Eagles are duckers - Clarkson

[Max zero]

There is nothing written in the "laws of the game" either about ducking. According to the letter of the law, when a player ducks his head and gets tackled high, it is prohibited contact and he must receive a free kick.

Same goes for players who lay at the bottom of the pack and get tackled over the shoulder or around the head

You'd be surprised at how much of the game's rules is left open to Gieschen and umpires to interpret. The Laws of the Game run to 75 pages. The section on prohibited contact is only 3 pages







Under these rules, we should probably see at least 70-80 free kicks per game for high tackles

Maybe it is time the AFL pulled their finger out of their arse and rewrote the vague "prohibited contact" rules so they at least bear relevance to how the game is actually umpired these days. They should colour in the details so these rules have at least 10-20 pages of content instead of just 3 pages.

Yep and they have been clear on the interpretation. Gieshan as already spoken on this.

You said:

The point is, it should not be up to the tackler to modify their technique when they're not breaking any rule.

But according to the very rules you have quoted they are.

So I am not sure what the issue is.

 

[Galileo9]

Thank you Rodney Eade as the voice of reason last night on 360. When Robbo was carrying on like a blind fool at how the Eagles are duckers when all the footage the showed from the weekend was clear high tackles and no ducking I so much wanted to get him on the phone and tell him to open his eyes.
Then on comes Rodney Eade and Robbo couldn't wait to hear him comment on how the Eagles are duckers.
But no he actually saw what I saw, something along the lines of " From the footage just shown it seems as though they were all legitimat high tackles. I wouldn't say they are ducking their heads it looks like they are more shrugging out of the tackle. It seems to be the smaller stronger guys and it's not just the Eagles players Selwood and Chappy are good at it and I would suggest they are more backing themselves to break a tackle rather than win a free."

Thanks Eade Voice of reason.

not so much waht eade said, but vision was clearly shuey just getting a high tackle. and presumption was immediately that he must have ducked, not whetehre he did or not.

i do like it how robbo didnt get much support. i think he thought everyone was going to high five him. hahaha

 

[Galileo9]

Question: if the head is sacrosanct, then why are we protecting the top of a player's shoulders?

What possible injury could result from a tackler's hand slipping up over the bicep region to the top of the shoulder?

except it wasnt just top of shoulder. in any case, over the shoulder is a free.

start the tackles then half way between shoulder and hip. that way much harder for it to slide all the way up.

 

[Furuncle]

Yep and they have been clear on the interpretation. Gieshan as already spoken on this.

You said, "The tacklers are not breaking any rule"

But according to the very rules you have quoted they are.

So I am not sure what the issue is.

Do you even understand the debate? Nobody is saying the umpires have made a MISTAKE and the free kicks were clearly not there. People are questioning why Gieschen's personal rule interpretations disallow ducking but allow these other similar tactics.

If it was simple umpire error, then this thread would not be 100 pages. People are questioning the way Gieschen and umpires interpret the rules. They are questioning why vague poorly-written rules are in place which reward the cheats.

Tell me: why do the umps & Giesch give no free kicks to the blatant duckers when theres nothing actually written in the rule book about ducking. Where did they pluck from that from? And why can't they widen the scope of "ducking" to include these other tactics?

 

[Furuncle]

except it wasnt just top of shoulder. in any case, over the shoulder is a free.

start the tackles then half way between shoulder and hip. that way much harder for it to slide all the way up.

I'll try again:

Question: if the head is sacrosanct, then why are we protecting the top of a player's shoulders?
What possible injury could result from a tackler's hand slipping up over the bicep region to the top of the shoulder?

 

[Max zero]

Do you even understand the debate? Nobody is saying the umpires have made a MISTAKE and the free kicks were clearly not there. People are questioning why Gieschen's personal rule interpretations disallow ducking but allow these other similar tactics.

If it was simple umpire error, then this thread would not be 100 pages. People are questioning the way Gieschen and umpires interpret the rules. They are questioning why vague poorly-written rules are in place which reward the cheats.

