Eagles are duckers - Clarkson

[Brasher]

Good luck to the Eagles....obviously doing something right and I see no reason why their fans should have to defend the situation....it's not like they are the ones with the whistle playing the frees. Your coming off as defending umpires and that has no place on this forum.

Looking at the other stats presented just confirmed what I already knew, Adelaide is the wooden duck to the umpiring fraternity.

 

[Empire_Persian]

We may have won the most free's for high contact,

but we have also conceded the least.

How about opposition teams concentrate on getting to the ball first,

before veiling their bad tackling techniques.

Clarckson and Scott now have reputations as whinging losers.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

West Coast have received waaaaaay more than their fair share of frees for high contact. It is beyond dispute. It is literally off the charts.

I agree. Free kicks should be even for every team in the competition. It just isn't fair otherwise.

 

[Brasher]

I agree. Free kicks should be even for every team in the competition. It just isn't fair otherwise.

and to ensure the equitable nature of the umpiring no team will be allowed to have two free kicks in a row.

 

[Furuncle]

I agree with some of that, but watch five seconds before that free kick Furuncle.

Aaron Edwards attempts EXACTLY the same manouver. But Scott Selwood is prepared and tackles under the arm to force Edwards to scramble a possession. He doesn't lock the ball in like you can with a tackle on the arms, but he doesn't give away a free kick and forces a turnover.

Different approaches to the same thing. And we've given away fewer head high free kicks than the rest of the competition.

Yes, I agree that tacklers are now forced to compensate for this tactic. I think this is what Brad Scott meant in the after-match presser when he said they'd discussed tackling techniques beforehand but failed to apply it during the game.

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

The AFL clamped down on "ducking the head" in previous years. Certain players had their papers stamped. They became known as duckers amongst the umpires. They could no longer buy a free kick, even when they had their heads ripped off. Ducking the head has crept back in this year, but at least for a while, the umpires showed they were prepared to push back and stopped rewarding the cheats.

When a player "lowers his knees" into a tackle, it should be treated the same as ducking. (Incidental contact. Play on!)

When a player "lifts his arm" in the tackle, it should also be treated the same as ducking. (Incidental contact. Play on!)

Obviously, the exception is when a tackler smashes the guy in the head. (Pay those free kicks)

 

[Mattman93]

Yes, I agree that tacklers are now forced to compensate for this tactic. I think this is what Brad Scott meant in the after-match presser when he said they'd discussed tackling techniques beforehand but failed to apply it during the game.

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

Except that they are breaking a rule.

 

[CamTinley]

http://youtu.be/EMvLHwsmo0U

If a player (Shuey) holds the tacklers arm after placing it around his neck and then dives to the ground should he be rewarded for his cleverness ?

 

[eaglesfan84]

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

 

[Furuncle]

It's not just the Eagles who do it. West Coast just happen to be doing it more than anyone else, as shown by the stats. They have a number of clever small players who seem to have perfected the art.

Lenny Hayes is another master of winning free kicks. Everyone applauds the way he crashes head first into packs, but the umpires should not reward this kamikaze style of play. If Lenny wants to crash in head first, good luck to him, they're his dead brain cells, but umpires should not penalise his opponents who merely standing there and get head-butted in the shins & knees.

I admire the crazy brave courage of today's footballers, but I don't admire their professional cynicism when it comes to milking free kicks. However, it is up to the umpires to maintain the game. I think they've gone waaaay overboard with the "head is sacrosanct" mantra and they've been taken advantage of. They've been played. And now, things have become out of balance.

It's been going on for years, getting worse every year, but people turned a blind eye to what was happening. Thanks to Clarkson's forthright honest response, it's now on the table and it's finally being discussed by the media, coaches, players, fans, and hopefully the AFL.

Over to you, Gieschen (you freakin' MUPPET)

 

[wouldyoulikesome]

Yes, I agree that tacklers are now forced to compensate for this tactic. I think this is what Brad Scott meant in the after-match presser when he said they'd discussed tackling techniques beforehand but failed to apply it during the game.

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

The AFL clamped down on "ducking the head" in previous years. Certain players had their papers stamped. They became known as duckers amongst the umpires. They could no longer buy a free kick, even when they had their heads ripped off. Ducking the head has crept back in this year, but at least for a while, the umpires showed they were prepared to push back and stopped rewarding the cheats.

When a player "lowers his knees" into a tackle, it should be treated the same as ducking. (Incidental contact. Play on!)

When a player "lifts his arm" in the tackle, it should also be treated the same as ducking. (Incidental contact. Play on!)

Obviously, the exception is when a tackler smashes the guy in the head. (Pay those free kicks)

Well we might as well just make it touch football then, how do you expect the umpire to make a decision, on the difference, of all of the above in the heat of the battle..There jobs hard enough as it is..

