- Nov 27, 2000
- 16,401
- 33,481
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Triple M commentary team
Coll was about $4.20 on BetFair at 3qt.I'm surprised so many people thought we would win at 3/4 time.
On SM-S901E using BigFooty.com mobile app
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Coll was about $4.20 on BetFair at 3qt.I'm surprised so many people thought we would win at 3/4 time.
16 years of watching Joel Selwood suggests to me that common sense will not take place.You would hope common sense takes place and players don’t need to counter it.
If the AFL comes out and reinforces that dropping to your knees and raising your arm is considered ducking and will constitute prior opportunity, then you would hope players stopped doing it.
The worst thing they can do is come out this week and pay him free kicks for that action due to the media outrage.
Unfortunately I think you are spot on.16 years of watching Joel Selwood suggests to me that common sense will not take place.
That is so sad.
A player who is "revolutionary to the game" is one who bends the rules, attempts to manipulate the umpires, and whose first instinct isn't to engage in a genuine physical contest, or utilises a genuine skill, or to bring teammates into the game with an exquisite footy brain.
The umpires know who the players are who are doing this (Cody Weightman being another), this would clearly get solved if it got called holding the ball every time for the next month on these known players until they stop doing it.Unfortunately I think you are spot on.
In fact I can see the over correction this week where they will pay him free kick after free kick and the confusion continues.
I just don’t get why it’s a story in the first place? The AFL clearly said that action would be deemed to be contributing to the tackle going high and wouldn’t be paid as a free kick.
It’s like the media have totally ignored what the AFL actually came out and clarified and are getting up in arms about it.
Makes the result all the more bittersweet
Disappointed with David King on this - King was defending Ginnivan on 'first crack' as working within the rules, and people had to be better with their tackling technique; to his credit, Montagna called him out on it - you can't be both the game's leading advocate to protect the head and also extolling the cleverness of players for deliberately inviting contact to the head; if you're going to get penalised for it regardless, you might as well decapitate someone and be done with itI would have less issue with Ginnivan if it was just the occasional getting low on purpose, but he does the full kit and kaboodle.
Sees contact coming and drops like a fainting goat.
Doesn't try and avoid the tackle but invites it knowing he will get hit high.
Lifts his arm to force tackles that were initially legal, high.
All 3 fit into the rule change in 2017 that came about because of Selwood. If you invite the contact and push it high, shrug it up, drop at the knees or lift the arm, then no high free is to be paid if the tackle was initially reasonable.
Can call him smart, but its not smart gambling with your brain. He's going to end up seriously hurt if he plays like that.
I don't mind what DK says about it. End of the day, tackling him like this will get you a free kick:Disappointed with David King on this - King was defending Ginnivan on 'first crack' as working within the rules, and people had to be better with their tackling technique; to his credit, Montagna called him out on it - you can't be both the game's leading advocate to protect the head and also extolling the cleverness of players for deliberately inviting contact to the head; if you're going to get penalised for it regardless, you might as well decapitate someone and be done with it
I think it's time we acknowledged the wonderful skill of the soccer elites who have perfected the art of diving to earn penalties. The first step in this process will be to accept the 2006 world cup result verses Italy. Australia deserved to lose this and in fact, Italy should have performed several more dives to win at least six more penalties so that we were well and truly put in our place as the losers of that match.King and every other moron AFL footy ‘pundit’ defending Ginnivan and other AFL players for ’exploiting the rules’ are full of s**t. They are the first to mock and ridicule soccer players for doing exactly the same thing, diving, gamesmanship, bending the rules, milking for frees etc. Happens in every sport.
King and every other moron AFL footy ‘pundit’ defending Ginnivan and other AFL players for ’exploiting the rules’ are full of s**t. They are the first to mock and ridicule soccer players for doing exactly the same thing, diving, gamesmanship, bending the rules, milking for frees etc. Happens in every sport.
I don't mind shrugging a tackle. Its a legitimate attempt to break the tackle and get clear. But it should be considered prior opportunity. Dunno if it should be a free if it slips high. Depends on tackling player's intent when the high contact comes honestly.King has championed himself as the protector of the head and harsh penalties for bumps. Yet he defends a bloke whose first instinct is to draw opponents into tackling him around the head. It's ludicrous.
It's so easy to stamp this nonsense out. Doesn't matter if it's Ginnivan, Selwood, Weightman, a NMFC player or anyone. Not only do you not get the free kick if you 'draw head high contact' - whether it's by ducking, or collapsing at the knees, or shrugging - you get a free kick against you. Watch it stop pretty quickly.
Ginnivan isn't trying to shrug the tackle for the purpose of getting free, he is doing so for the purpose of shifting the tacking arm high above the shoulder, hence his free arm raises as he drops at the knees. Its a clear and obvious tactic and should never be rewarded with a free kick imo. If the afl is serious about head injuries this should be a free against as it is that action that is drawing and thus causing the contact high.I don't mind shrugging a tackle. Its a legitimate attempt to break the tackle and get clear. But it should be considered prior opportunity. Dunno if it should be a free if it slips high. Depends on tackling player's intent when the high contact comes honestly.
We were missing three top five picks and Tarryn Thomas who went at pick 8.Thing is, were we good or the Pies poor?
WC Eagles beat them in Melbourne!!
They really aren't that great imo, and with two of their best 5 players out I think we could/should have won that.
100%. His momentum isn't going out of the tackle. It's going down.Ginnivan isn't trying to shrug the tackle for the purpose of getting free, he is doing so for the purpose of shifting the tacking arm high above the shoulder, hence his free arm raises as he drops at the knees. Its a clear and obvious tactic and should never be rewarded with a free kick imo. If the afl is serious about head injuries this should be a free against as it is that action that is drawing and thus causing the contact high.
Yeah, there is clear guidance about that being not a free. It gets paid all the time tho. If you tackle someone round the arm and they make you raise your arm high then that should be against you, if its a battle of strength. Cos you've forced them to tackle illegally. But you see those tackles let go and HTB paid all the time these days.Ginnivan isn't trying to shrug the tackle for the purpose of getting free, he is doing so for the purpose of shifting the tacking arm high above the shoulder, hence his free arm raises as he drops at the knees. Its a clear and obvious tactic and should never be rewarded with a free kick imo. If the afl is serious about head injuries this should be a free against as it is that action that is drawing and thus causing the contact high.
We were missing three top five picks and Tarryn Thomas who went at pick 8.
From our "theoretical" best team.
Plus Aaron Hall, maybe Comben.
Disagree about it being a contest of strength. A shrug or pushing your arms out sideways is taught as self defense when someone grabs you, because it uses short lever points which give you a significant advantage to escape. The person getting tackled always has the advantage in that regard, unless you get them really low around the waist... which is countered by dropping at the knees, theres a reason they do both actions.Yeah, there is clear guidance about that being not a free. It gets paid all the time tho. If you tackle someone round the arm and they make you raise your arm high then that should be against you, if its a battle of strength. Cos you've forced them to tackle illegally. But you see those tackles let go and HTB paid all the time these days.
What Ginnivan does is different tho. Its not really part of a strength contest.