Tell me: why do the umps & Giesch give no free kicks to the blatant duckers when theres nothing actually written in the rule book about ducking. Where did they pluck from that from? And why can't they widen the scope of "ducking" to include these other tactics?

Then perhaps you need to ask Gieshan directly?

How the hell would anyone here know why the umpires have the current interpretation?

And of course now the players which (by your own admission) are not breaking the rules (since they are vague) are now labelled cheats by you?

How can someone be a cheat if they follow the rules as clearly interpreted and explained by the umpires?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Great article, provides a comprehensive smackdown of the "head ducking" argument:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135186/default.aspx

Those awarded in the home and away season went from an average of 9.4 frees for high contact per game in 2008 to 10.5 in 2011.

So far this year the figure is up to 11 per game.

That's a rising trend but hardly a dramatic one.

More interesting to examine was what may lie behind the figures.

Could changes to the way players' tackle [and respond when tackled] be causing the slight shift?

We know players are now instructed to lift their arms when they take possession in congestion. This is not done to draw a free kick, but is encouraged so the player winning possession can give off a handball when being tackled.

It's an instinctive move in the non-tackling sport of basketball that has transferred to football. And it's something Shuey and Hams do well.

What confronts a player doing this are tacklers intent on stopping them from moving the ball to a teammate. The tackler (or tacklers) - who can approach from all angles - is focused on pinning the arms and the ball simultaneously to deny their opponent any chance to release the ball by hand or foot.

That target area puts the tackler more at risk of giving away a free kick for high contact.......

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135186/default.aspx



Explains why tackling technique has become an issue, why you need to be first to the ball and how there is no dramatically worrying head high trend.

 

[ziad]

Great article, provides a comprehensive smackdown of the "head ducking" argument:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135186/default.aspx



http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/135186/default.aspx



Explains why tackling technique has become an issue, why you need to be first to the ball and how there is no dramatically worrying head high trend.

In summary, good players win frees, bad players give them away

 

[Kwality]

I'll try again:

Question: if the head is sacrosanct, then why are we protecting the top of a player's shoulders?
What possible injury could result from a tackler's hand slipping up over the bicep region to the top of the shoulder?

Over the shoulder is a free.

Some are either ignorantly or dishonestly mixing up the two issues:
1. the head
2. the poor tackle that results in over the shoulder (aka the Joel Selwood technique that he taught to his older brother after becoming a dominant ball winner)

The Cyril duck of the head that so disgusts Clarkson is not the Joel Sellwood technique to deal with poor tackling technique.

 

[quotemokc]

Never have I seen a thread so dominated by Weagle supporters

 

[ChampRevesby]

Never have I seen a thread so dominated by Weagle supporters

I see you made a constructive and coherent post.

 

[Forward Press]

Never have I seen a thread so dominated by Weagle supporters

Look at the thread title.

 

[Farang83150]

Never have I seen a thread so dominated by Weagle supporters

If i started a thread along the lines of "Essendon cheat" do you think there'd be many Bomber fans responding?

 

[Brasher]

Explains why tackling technique has become an issue, why you need to be first to the ball and how there is no dramatically worrying head high trend.

Tackling technique is a huge issue these days:

- you can't sling a player less his head hits the ground and you get suspended.
- you can't grab a player's arm less he falls awkwardly and you get suspended.
- you can't protect yourself with an elbows in an old fashioned shirt front less his head comes into contact with your upper body and you get suspended.
- you can't wrap a player up from behind because when his knees buckle and he falls forward you'll give away an in the back free kick. Hope his head doesn't hit the ground in the process because you will get suspended.
- you actually avoid all of the above and make a copy book tackle but that will probably mean the ball will fall free via an incorrect disposal, most likely to the opponent's team mate and your tackle will be for nothing.

