player with the ball must still dispose of the ball correctly ... and if the tacklers arms are up around the head/neck area (because of the shrugging or knees dropping) the player with the ball might or could/should have his arms freed to dispose of the ball (somehow)

Previously, the player had a high likelyhood of gaining a soft, frivolous, high contact free kick

I like the new rule in principle but it could take quite some time until we see consistent adjudications.  And that's no fault of the umpires either ... it's a real grey area

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

point of initial contact

no leaning head into opponent

no dropping of knees

no raising  of arm (nor on next 3 frames where arm is around neck)

i know ginnivan is a cheat (self confessed) but frees like this one are not the ones to nail him a cheat

The way I think about this is trying to put my body (or imagine putting my body) into those positions.

Both players are running.

Redman's rear leg is fully elongated in a regular running stride, he is reaching forward to tackle. It is a pretty normal looking position, much like the 3rd from right in the image below (near the swing) and seems like it would be a comfortable position to be in when running, and doesn't involve any "non running" type body positions or movements.

Ginnivan on the other hand has both knees bent in a split leg lunge position. He is landing - like the far left or right sketches here - but the angle of his front knee seems much lower. This means he has dropped his body position out of a normal comfortable normal running position and into a crouch, and is dropping/leaning towards Redman.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

btw for those interested, here's the next frame. at this point it is a free kick definitely. what happens after is irrelevant.

 

Here, the next frame only, Redman has been able to extend his stride, and now looks like he is in the end position (far right) but at pace. Again, imaging that position it feels like a natural running position.

Ginnivan on the other hand, has both feet together, so he has actually planted his front left foot and propped! This is why the first image looks like he is "lunging", because he has planted the front left foot and instead of pushing through forward continuing to run at pace, he has dropped and stopped in front of the tackler.

 

Basically, if Ginnivan kept running here he may have gotten away from Redman, or he might have been caught and forced to handball. But either way he was a solid step out in front of the reaching Redman. It was Ginnivan's choice to try to "draw a free kick" by propping and turning low into the tackler that caused this incident to occur, and frankly it shouldn't be rewarded because it's dangerous, and also it goes against the spirit of the game.

I've attached another angle, which shows just how far Ginnivan chooses to drop even more clearly.

 

However, I'm firmly of the belief that this situation crossed the line pretty quickly as this went to ground and Redman dragged Ginnivan down and held him in a headlock.

High contact was Ginnivan's fault, but Redman had a duty of care to release once he realised the potential danger. The umpire also had a duty of care to blow the whistle and stop play quickly. It should be immediately holding the ball: Ginnivan chose to duck into the tackle instead of disposing of the ball, and that is the same level of prior opportunity as choosing to fend off.

 

 

2 hours ago, rjay said:

The AFL actually had a bit of an each way bet...

“Ginnivan is responsible for the initial high contact however (Mason) Redman then continues with the tackle in an unreasonable manner, holding Ginnivan around the neck,” an AFL statement read.

“In this instance a free kick should have been awarded to Ginnivan.

 

My call (watching it again) if they think the initial high contact was ok then it should have been illegal disposal (dropping the ball if you like)

As he gets tackled Ginnivan just drops the ball to the ground.

It would be holding the man if he disposed of it correctly, he didn't...

So the AFL intervention is for the unreasonable attention to Ginnivan after the initial tackle

I can live with that and fair enough

deanox's post above is very good as well but all things considered, I'm tempted to declare a 3-3 score draw on the Tuesday debate with the usual suspects involved @kev martin @John Crow Batty@daisycutter

Bottom line is we're all looking for a game of footy where players should rightfully get punished for playing for free kicks

The game does not need it and it is a better game when we don't hear a lot of the whistle, rjay

Edited July 26, 20222 yr by Macca

How many players being tackled while in possession do one of two things either separately or simultaneously, look toward the umpire or/ and illegally dispose of ball?

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

18 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

The word gets thrown around a lot, like someone claiming a goal that actually missed. It's not a great word. 

 

43 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

I think I understand what you mean. The game has rules, and using them is legitimate.

But I don't think this is about exploiting rules tactically, I think this is about going against the spirit of the game and rules. And the spirit is specifically listed in those Laws:

 

18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT

18.3.1 Spirit and Intention

A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every opportunity to do so.

18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:

...

(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;

 

When a player deliberately causes a tackler to make prohibited contact, the football is no longer their sole objective, instead their objective is to try to draw a free kick. The tackler has not - through their action - inhibited the players' opportunity to win the football. The player chose to forfeit their opportunity to make the football their sole objective, so arguably the rule isn't intended to apply.

So even if it's not cheating, it definitely goes against the spirit of the game and therefore the rule.

