Preview Changes vs Dees (Rd 19)

[DognBones]

Buckling at the knees and shrugging is a relatively new phenomenon in the AFL, certainly becoming more common in the last decade. This points to the fact that it is a learned and practised tactic designed to get an advantage in a tackling contest. If this sits well with the competition's heirarchy then we will have to accommodate it but I for one would rather see players keep their feet and dispose of the ball when the tackle begins which I thought was the whole intent of the rule when adjusted at the beginning of this season.

 

[Optimistic Dog]

We do have a recent history of performing when the absolute crunch comes.

2019 We got going at the end of the season and needed to beat the crows to make it.
2020 Again got got going at the end needing to beat the dockers to make it.
2021 We dropped 3 games at the end of the season when we entrenched in the 8 and looked certain for top 4 and came good in the finals destroyed the power in the prelim but fell at the last hurdle.

2022 ?? Well the dees appears a must win game to make it.


Can history repeat itself for the dogs again?

 

[The Slitherin' Snake]

Wrong... this has been done to death

Get stuffed. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine

 

[BEaston]

Which in AFL speak probably means there is some new intepretation.

Surprisingly there's actually no mention of ducking in the actual rules. I thought that had been in for decades.
Obviously no mention of dropping knees or raising the arm.

The way the rules are adjudicated in this game is an absolute farce.

 

[doggies ftw]

Surprisingly there's actually no mention of ducking in the actual rules. I thought that had been in for decades.
Obviously no mention of dropping knees or raising the arm.

The way the rules are adjudicated in this game is an absolute farce.

AFL tweaks high-contact rule to prevent players 'driving' into tackles

The AFL has made a rare mid-season tweak to high-contact rules, citing a groundswell of support for player safety and a push against players "driving" into tackles.

www.abc.net.au

2015 article, more relating to driving with the head ie ducking

Then in 2017 it was revised as per the following -

“Umpires will be asked to call play on when a tackle is assessed as reasonable (no swinging arm or contact being incidental) and the player with the ball is responsible for the high contact.”

Meaning more of a catch all, any method of drawing high free kicks won’t be rewarded.

Agree that the way most rules are adjudicated for weeks at a time before going out of fashion is complete bullshit, but this isn’t a new interpretation. This has been around for years now, it’s just gotten really bad lately with some real noticeable players going around.

Bevs comments were bullshit, “protect the player going for the ball” this is exactly what this interpretation is trying to do. At the end of the day there should be zero reward for playing for free kicks, unfortunately free kicks are such a part of the game right now - we were having flipping 60 a game recently in an 80min game. It’s bullshit.

Free kicks shouldn’t be a method for a player/team to gain a successful outcome, they should only be there as a punishment for people who have illegally hampered another players ability to win the ball. As soon as it become more beneficial for players to play for a free rather than going the ball things should have changed - hopefully they do now. I have my doubts though

 

[Doggy]

Get stuffed. Your opinion holds no more weight than mine

Right back at you. Unless you want to say we should have beaten Richmond, Geelong and Carltank.

Can't have it both ways

 

[Golden_6]

Hunter especially shakes tackles by ducking. So with the new rules does he now get a free kick awarded against him? Or just play on? Going to be a huge issue for Lachie if it’s a FK because it’s ingrained in his play to get out of tackles that way.

Why would he get a free kick against him? There’s no rule against being allowed to duck.

If he ducks and evades the tackle then it’s play on. If he ducks and is caught then it should be holding the ball, just as it’s always been.

 

[ScragCity]

I'm not bothered by players shrugging or dropping into a tackle. My pet peeve is throwing the head back to exaggerate contact or, in some cases, when there was no real contact at all. The umpires seem to fall for it every single time and players have caught onto that. Seeing the head go back should not be something umpires are looking for to pay a free because it is just acting 75% of the time.

 

[dogwatch]

I'm grateful we aren't playing the first game this round. Gives us a chance to see what sort of shitshow the new interpretation of the rules results in (until they quietly shelve it in about 3 weeks time). It gives our players a chance to think about how to adapt, if they need to.

No blame on the umpires BTW.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I hope Cody gets 4 goals from high tackle frees.