I'd love to see a stat for effective tackles. Those tackles that stop the ball carrier in possession, create a turnover or win a free kick. At a guess, I'd say this stat has been trending against the tackler for a while now.

 

[Oxirane]

Some thoughts on the 'arm technique',

I think that if a player is actually being held around the biceps and then shrugs it up high, that should be play on. (Shrugged up high in a tackle)

But,

If the tackler is just swinging his arm at the ball carrier's arm/bicep/shoulder and the tacklers arm gets knocked up and he collars the guy, it should be a free. (Knocked up in play and then a high tackle)

For example, if someone knocks the tacklers arm over his own head and there is no high contact; was it at any point a legitimate tackle? You should be able to use your own arm to try prevent getting tackled or get it free to properly dispose of the ball? (Keep in mind this is before the tackle is an actual tackle, just some guy swinging his arm at you)

Or does this not make any sense?

 

[Furuncle]

Tackling technique is a huge issue these days:

- you can't sling a player less his head hits the ground and you get suspended.
- you can't grab a player's arm less he falls awkwardly and you get suspended.
- you can't protect yourself with an elbows in an old fashioned shirt front less his head comes into contact with your upper body and you get suspended.
- you can't wrap a player up from behind because when his knees buckle and he falls forward you'll give away an in the back free kick. Hope his head doesn't hit the ground in the process because you will get suspended.
- you actually avoid all of the above and make a copy book tackle but that will probably mean the ball will fall free via an incorrect disposal, most likely to the opponent's team mate and your tackle will be for nothing.

I'd love to see a stat for effective tackles. Those tackles that stop the ball carrier in possession, create a turnover or win a free kick. At a guess, I'd say this stat has been trending against the tackler for a while now.

Many players don't even try to wrap their opponent up in the pack situations. They are so scared of giving away a free kick, they just stand there and block the space like it's basketball. It's so freaking lame.

It's quite sad what our game is turning into under the watch of Adrian Anderson and Jeff Gieschen. They are clearly out of their depth. I wish they would just move on and let other people take the reins.

 

[Furuncle]

The biggest problem with threads like these is that one team is singled out and their fans just want to blindly argue and defend their boys to the hilt and label everyone else as whingers and sooks. It paralyses the debate. It all becomes a waste of time.

But if you don't make this thread about West Coast and you try to have a generic discussion about the rules and "ducking", then the thread gets torpedoed over to the Umpiring Board, which hardly anyone reads.

Catch 22

It's a bit late for Eagles fans to persist with the denial. It's quite obvious from the amount of media generated on this issue that the umpires will sit up, take notice and start to crack down on this. We'll probably see fewer free kicks paid to Shuey, Hams, Selwood, etc. The AFL doesn't want the game to degenerate into a Duck-fest any more than than we do.

 

[Goldfish]

The biggest problem with threads like these is that one team is singled out and their fans just want to blindly argue and defend their boys to the hilt and label everyone else as whingers and sooks. It paralyses the debate. It all becomes a waste of time.

But if you don't make this thread about West Coast and you try to have a generic discussion about the rules and "ducking", then the thread gets torpedoed over to the Umpiring Board, which hardly anyone reads.

Catch 22

It's a bit late for Eagles fans to persist with the denial. It's quite obvious from the amount of media generated on this issue that the umpires will sit up, take notice and start to crack down on this. We'll probably see fewer free kicks paid to Shuey, Hams, Selwood, etc. The AFL doesn't want the game to degenerate into a Duck-fest any more than than we do.

Yeah, the media are always right [insert beat up here].

Must be a slow news week when the total number of high tackles increases by 0.5 a week over 2011 and it takes up pages of the HSun and Age sports sections.

I love how Mark Robinson pumps up this issue when we are playing his beloved bombers this week, coincidence?

 

[Brasher]

It's quite sad what our game is turning into under the watch of Adrian Anderson and Jeff Gieschen. They are clearly out of their depth. I wish they would just move on and let other people take the reins.

