Umpiring Hawthorn now the High FK Kings.

[Vindicater]

Absolutely agree!!

This is exactly what needs to happen. For the good of the sport, commentators and fans alike (especially supporters of the players that do it) need to openly ridicule and condemn players cheating for Frees.

And as I said above. Start fining players for it.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

And as I said above. Start fining players for it.

But I feel the real issue is that it's crept in culturally that it's 'clever', rather than cheating and dishonest.

This is mostly because the commentators are buddies with the players and are scared to slander them publicly.
Supporters put winning first, and therefore moronically turn a blind eye to it when their players do it.

What some people fail to realise is that this cheating is a significant part of why the umpiring is so bad, and subsequently why the game is so often marred by baffling and inconsistent umpiring decisions that determine results.

It needs to be stamped out, for the good of the sport.

I don't think the AFL needs to be the ones to drive this. I think it's bigger than that.

It needs fans, commentators and the AFL to create a culture where it's considered a genuinely obscene act to chest and stage for Frees.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The AFL created this by deciding the player with the ball is at fault for head high contact.
If they simply had of just pay all head high contact then coaches would have got their players to tackle lower.
You will never ever convince me a player with the ball cannot try and avoid the tackle doing whatever he wants other than ducking his head.
He can lower his body etc and it’s on the tackler to actually bend as well to tackle lower.
No issue for me, in fact I generally think up to 10-20 head high free kicks are not paid per game.
The problem with the fans now is that every head high contact free they think the player with the ball caused it. Fans believe now that head high contact doesn’t exist.
Just another stuff up from head office changing a rule they never ever had to look at.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The AFL created this by deciding the player with the ball is at fault for head high contact.
If they simply had of just pay all head high contact then coaches would have got their players to tackle lower.
You will never ever convince me a player with the ball cannot try and avoid the tackle doing whatever he wants other than ducking his head.
He can lower his body etc and it’s on the tackler to actually bend as well to tackle lower.
No issue for me, in fact I generally think up to 10-20 head high free kicks are not paid per game.
The problem with the fans now is that every head high contact free they think the player with the ball caused it. Fans believe now that head high contact doesn’t exist.
Just another stuff up from head office changing a rule they never ever had to look at.

I don't think it's that simple.

Whatever the AFL do, coaches and players exploit it.

Rinse and repeat.


The notion that is clever needs to be stopped.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't think it's that simple.

Whatever the AFL do, coaches and players exploit it.

Rinse and repeat.


The notion that is clever needs to be stopped.

We changed a rule based on 1% of players doing it. Just ridiculous.
Head high contact is head high contact. It’s a free kick and should be paid every time.
Tacklers don’t even bend their knees anymore. They stand up and now expect the tackler to stand up straight.
I’m sorry but I reckon the AGL got this way wrong. Player with ball can do as he pleases. Don’t tackle him high.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't think it's that simple.

Whatever the AFL do, coaches and players exploit it.

Rinse and repeat.


The notion that is clever needs to be stopped.

And it’s not about being clever. It’s bit complicated. Don’t tackle or let your tackle end up above the shoulder. It’s really very simple.

 

[Gaspard]

And it’s not about being clever. It’s bit complicated. Don’t tackle or let your tackle end up above the shoulder. It’s really very simple.

This approach says that it is OK for the players that lift their arms to make tackles slip high, who dive headfirst into tackles and who drop their knees as soon as a tackle is imminent to get free kicks.
By creating high tackles for free kicks they are putting themselves at risk, which exposes the AFL to duty of care problems.
It is cheating and needs to be made unacceptable on the field.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

This approach says that it is OK for the players that lift their arms to make tackles slip high, who dive headfirst into tackles and who drop their knees as soon as a tackle is imminent to get free kicks.
By creating high tackles for free kicks they are putting themselves at risk, which exposes the AFL to duty of care problems.
It is cheating and needs to be made unacceptable on the field.

Nope that is not the case at all, Selwood used to get tackled 20 times per game. Each and every time he tried to push the tackle high. But only once or twice he could do it as the strong tackle would not allow him to do so.
The AFL have decided to reward the weak tackler. It is pathetic, and instead of foci g the coaches to make their players tackle 20cm lower which makes all the sense in the world they took the easy route of blaming the player with the ball.
If the head is sacrosanct then make it sacrosanct. If you don’t have the ball you must go lower.