 

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

It's cheating pure and simple

If I want to watch fake sport I'll watch WWE

Selwood for instance will always be remembered for his cheating ways ... the sad bit is that he's a great player and never needed to duck & play for frees

But we all see things differently

Vive la difference

3 hours ago, layzie said:

The word gets thrown around a lot, like someone claiming a goal that actually missed. It's not a great word. 

 

It's a great word to describe what we see on the footy field.  Floppers, stagers - they cheat the sport

Back in the day it was frowned upon

As for Matthews, he's completely out of touch with his views (as is Whately)

Down the track (and it may not take very long) the footy will be so much better to watch without all the stagers, floppers & cheats

I've already noticed the difference and that includes our game against the Doggies

Did you not notice that players from both teams weren't playing for frees very often (certainly at nowhere near the levels of previous games) ... and also, that the players were disposing of the ball quickly?

Zero tackles in our forward line also told another story (apart from our inability to lay a tackle)

We ended up with fast, open, free flowing footy ... the sort of footy that my eyes demand

I suppose if people love congested footy and a billion stoppages then so be it ... each to their own

In some ways you are right though, layz

The word 'cheat' is often an overused & misplaced word ... specifically when describing umpires (especially on the game day thread)

Edited July 27, 20222 yr by Macca

3 hours ago, Macca said:

It's cheating pure and simple

If I want to watch fake sport I'll watch WWE

Selwood for instance will always be remembered for his cheating ways ... the sad bit is that he's a great player and never needed to duck & play for frees

But we all see things differently

Vive la difference

It's a great word to describe what we see on the footy field.  Floppers, stagers - they cheat the sport

Back in the day it was frowned upon

As for Matthews, he's completely out of touch with his views (as is Whately)

Down the track (and it may not take very long) the footy will be so much better to watch without all the stagers, floppers & cheats

I've already noticed the difference and that includes our game against the Doggies

Did you not notice that players from both teams weren't playing for frees very often (certainly at nowhere near the levels of previous games) ... and also, that the players were disposing of the ball quickly?

Zero tackles in our forward line also told another story (apart from our inability to lay a tackle)

We ended up with fast, open, free flowing footy ... the sort of footy that my eyes demand

I suppose if people love congested footy and a billion stoppages then so be it ... each to their own

In some ways you are right though, layz

The word 'cheat' is often an overused & misplaced word ... specifically when describing umpires (especially on the game day thread)

If it's trying to con an official then it probably is cheating. It's a real strong word and was the word that started the whole Norm Smith saga 

4 minutes ago, layzie said:

If it's trying to con an official then it probably is cheating. It's a real strong word and was the word that started the whole Norm Smith saga 

Well, it is trying to con the officials isn't it? 

How else would one describe faking a high tackle? 

I care deeply about the sport and it's traditions.  So the sport needs to be played to the rules and in the right spirit

Anyway, the cheats will no longer get away with their cheating which is great for the game

Sooner or later the perpetrators will stop playing for free kicks especially if they start getting pinged for holding the ball or incorrect disposal

And the new ruling isn't going to necessarily reward the tacklers per se ... in fact, I reckon we're going to see a lot less tackles as the ball winner will be compelled to dispose of the ball quickly.  Or use evasive skills or breakaway speed 

Those who can't do that will fall away replaced by those who can

 

13 minutes ago, Macca said:

Well, it is trying to con the officials isn't it? 

How else would one describe faking a high tackle? 

I care deeply about the sport and it's traditions.  So the sport needs to be played to the rules and in the right spirit

Anyway, the cheats will no longer get away with their cheating which is great for the game

Sooner or later the perpetrators will stop playing for free kicks especially if they start getting pinged for holding the ball or incorrect disposal

And the new ruling isn't going to necessarily reward the tacklers per se ... in fact, I reckon we're going to see a lot less tackles as the ball winner will be compelled to dispose of the ball quickly.  Or use evasive skills or breakaway speed 

Those who can't do that will fall away replaced by those who can

 

Macca - sound thoughts but it will ultimately only work if the umpires start showing some consistency and even handedness.  

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

Macca - sound thoughts but it will ultimately only work if the umpires start showing some consistency and even handedness.  

Big ask Mono.  Tough sport to umpire correctly

We can only expect the umpires to get it right maybe 80% - 85% of the time

Any more than that is a bit of a pipe dream

All the teams (over time) will get their fair share of lucky decisions going their way

Where I reckon we'll see greater consistency is in the forward 50's ... forwards won't get soft high contact frees (but the backmen might get a few)

In a general sense, if we see a lot less whistle blowing, that's a great result

Just let the game go and only pay really obvious frees works better in footy

Just my thoughts as I'm not necessarily right