Tackling is part of our game to promote ball movement, being tackled in possession is a penalty, and in this light I hope that the AFL has brought about the current interpretation of the rules to both promote that and protect the players' heads.

However, it can be argued (and many have here) that ball movement can actually be better promoted after being tackled by winning frees.

If true the AFL has messed with the fabric of the game whilst admirally addressign the issue of player safety. I reckon all teams, coaches and players will come to terms with it in due course but it will be a shame if one of the games' fundamentals (tackling) becomes a lost art.

 

[Kwality]

Some thoughts on the 'arm technique',

I think that if a player is actually being held around the biceps and then shrugs it up high, that should be play on. (Shrugged up high in a tackle)

But,

If the tackler is just swinging his arm at the ball carrier's arm/bicep/shoulder and the tacklers arm gets knocked up and he collars the guy, it should be a free. (Knocked up in play and then a high tackle)

For example, if someone knocks the tacklers arm over his own head and there is no high contact; was it at any point a legitimate tackle? You should be able to use your own arm to try prevent getting tackled or get it free to properly dispose of the ball? (Keep in mind this is before the tackle is an actual tackle, just some guy swinging his arm at you)

Or does this not make any sense?

Makes no sense at all, just tackle properly & there is no problem.

Do you have a problem with requiring players to tackle properly?

 

[Galileo9]

The biggest problem with threads like these is that one team is singled out and their fans just want to blindly argue and defend their boys to the hilt and label everyone else as whingers and sooks. It paralyses the debate. It all becomes a waste of time.

But if you don't make this thread about West Coast and you try to have a generic discussion about the rules and "ducking", then the thread gets torpedoed over to the Umpiring Board, which hardly anyone reads.

Catch 22

It's a bit late for Eagles fans to persist with the denial. It's quite obvious from the amount of media generated on this issue that the umpires will sit up, take notice and start to crack down on this. We'll probably see fewer free kicks paid to Shuey, Hams, Selwood, etc. The AFL doesn't want the game to degenerate into a Duck-fest any more than than we do.

i like it how you try to look at it objectively....but just couldnt help yourself. hard to

ducking is already taken care of...raising arm etc happens too quick for umpire to know whats actually going on. thats not ducking. quack.

 

[Galileo9]

Makes no sense at all, just tackle properly & there is no problem.

Do you have a problem with requiring players to tackle properly?

apparently people do.

but dragging the ball in and pretending its holding the ball is OK as is diving in the back. apparently they are accepted parts of football and within the spirit of the game.

 

[KevinCaton]

Not trying to be flippant here cos of the team I support, I've thought this since j.selwood started doing it a few years ago.
if I'm strong enough to lift a tackle onto my head, should it be the responsibility of the tackler to tackle harder? or is it my responsibility to accept that I've been tackled and avoid taking evasive action?

at the moment the head high contact is a reward for shrugging the tackle, if you shrug a waist tackle downwards and get tripped, you also get a free kick.

One's up, one's down, same result, less hysteria cos it doesn't happen as often.

 

[Masto]

Bump

 

[Kwality]

The biggest problem with threads like these is that one team is singled out and their fans just want to blindly argue and defend their boys to the hilt and label everyone else as whingers and sooks. It paralyses the debate. It all becomes a waste of time.

But if you don't make this thread about West Coast and you try to have a generic discussion about the rules and "ducking", then the thread gets torpedoed over to the Umpiring Board, which hardly anyone reads.

Catch 22

It's a bit late for Eagles fans to persist with the denial. It's quite obvious from the amount of media generated on this issue that the umpires will sit up, take notice and start to crack down on this. We'll probably see fewer free kicks paid to Shuey, Hams, Selwood, etc. The AFL doesn't want the game to degenerate into a Duck-fest any more than than we do.

Duckfest; yep dont pay a free , play on, even change the rule & penalise it.

Shrug the shoulders just require players to tackle properly.

You sure you are fairdinkum?