 

[Gaspard]

Nope that is not the case at all, Selwood used to get tackled 20 times per game. Each and every time he tried to push the tackle high. But only once or twice he could do it as the strong tackle would not allow him to do so.
The AFL have decided to reward the weak tackler. It is pathetic, and instead of foci g the coaches to make their players tackle 20cm lower which makes all the sense in the world they took the easy route of blaming the player with the ball.
If the head is sacrosanct then make it sacrosanct. If you don’t have the ball you must go lower.

All I can do is say I disagree very strongly.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Nope that is not the case at all, Selwood used to get tackled 20 times per game. Each and every time he tried to push the tackle high. But only once or twice he could do it as the strong tackle would not allow him to do so.
The AFL have decided to reward the weak tackler. It is pathetic, and instead of foci g the coaches to make their players tackle 20cm lower which makes all the sense in the world they took the easy route of blaming the player with the ball.
If the head is sacrosanct then make it sacrosanct. If you don’t have the ball you must go lower.

But tacklers don't have to go 20cm lower. They're legally allowed to tackle the player anywhere below the shoulders.

If the player ducks and as a result the tackle lands high - in the history of AFL footy it has never been a Free Kick - it has always been considered "you ducked, play on."


It's like a player slamming his own head into the turf to get a Free Kick, and then putting all the onus on the tackler to not tackle him as hard because he's going to cheat and milk it.

It's completely the wrong approach to dealing with the issue.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If the head is sacrosanct then make it sacrosanct. If you don’t have the ball you must go lower.

What I would say in regards to that, is that there are dozens of actual high tackles and high contact which are not paid, for some reason. I can't for the life of me understand why they don't get paid.

These are the ones that should be paid without question.

Th ones where the ball carrier initiates and causes the high contact - Play On every day of the week.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

But tacklers don't have to go 20cm lower. They're legally allowed to tackle the player anywhere below the shoulders.

If the player ducks and as a result the tackle lands high - in the history of AFL footy it has never been a Free Kick - it has always been considered "you ducked, play on."


It's like a player slamming his own head into the turf to get a Free Kick, and then putting all the onus on the tackler to not tackle him as hard because he's going to cheat and milk it.

It's completely the wrong approach to dealing with the issue.

No one is talking about his head slammed into the ground.
I have the ball you try and tackle me I have every right to drop my body to avoid you. You do not have a right to still get me high. If I duck then that’s on me but other than that it’s always on you. It’s not complicated

 

[greatwhiteshark]

But tacklers don't have to go 20cm lower. They're legally allowed to tackle the player anywhere below the shoulders.

If the player ducks and as a result the tackle lands high - in the history of AFL footy it has never been a Free Kick - it has always been considered "you ducked, play on."


It's like a player slamming his own head into the turf to get a Free Kick, and then putting all the onus on the tackler to not tackle him as hard because he's going to cheat and milk it.

It's completely the wrong approach to dealing with the issue.

We all know you can’t duck, but you can lower your body by dropping your knee to weave out the way. The tackler should have to adapt as they always did.
Very simple stuff

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

We all know you can’t duck, but you can lower your body by dropping your knee to weave out the way.

That's literally the exact same thing as ducking.

 

[RHLK]

A player's natural instinct to protect his/her head is now being re-engineered by the AFL.

Players are being encouraged to lead with their heads, or try to hit their head on the ground in a tackle.

Smaller forwards in particular take possession of the ball and don't shape to kick, handball, or dodge, but run straight at an opponent, dropping at the knees & leading with a shoulder. Their only intent is to draw a free kick. If the tackling player stepped aside they would crash straight to ground with ball in hand.

It seems obvious in real time, it sticks out like dogs' balls in slow-mo. Do the umpires rewatch the games? How do they not see this cheating tactic?

Umps are quick to penalise tall players who lift their arms above their heads to handball but get tackled immediately and don't dispose correctly, but smaller players are constantly rewarded for taking two or three steps and then dropping into a tackle without even shaping to dispose of the ball.

Watson at times looked like he was playing rugby league the other night. Coat-hangered while trying to get past a player is one thing, driving your head into a tackler is another.

If players are not trying to 'play' the ball but simply taking the tackle it should be 'holding the ball.'

Remember 'insufficient attempt' to dispose?

