Puopolo and Selwood ducking into the tackle to draw the free - is this a fair rule application?

[Tristan34]

As soon as Burton is about to make contact, it’s bend, shrug and buckle at an angle. He’s the best at it by a mile , I’ll give him that, but it’s not a free kick.

That is one way of looking at it, but he was also trying to evade a hawk player in front of him, and when he turned Burton laid a tackle.. Was he off balance because his weight shifted when contact was made? It's hard to judge, because people only believe what that want to see..

 

[benneth]

Freeze frame the crap out, fact is he ends up with his arm around his neck which is illegal. Free kick every day of the week.

Except it isn't a free everyday of the week and should actually be umpired as play on unless you're arguing he doesn't contribute to the arm going high?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

How Puopolo can you go?

 

[MinerBoy]

Well then if legged there must have been a tripping free paid for it.

Good football intent however. You allegedly tripped me so im gonna drop my need into your head while you are on the ground.

Dog act from a dog. Another graduate from the Hodge School of good guys. Woof woof.

Go Catters

No free paid against Selwood despite there being reason to be?

I'm shocked to be sitting here.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You post here shows the clear difference.

You call it shrugging off the tackler.
The AFL article calls it ducking.

Two different acts even by the facts you brought into the discussion to validate your point.

Now, if the AFL introduces a rule that says all players may not shrug a tackle then Id suggest a change would required. But then the fend off would have to be outlawed as well and that is in fact a shrug of the tackle. All those fend offs and shimmy's to evade the tackler must be removed from the game by your metric.

Sounds kind of boring and very touch football like. But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Or of course, the tacklers could actually go for the hips and waste and actually make them stick.

But nah, it easier to complain about it right?

GO Catters

WOW! Comprehension not your strong suit, or do you just do what most Cats supporters do and purely focus in on the word 'duck' and ignore everything else around it?
The AFL have given multiple examples of how a player with the ball can contribute to initiating high contact from a tackle that starts out as legal. Sometimes a player might use one technique (like a quick flick of the arm to shrug the tackle), other times they might combine elements (flick of the arm while leaning into the tackle).
The article used ducking, dropping the knees and shrugging off as examples of where it should be play on.
Then you make some wild leap that all examples of evading a tackle must be outlawed from the game? FMD!

He's not technically breaking any rules by using this technique, but it's clearly unsportsmanlike. You can claim that it's up to the umpires to enforce the rules properly, which is certainly true and part of the solution, but to knowingly and continually gain an advantage through deception, isn't brave or smart. And that goes for any player that uses this to their advantage. Selwood is commonly held up as the main example because he is the most prolific at it. Geelong supporters like to claim that it's because he's always the one at the bottom of the packs, or going in hard for the ball, etc. But I could name at least one player from every club that goes in hard and ends up getting the ball or at the bottom of a pack, but they don't end up with anywhere near the same number of high free kicks. There's always a reason for a statistical anomaly like that, and it's not braveness.

 

[MinerBoy]

You need to read the whole quote I posted. Literally used the wording ‘or trying to shrug it off’. Selwood is the one creating the high tackle. Contact is initiated and he does all of lower his body, raise his arm to push the tacklers arm higher, and shrug his shoulders. It’s not a free kick.

It's not difficult to comprehend unless you don't want to.

 

[Tristan34]

hmmm let the jealousy flow thru you all....

Sicily knees drops into Selwoods head but Selwood who get a free kick for a high tackle is a cheat..

No w***ers here at all.

GO Catters

If it was three oyears ago the ex hawks on the match review panel would of got him off a suspension like Sam Mitchell...

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

That is one way of looking at it, but he was also trying to evade a hawk player in front of him, and when he turned Burton laid a tackle.. Was he off balance because his weight shifted when contact was made? It's hard to judge, because people only believe what that want to see..

What we see is every time anybody touches Selwood on the arm, his arm flicks up between 90-180 degrees, forcing legal contact to go high. It's as simple as that. Take the lean, duck, shrug and evade out of it and that's what he does every time. Now that may sometimes be a legitimate attempt to evade a tackle, but it's still him that turns it into illegal contact and should therefore be play on.
If it was the best way of evading/breaking a tackle, then everyone would be using it. If the umpires started to call it play on more regularly, I guarantee he would slowly eradicate it from his game, although it's probably such a reflex action now that he would retire before he could completely illiminate it.
I wonder if he accidentally shrugs off his wife's advances as a reflex?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

This is a weird thread.

Geelong supporters: BUT WHAT ABOUT PUOPOLO
Hawthorn supporters: Yes, we don't like his behaviour in the same manner we dislike Selwood's.
Geelong supporters: Puopolo does it!!!11!!

I imagine it would be weird, if that was how the thread went.

The thread was started by a West Coast Eagle supporter though - and personally I couldn't give two shits about Puopolo.

Also Hawks are actually telling us Puopolo is short, and doesn't get as many, so it's all cool.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

No free paid against Selwood despite there being reason to be?

I'm shocked to be sitting here.

Rd 1 - 2 Frees For 3 Frees against.

Should have taken notes from Melbourne I guess.