 

[The Falcon Strike]

It's not just the Eagles who do it.

Yes it is - it's only us ! And we are single-handedly ruining the spirit of the game!

 

[Jentleman Geff]

Yeah haha I remember how much love there was towards us in 2010 because we were the underdogs then we ****ed our season up in 2011 and the care-factor went down a lot

And last year with your mob, there was so much love from neutrals, but now it's someone elses turn to be the underdog, but who? Probably Adelaide or Sydney as no-one *really* hates any of those two teams (besides Port for the former)

Adelaide will be this year's darlings.

 

[Furuncle]

Except that they are breaking a rule.

No, they're not.

There's all kinds of incidental high contact which doesn't get penalised.

What about when a player ducks his head into a tackle?

Or what about when players are thrashing around on the bottom of a pack and three tacklers lay all over him and put a headlock on him.

According to the letter of the law, these should also be paid as free kicks. But they're not. The umpires turn a blind eye because the player in possession has contributed to the high contact.

 

[ChampRevesby]

The umpires turn a blind eye because the player in possession has contributed to the high contact.

No wonder they are sponsored by OPSM.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ires-in-the-west/story-e6frf9jf-1226349321851



Not directly related.

Watcing Footy Classified shows that West Coast and their players are winning more free kicks then anyone else in the competition. Soon all clubs will employ the same tactic and the game will suffer for it.

You know most of the time people on this board oppose reactionary rule changes...

 

[Max zero]

No, they're not.

There's all kinds of incidental high contact which doesn't get penalised.

What about when a player ducks his head into a tackle?

Or what about when players are thrashing around on the bottom of a pack and three tacklers lay all over him and put a headlock on him.

According to the letter of the law, these should also be paid as free kicks. But they're not. The umpires turn a blind eye because the player in possession has contributed to the high contact.

Yet as per Gieshan they are not ducking so it's a high tackle.

Since he is the final word on rule interpretation that really is the end of it unless you get the rule changed.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

[/B]

Well we might as well just make it touch football then, how do you expect the umpire to make a decision, on the difference, of all of the above in the heat of the battle..There jobs hard enough as it is..

Amen. In real time you don't see Shuey lift his arm up, the umpire would have to be in the perfect position to see it, otherwise he will be guessing and if it's not a free kick is it going to be holding the ball?

 

[mehow2g]

At the end of the day it's 4 players, yeah we have the most free kicks what are you guys trying to say are free kicks ment to be even ? Do we pay umpires to give us free kicks ? Head high free are probably the best ones they pay umpires pay some absolutely stupid shit ie dean cox free kick on the weekend that's what I'd be mad at if I was the opposition.

I find hands in the back rule more annoying, feel contact drop knees and bellyflop thank you free kick if I didn't do that I would be ping for holding.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

[youtube][/U]EMvLHwsmo0U[/youtube]

If a player (Shuey) holds the tacklers arm after placing it around his neck and then dives to the ground should he be rewarded for his cleverness ?

He clearly dragged swallow down, while pinning swallow's arm around his neck

Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done about that or anything similar - unless the umpire interprets it as taking the tackler on and pings him for holding the ball - which would be harsh

A ball up would be fair there imo

 

[The Kipster]

I can't say I've noticed that.

If so, it's likely after one of his clumsy tackles collects and Eagles player.

hahaha

 

[Galileo9]

No, they're not.

There's all kinds of incidental high contact which doesn't get penalised.

What about when a player ducks his head into a tackle?

Or what about when players are thrashing around on the bottom of a pack and three tacklers lay all over him and put a headlock on him.

According to the letter of the law, these should also be paid as free kicks. But they're not. The umpires turn a blind eye because the player in possession has contributed to the high contact.

simple, rules will not change to not protect the head. incidental or not.

i like it how they show shuey's head being ripped off, all commentators say its a free kick and not ducking and now we have a situation that people think any head high by these guys is ducking. even though they actually arent ducking.

clarko should look at cyril. that was actually ducking.
and even more so, they should look at ziebell diving at the weekend when he wasnt even tackled.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

So basically Victorian clubs want free kicks for high tackles except for Eagles players. And they have the hide to call us cheats

 

[Furuncle]

Yet as per Gieshan they are not ducking so it's a high tackle.

Since he is the final word on rule interpretation that really is the end of it unless you get the rule changed.

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

15.4.1 correct tackle or correctly tackled
(a) For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a tackle correctly if:
(i) the Player being held is in possession of the football; and
(ii) that Player is held (either by the body or playing uniform) below the shoulders and above the knees.

15.4.5 Prohibited contact and Free Kicks
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition player if the Player:
(a) makes contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head)

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.

 

[Furuncle]

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?

 

[flyinghi64]

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.