 

[RHLK]

We all know you can’t duck, but you can lower your body by dropping your knee to weave out the way. The tackler should have to adapt as they always did.
Very simple stuff

If they are attempting to weave; too may examples of knee-droppers only intent on taking the tackle.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Wow, the AFL machine has got so many of you convinced the player with the ball is at fault is scary.

Again, the player with the ball is at fault.

How demented do you need to be to understand just how stupid that sounds.
The player with the ball is at fault!!!!

 

[RHLK]

The bloke with the ball who could attempt a kick, handball, or weave past the tackler instead runs straight at him and drops into the tackle is at fault. Obviously.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The bloke with the ball who could attempt a kick, handball, or weave past the tackler instead runs straight at him and drops into the tackle is at fault. Obviously.

Wow, just wow!
No idea at all

 

[RHLK]

Talk me through it, happy to discuss.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Oh, I've got no delusion about the contribution hawks players have towards the frees.

I also have no delusion about the state of the game. Hawks are the last team to contribute to it. I questioned why it took so long for us to join the party

Rubbish. There’s nothing “new” about Hawthorn doing it.
Poppy and Bruest….
Shiels loved the high contact too.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Rubbish. There’s nothing “new” about Hawthorn doing it.
Poppy and Bruest….
Shiels loved the high contact too.

Puopolo did it for all of a season and everyone lost their minds. A bit like this season for the hawks rat pack.

It's only an issue if hawthorn does it

 

[z547043]

Puopolo did it for all of a season and everyone lost their minds. A bit like this season for the hawks rat pack.

It's only an issue if hawthorn does it

Yep, agree. It’s not like Geelong fans ever copped it and had one of their greatest players ever continually referred to as a cheat. In fact it only became an issue when Joel Selwood was playing despite happening years prior and years after, so lose the victim complex. Meanwhile, Hodge, Lewis and Mitchell were putting guys heads into goalposts, striking the back of heads and kneeing people in quads and that just added to their folklore of unsociable football, toughness and sheer will to win.

Even funnier, how the same three are now up in arms this week because a much older man, almost a Grandpa in fact told a smug young player who also ducks that he wouldn’t be flying. Apparently it was aggressive too

But seriously it’s the rules according to Hawthorn it seems, their players and ex-players and fans deem what is acceptable and outside the spirit of the game and what is fair. Reeks of the English cricket team to me.

 

[Gaspard]

Yep, agree. It’s not like Geelong fans ever copped it and had one of their greatest players ever continually referred to as a cheat. In fact it only became an issue when Joel Selwood was playing despite happening years prior and years after, so lose the victim complex. Meanwhile, Hodge, Lewis and Mitchell were putting guys heads into goalposts, striking the back of heads and kneeing people in quads and that just added to their folklore of unsociable football, toughness and sheer will to win.

Even funnier, how the same three are now up in arms this week because a much older man, almost a Grandpa in fact told a smug young player who also ducks that he wouldn’t be flying. Apparently it was aggressive too

But seriously it’s the rules according to Hawthorn it seems, their players and ex-players and fans deem what is acceptable and outside the spirit of the game and what is fair. Reeks of the English cricket team to me.

We have to deal with the fact that players from all teams do it. Some are more adept than others. It is a blight on the game and it is up to the AFL to deal with it.
The first paragraph is all true, but is not a Hawthorn only phenomenon. The way that Hawthorn supporters glory in the poor behaviour is something different. Most of us are embarrassed when our players behave as thugs.

 

[z547043]

We have to deal with the fact that players from all teams do it. Some are more adept than others. It is a blight on the game and it is up to the AFL to deal with it.
The first paragraph is all true, but is not a Hawthorn only phenomenon. The way that Hawthorn supporters glory in the poor behaviour is something different. Most of us are embarrassed when our players behave as thugs.

I agree, and that was directed at a certain poster who thinks it’s only an issue now because Hawthorn are the current best exponents of it. It’s long been a point of conjecture. Fans and officials of Hawthorn and Collingwood were some of the most vocal in putting this issue front and centre to the AFL for a long period in the 2000’s and 2010’s. Even to the point where we saw a change in the adjudication of the rule. It seems that now one of those clubs is the best exponent of it, it’s taboo to talk about it. It seems it’s also much harder to label individuals as cheats when it’s players on your team doing it with the greatest success.