 

[MinerBoy]

Rd 1 - 2 Frees For 3 Frees against.

Should have taken notes from Melbourne I guess.

Considering they also dominated I50s but lost, I'd say we would be better off doing what we're doing.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Considering they also dominated I50s but lost, I'd say we would be better off doing what we're doing.

Did you deliberately interpret my post wrongly?

 

[Tristan34]

What we see is every time anybody touches Selwood on the arm, his arm flicks up between 90-180 degrees, forcing legal contact to go high. It's as simple as that. Take the lean, duck, shrug and evade out of it and that's what he does every time. Now that may sometimes be a legitimate attempt to evade a tackle, but it's still him that turns it into illegal contact and should therefore be play on.
If it was the best way of evading/breaking a tackle, then everyone would be using it. If the umpires started to call it play on more regularly, I guarantee he would slowly eradicate it from his game, although it's probably such a reflex action now that he would retire before he could completely illiminate it.
I wonder if he accidentally shrugs off his wife's advances as a reflex?

So your saying when he is tackled he can't attempt to evade it and just take it? Contact to the head is contact to the head.. Retire??? LoL

 

[greatwhiteshark]

This is all about the weak tacklers getting a fair go.
Ducking, weaving, shrugging, dropping the knees, lifting the arm has been going on forever in our game, it is not unsportsmanlike.
It is very simple yet has been made complicated by the AFL.
Player A has the ball and he can do as he chooses with it. Player B has to tackle him without high contact. It’s not complicated.
Rewarding the weak tacklers is common place now instead of just awarding the free kick for high contact and forcing the coaches and players to change how they tackle. Head high contact is rife in the AFL yet apparently the head is sacrosanct. What a joke.

 

[QuietB]

That is one way of looking at it, but he was also trying to evade a hawk player in front of him, and when he turned Burton laid a tackle.. Was he off balance because his weight shifted when contact was made? It's hard to judge, because people only believe what that want to see..

Who cares if he is off balance. That is still Selwood initiating the high contact.

It is as simple as that. Who initiates the high contact? Either Selwood lifts his arm in which case it is Selwood. Or Selwood loses balance in which case it is Selwood. Or Selwood does both in which case it is Selwood.

And everyone hates it because he plays for it. He has it down pat. Selwood falls to the ground - always leaning his head into the opposition player - never away - and lifts his arm to initiate high contact every time he knows he is 100% stone dead caught. He knows Burton is going to swallow him up so he rolls the dice with his patented move knowing that the umpires reward him for it.

Selwood knows exactly what he is doing and he constantly gets away with it. Good luck to him.

It is downright pathetic by the umpires and the AFL that they not only reward it but weekly defend it.

 

[QuietB]

This is all about the weak tacklers getting a fair go.
Ducking, weaving, shrugging, dropping the knees, lifting the arm has been going on forever in our game, it is not unsportsmanlike.
It is very simple yet has been made complicated by the AFL.
Player A has the ball and he can do as he chooses with it. Player B has to tackle him without high contact. It’s not complicated.
Rewarding the weak tacklers is common place now instead of just awarding the free kick for high contact and forcing the coaches and players to change how they tackle. Head high contact is rife in the AFL yet apparently the head is sacrosanct. What a joke.

It is nothing to do with weak tackles. You go tackle a guy moving at 30k/hr covered in baby oil and see how you go.

The weak tackle argument is a cop out. You have to deal with who initiates the high contact.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

So your saying when he is tackled he can't attempt to evade it and just take it? Contact to the head is contact to the head.. Retire??? LoL

Are you pretending to be dumb? I hope so.
Yes, he can attempt to break or avoid a tackle, but if that tackle starts off legal and Joel's actions force it high, then it's play on.
If the tackle starts legal, but is reckless or forceful and the actions of the tackler force it high, then it's a free. If it starts high, it's obviously a free as well.
This has been clearly explained by the AFL and is surprisingly easy to see.

 

[Tristan34]

Who cares if he is off balance. That is still Selwood initiating the high contact.

It is as simple as that. Who initiates the high contact? Either Selwood lifts his arm in which case it is Selwood. Or Selwood loses balance in which case it is Selwood. Or Selwood does both in which case it is Selwood.

And everyone hates it because he plays for it. He has it down pat. Selwood falls to the ground - always leaning his head into the opposition player - never away - and lifts his arm to initiate high contact every time he knows he is 100% stone dead caught. He knows Burton is going to swallow him up so he rolls the dice with his patented move knowing that the umpires reward him for it.

Selwood knows exactly what he is doing and he constantly gets away with it. Good luck to him.

It is downright pathetic by the umpires and the AFL that they not only reward it but weekly defend it.

So if your off balanced trying to evade another player and get tackled by a player from behind you won't fall?

No rules are being broken, so why is it a free?? Umps have to follow the code and be professional..

 

[MinerBoy]

So your saying when he is tackled he can't attempt to evade it and just take it?

Of course he can. Why are Cats fans struggling so much with this? It's just not meant to be rewarded when his evasive style is the only reason the tackle even ends up remotely high.

It's not illegal to evade a tackle. It's just meant to be play on when that action causes the high contact and holding the ball if he doesn't then legally dispose having chosen to take the prior opportunity of attempting to evade the tackle.

