Head high tackles

[Stiff Arm 4,412]

Not hard to fix

If first contact in tackle is legal, its HTB or play on

If player rises or leads with head, its play on

Can someone tell me why contact with top of shoulder is deemed high contact if they don't contact the players head? Or if the contact to side of head is so minimal that its difficult to detect by the naked eye? I see this in ruck and marking contests where there's an arm over the shoulder (eg spoil attempt) but making no real head contact. Surely the rule is head high contact

Edited July 13, 2022 by Stiff Arm

[Lord Travis 10,163]

It’s an issue because some players are actively playing for these free kicks instead of playing the game as intended.

Ginnivan is obviously a rodent, but just this week Luke Shuey was interviewed and asked about it and said “I’ll keep doing it unless they change the rule and I don’t get free kicks anymore” (paraphrasing but close). We’ve had Weightman come out and say it’s a skill in his game to draw free kicks for high tackles. We’ve now got Dangerfield defending it. The fact the players have trained themselves to essentially go weak at the knees and raise their arm to draw high contact when faced with confrontation instead of actually playing the game is a problem. Someone will get hurt and there will be no sympathy. It’s also a terrible look for the sport. 

The rule just needs to be officiated as it’s written. If the initial contact is below the shoulder but is then pushed high due to a shrug, then it’s not a free kick for high contact. It’s either play on or holding the ball depending on the success of the tackle. The duck/shrug/flop/arm raise is prior opportunity. 

At the end of the day, these footy matches exist to entertain us. If the customer doesn’t like the product, then change the product to fit the customers needs or die. In this case, officiate the rule as written, and no free kicks for tackles that are pushed or adjusted high by the tacklee. The players need to reel it in and accept they’re not above anything. If it wasn’t for us supporting with our dollars, they’d likely be brick layers in bumfuk nowhere on a pittance of a wage. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Lord Travis

[MrFreeze 1,369]

Disagree with most here on this. Always protect the player going for the ball. If you go low to get the ball and are caught high, it's a free. Dropping the knees, to get the ball should not be punishable. 

Umpires also can and do distinguish between actual frees and baited frees. Umps will not pay high tackles if a player raises his arm so it clips his shoulder. 

[ManDee 7,077]

If you contribute to high contact by ducking or dropping to your knees or raising your arms , then No Free! Play on. If they stop getting frees they will stop the behaviour. 

[Willmoy1947 3,772]

We used to have two players that would have played Ginnivan perfectly Whelan and Jetta and he would have known it..

[Deecisive 1,651]

Danger does not think it is a problem as it would rob geelong of frees for their players who do exactly the same thing.

[Demon_spurs 1,658]

4 hours ago, MrFreeze said:

Disagree with most here on this. Always protect the player going for the ball. If you go low to get the ball and are caught high, it's a free. Dropping the knees, to get the ball should not be punishable. 

Umpires also can and do distinguish between actual frees and baited frees. Umps will not pay high tackles if a player raises his arm so it clips his shoulder. 

I think you may be missing the point, most agree here that as the law stands at the moment the free will be paid, however what I am advocating if you stop awarding frees for high tackles then it could save someone a very serious debilitating injury later in life. Seems to me a small price to pay, just change the rule and stop players deliberately putting their head in the firing line.

[Travy14 1,492]

Whilst it frustrates me, it's not the players role to make it easy to be tackled.

But, it's the one where they lift their shoulder that gets me.  The high contact is made by the player with the ball, not the tackler.

Ducking is different again.  which is now 3 different types of the same thing, id hate to be an umpire.  The AFL don't make it easy for them

[Vipercrunch 2,804]

Great news today, but I’m not giving the AFL any credit for something they should have done 15 years ago. 
 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-issues-warning-to-clubs-players-on-high-tackles-20220719-p5b2p4.html

Edited July 19, 2022 by Vipercrunch

[daisycutter 28,507]

2 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

Great news today, but I’m not giving the AFL any credit for something they should have done 15 years ago. 
 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-issues-warning-to-clubs-players-on-high-tackles-20220719-p5b2p4.html

15 years.  that must just about the time selwood started playing staging 🤣

[Sydee 3,613]

9 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

Great news today, but I’m not giving the AFL any credit for something they should have done 15 years ago. 
 

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-issues-warning-to-clubs-players-on-high-tackles-20220719-p5b2p4.html

The video shows Pickett's high tackle is a free kick if seen from one angle but not from another - Yep this is going to be a real crowd pleaser 

[jnrmac 18,953]

Here we go. Rule of the week.

It will be forgotten in 3 weeks.

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,154]

This is a good announcement and has been enforced for the past couple of weeks.  

Spargo dropped a couple of times on the weekend and it was called play on.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,415]

The AFL should not be applauded for implementing something that should've been done 15 years ago! This is on their head, they created this mess. Could've stamped it out early in Selwoods career but they've let it fester and become a blight on the game. Let's hope they actually stick to their guns but I won't hold my breath.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Dr. Gonzo

[tiers 2,767]

On 7/12/2022 at 8:09 PM, tiers said:

Surely the solution is for the umpires to make their decisions based on where initial contact was made and by whom.