 

[Doggy]

I'm grateful we aren't playing the first game this round. Gives us a chance to see what sort of shitshow the new interpretation of the rules results in (until they quietly shelve it in about 3 weeks time). It gives our players a chance to think about how to adapt, if they need to.

No blame on the umpires BTW.

I think Beveridge's issue was the timing of this not that it is happening.

It's good it is but should be start of next year

 

[Sentinel]

I'm not bothered by players shrugging or dropping into a tackle. My pet peeve is throwing the head back to exaggerate contact or, in some cases, when there was no real contact at all. The umpires seem to fall for it every single time and players have caught onto that. Seeing the head go back should not be something umpires are looking for to pay a free because it is just acting 75% of the time.

I fully agree.

The former is using technique which can draw a free kick, the latter is simulation and needs to be punished by the AFL. One is and should remain perfectly legal, the other is not.

 

[LondonBulldog]

Its a blight on the game and has been ever since Selwood brought it mainstream.

People say its up to the tackler to tackle low. That's rubbish, if you go in at waist height to tackle and they drop into you forcing high tackles.

We have a few, Mclean, Weightman. They are good enough players to not need that tactic. AFL need and will stamp it out.

 

[Doggy]

Its a blight on the game and has been ever since Selwood brought it mainstream.

People say its up to the tackler to tackle low. That's rubbish, if you go in at waist height to tackle and they drop into you forcing high tackles.

We have a few, Mclean, Weightman. They are good enough players to not need that tactic. AFL need and will stamp it out.

McLean yes but think he does it less now.

Weightman not really. His are mainly pushes in the back that he has been playing for. Seems to be doing it less now. His freekicks are mostly there he's just accentuating contact and making sure it is seen.

Needs to stop throwing himself in contests and seems better lately in that regard

 

[BEaston]

AFL tweaks high-contact rule to prevent players 'driving' into tackles

The AFL has made a rare mid-season tweak to high-contact rules, citing a groundswell of support for player safety and a push against players "driving" into tackles.

www.abc.net.au

2015 article, more relating to driving with the head ie ducking

Then in 2017 it was revised as per the following -

“Umpires will be asked to call play on when a tackle is assessed as reasonable (no swinging arm or contact being incidental) and the player with the ball is responsible for the high contact.”

Meaning more of a catch all, any method of drawing high free kicks won’t be rewarded.

Agree that the way most rules are adjudicated for weeks at a time before going out of fashion is complete bullshit, but this isn’t a new interpretation. This has been around for years now, it’s just gotten really bad lately with some real noticeable players going around.

Bevs comments were bullshit, “protect the player going for the ball” this is exactly what this interpretation is trying to do. At the end of the day there should be zero reward for playing for free kicks, unfortunately free kicks are such a part of the game right now - we were having *ing 60 a game recently in an 80min game. It’s bullshit.

Free kicks shouldn’t be a method for a player/team to gain a successful outcome, they should only be there as a punishment for people who have illegally hampered another players ability to win the ball. As soon as it become more beneficial for players to play for a free rather than going the ball things should have changed - hopefully they do now. I have my doubts though

5-7 years ago and still not in the rules. Disgrace.

 

[footscray1973]

McLean yes but think he does it less now.

Weightman not really. His are mainly pushes in the back that he has been playing for. Seems to be doing it less now. His freekicks are mostly there he's just accentuating contact and making sure it is seen.

Needs to stop throwing himself in contests and seems better lately in that regard

McLean seemed to do it early in his career when he was far slighter in build. As he matured, it disappeared almost completely from his game, particularly as he moved into the midfield.

For some reason, the main perpetrators (apart from Duckwood) seem to be young(ish) slight of build small forwards. West never does it, if anything he just stands up in tackles and brushes them aside.

 

[doggies ftw]

5-7 years ago and still not in the rules. Disgrace.

TBF it’d be a full time job needing a 7 year uni degree to keep that updated

 

[doggies ftw]

McLean seemed to do it early in his career when he was far slighter in build. As he matured, it disappeared almost completely from his game, particularly as he moved into the midfield.

For some reason, the main perpetrators (apart from Duckwood) seem to be young(ish) slight of build small forwards. West never does it, if anything he just stands up in tackles and brushes them aside.