For example, a legitimate tackle high on the arms of the tacklee that then slides to the shoulders by the actions of the tacklee? Play on. Simple. Any attempt to wriggle into a high contact is to be ignored.

Who made the contact? If the tacklee drives his head into the body of the tackler, play on. Simple. So long as the tackler was stationary as is mostly the case.

It was always the rule that the frees were won from the contest, not from trying to con the umpires. With three umps on the field this should be easy to stamp out.

If this doesn't work then I would agree with Macca that there should be consequences for cheating and bringing the game into disrepute. The stagers should be staged out of the game.

 

Good to know that they read Demonland.

[John Crow Batty 8,255]

1 hour ago, Sydee said:

The video shows Pickett's high tackle is a free kick if seen from one angle but not from another - Yep this is going to be a real crowd pleaser 

That was an iffy one IMO, the tackle looked to go high even before he raised his arm. There will always be 50/50 decisions. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by John Crow Batty

[monoccular 16,062]

On 7/13/2022 at 2:44 PM, MrFreeze said:

Disagree with most here on this. Always protect the player going for the ball. If you go low to get the ball and are caught high, it's a free. Dropping the knees, to get the ball should not be punishable. 

Umpires also can and do distinguish between actual frees and baited frees. Umps will not pay high tackles if a player raises his arm so it clips his shoulder. 

There are certainly times when high contact should be penalised, particularly the coat hangar and other tackles that are crudely executed starting high.   If for example the player is bending down to get the ball and gets his head pulled off no argument.  
 

But when they  deliberately head charge into a dangerous situation they should be penalised for (maybe) “reckless conduct” even without prior opportunity.  We must sometime protect players from their own recklessness.  

Edited July 19, 2022 by monoccular

[rjay 23,901]

On 7/13/2022 at 2:44 PM, MrFreeze said:

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

It isn't, hasn't ever been and still isn't...doesn't mean when you have the ball & drop your knees it should be a free kick.

It no longer is and should never have been.

[rjay 23,901]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Here we go. Rule of the week.

It will be forgotten in 3 weeks.

That's the problem 'jnr', you are spot on here.

This was supposed to be the interpretation at the start of the season and was already forgotten by the first game.

Let's see how long it lasts.

I bet Selwood will still get them.

[dee-tox 4,801]

We're not completely innocent here. Spargo and Kozzie are two of the better duckers in the comp!

I think the umpires are a particularly wary of Kozzie. That head high tackle in the third quarter of the GF where Brian Taylor started carrying was a classic example.

[WalkingCivilWar 31,435]

19 minutes ago, rjay said:

It isn't, hasn't ever been and still isn't...doesn't mean when you have the ball & drop your knees it should be a free kick.

It no longer is and should never have been.

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

[Maldonboy38 5,857]

The head must be protected. Glad it still is.

I hate ducking, dropping and milking head-high free kicks. It's a total blight on the game. I am so glad the "powers that be" are making an effort to eradicate it. 

I have major issues with both Kozzie and Spargo doing it, and although they rarely do it now, it was on display from them both against Port.

But the new rule emphasis is nearly impossible to properly administer. It is a nightmare for umpires, having to rule on intent in the blinking of an eye.  

[Willmoy1947 3,772]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The AFL should not be applauded for implementing something that should've been done 15 years ago! This is on their head, they created this mess. Could've stamped it out early in Selwoods career but they've let it fester and become a blight on the game. Let's hope they actually stick to their guns but I won't hold my breath.

Meanwhile Selwood became a legend in his own underpants.

[Willmoy1947 3,772]

16 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The head must be protected. Glad it still is.

I hate ducking, dropping and milking head-high free kicks. It's a total blight on the game. I am so glad the "powers that be" are making an effort to eradicate it. 

I have major issues with both Kozzie and Spargo doing it, and although they rarely do it now, it was on display from them both against Port.

But the new rule emphasis is nearly impossible to properly administer. It is a nightmare for umpires, having to rule on intent in the blinking of an eye.  

Well they might as well try and give away a few justifiable free kicks.

[monoccular 16,062]

1 hour ago, Maldonboy38 said:

The head must be protected. Glad it still is.

I hate ducking, dropping and milking head-high free kicks. It's a total blight on the game. I am so glad the "powers that be" are making an effort to eradicate it. 

I have major issues with both Kozzie and Spargo doing it, and although they rarely do it now, it was on display from them both against Port.

But the new rule emphasis is nearly impossible to properly administer. It is a nightmare for umpires, having to rule on intent in the blinking of an eye.  

“The head must be protected. Glad it still is…”

Maybe they should look at Max getting thumped in the back of the head at just about every marking contest.  Or is that not sacrosanct?