And how goods West to watch because of this? We should be encouraging it but unfortunately you’re more likely to get pinged for HTB for Wests methods so it pays to go the Ginnivan method.

I don’t care if it’s a “technique” it’s bs, Selwood made a career of it but tbf he was always very subtle the way it’s gone these days it’s literally impossible to tackle someone with the way they just throw their feet out from under them and are practically at ground level - it’s not up to the tackler to “tackle lower” no they’re playing the ball/man on it’s merits.

Tbf it’s going to be very hard to adjudicate for the umps what’s considered the player in possession initiating the contact or just picking up the ball, what’s considered too low etc. not going to be easy. But we need to try. Just go harsh on it if you think the player did absolutely anything to lower himself into the tackle forcing it to go high play on, and if you don’t dispose of the ball holding the ball.

Will stamp it out of the game in weeks as soon as the players realise they now need to play every ball on its merits

 

[Sentinel]

And how goods West to watch because of this? We should be encouraging it but unfortunately you’re more likely to get pinged for HTB for Wests methods so it pays to go the Ginnivan method.

I don’t care if it’s a “technique” it’s bs, Selwood made a career of it but tbf he was always very subtle the way it’s gone these days it’s literally impossible to tackle someone with the way they just throw their feet out from under them and are practically at ground level - it’s not up to the tackler to “tackle lower” no they’re playing the ball/man on it’s merits.

Tbf it’s going to be very hard to adjudicate for the umps what’s considered the player in possession initiating the contact or just picking up the ball, what’s considered too low etc. not going to be easy. But we need to try. Just go harsh on it if you think the player did absolutely anything to lower himself into the tackle forcing it to go high play on, and if you don’t dispose of the ball holding the ball.

Will stamp it out of the game in weeks as soon as the players realise they now need to play every ball on its merits

I think the key point is that it makes the umpires job significantly harder though, and will lead to even more fan frustration (as if the AFL haven't already nailed that enough recently). I.e. how do you draw the line between going low to avoid a tackle vs going low to draw a free? The arm raise is probably not as difficult to adjudicate though.

 

[TiAn_]

Can’t wait to ask some Narrm supporters where they were sitting at the G for the grand final pre season premiership party. I’d trade in going to the 2016 GF ten times over to have had the chance to be a part of a thrilling one off event like that. One day, hopefully.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Can’t wait to ask some Narrm supporters where they were sitting at the G for the grand final pre season premiership party. I’d trade in going to the 2016 GF ten times over to have had the chance to be a part of a thrilling one off event like that. One day, hopefully.

They may get a real premiership this year…

 

[doggies ftw]

I think the key point is that it makes the umpires job significantly harder though, and will lead to even more fan frustration (as if the AFL haven't already nailed that enough recently). I.e. how do you draw the line between going low to avoid a tackle vs going low to draw a free? The arm raise is probably not as difficult to adjudicate though.

That’s the thing though it shouldn’t matter - if you choose to go low to avoid a tackle or draw a free the high tackle should be taken out of play from the tackler, it’s not his responsibility anymore if you put yourself in that position, ie If you’re going low to avoid a tackle or you’re going low to draw a free I’m happy to just see that as prior opportunity and you just have to get rid of it or you get pinged

 

[dergert]

It was interesting how Berridge noted in his press conference that Jamarra benefitted from Naughton being out as he got more space to do his thing.

I'm eager to see how they all work together over the next couple of years.

 

[Mantis Toboggan]

There is no new rule, it’s always been this way - if you duck or shrug it’s considered prior and if you don’t get a disposal out it’s holding the ball. No frees against for ducking if you still get rid of the ball fairly.

Why would he get a free kick against him? There’s no rule against being allowed to duck.

If he ducks and evades the tackle then it’s play on. If he ducks and is caught then it should be holding the ball, just as it’s always been.

I watched about 30 seconds of 360 the other night and Robbo was talking about it not being play on, but actually awarding the free kick against the player who has ducked even if he gets rid of the footy.

I wasn’t sure if that was him stating facts or being hypothetical. Or just getting the whole thing muddled as usual.

 

[Oliver G]

For those wondering Weightman's kicked 25 goals this year with only 4 of them coming directly from free kicks (16%).