And yes LLD as has been pointed out many times, this is an issue of poor umpiring. It's not Selwood's fault the umpires are either to afraid to pay it or simply incompetent.

However the reason Selwood draws such ire from opposition fans is that despite the wonderful treatment he gets from the umpires, he carries on like the most victimised player to ever play the game when something doesn't go his way.

 

[QuietB]

So if your off balanced trying to evade another player and get tackled by a player from behind you won't fall?

No rules are being broken, so why is it a free?? Umps have to follow the code and be professional..

Selwood is perfectly on balance and causes himself to fall into Burton when he knows he is going to be caught. You cannot be more balanced

 

[Mr Lizard]

Why are Cats fans struggling so much with this?

Because the captain of their club plays for free kicks more successfully than anyone in the history of the game, and deep down they know it isn't honourable.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

All the players below must have lots of frees a la Puopolo....


5 ft 8 in
Tarir Bayok, Eddie Betts, Shai Bolton, Travis Colyer, Mitch Crowden, Zac Fisher, Stefan Giro, Cory Gregson, Nathan Hrovat, Zac Langdon, Kym Lebois, Dion Prestia, Willie Rioli, Dayne Zorko, Jarryd Blair, Ben Jarman, Jack Lonie, Kieran Lovell, Darcy MacPherson, Will Snelling, Lewis Taylor, Hayden Ballantyne, Jay Kennedy-Harris, Brandon Matera, Lachlan Murphy, Paul Puopolo

5 ft 7 in
Charlie Spargo, Brent Daniels, Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti, Jake Neade, Tyson Stengle

5 ft 6 in
Caleb Daniel

You said there were "a bunch" of players shorter than Puopolo. I said that there were 4 with an AFL game to their credit.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

There's some strange views in this thread. You cant really make a rule that denies Selwood or any other player the right to shrug a tackler. Players have done it since football started. The problem is that Selwood's method draws free kicks under the current rules, and especially that it draws free kicks when the tackler has done little wrong. For that reason a change is needed and I get all the supporters of other clubs who are screaming for it.

The solution which most would prefer, and also the most sensible solution, is if they didn't give free kicks for incidental high contact that he causes when he shrugs. They should only pay it when a player intentionally decides to grab his head or goes maliciously high. Attempted evasion like that is already holding the ball if he is pinned after. Holding his head to get holding the ball or coathangering him to get holding the ball should never be an option. At that stage he has evaded the tackle and the tackler has chosen to proceed with an illegal tackle to stop him. If he is indeed going only for the free then he won't do anything useful and probably will get tackled properly or get a shit disposal after the incidental contact anyway.

Worth noting that in contrast to Selwood, Gaz and other strong players more successfully shrug a tackle by planting their feet and basically ducking out of it so the arms come off cleanly over the back. So in a way, Selwood's method where he tends to decapitate himself is flawed, and he could be taught a better approach. But even if he did, there would be other players who do it, so better to change the rules (or enforce them more sensibly).

Same for Puopolo who doesn't even have his eyes open when he drops. If he's going all in on the free kick don't call it for the incidental high contact, but call holding the ball if he is then tackled after that and doesn't dispose of it. Lying on the ground hardly gains an advantage for a player.

 

[dazbroncos]

If you can show me an ounce of proof that we cheated in 1995, I'll cop that. If the AFL wants to investigate it (pretty sure they already have) and find us guilty, then I will be massively disappointed in my club and lead the charge to have that flag taken off us. If not, it's got nothing to do with the argument and is just a weak deflection because you have no counter.

I hope you level the same criticism at Essendon supporters, because they won in 1993 in a year where they WERE found guilty of breaching the cap.

So 95 wasn't cheating it was just bending the rules and unsportsman like.

Ok..

So it was ok then but if Selwood per your definition does it, its unfair and needs to be stamped out.

No double standards at all.

GO Catters

 

[TheWoodenSlug]

There's some strange views in this thread. You cant really make a rule that denies Selwood or any other player the right to shrug a tackler. Players have done it since football started. The problem is that Selwood's method draws free kicks under the current rules, and especially that it draws free kicks when the tackler has done little wrong. For that reason a change is needed and I get all the supporters of other clubs who are screaming for it.

The solution which most would prefer, and also the most sensible solution, is if they didn't give free kicks for incidental high contact that he causes when he shrugs. They should only pay it when a player intentionally decides to grab his head or goes maliciously high. Attempted evasion like that is already holding the ball if he is pinned after. Holding his head to get holding the ball or coathangering him to get holding the ball should never be an option. At that stage he has evaded the tackle and the tackler has chosen to proceed with an illegal tackle to stop him. If he is indeed going only for the free then he won't do anything useful and probably will get tackled properly or get a shit disposal after the incidental contact anyway.

Worth noting that in contrast to Selwood, Gaz and other strong players more successfully shrug a tackle by planting their feet and basically ducking out of it so the arms come off cleanly over the back. So in a way, Selwood's method where he tends to decapitate himself is flawed, and he could be taught a better approach. But even if he did, there would be other players who do it, so better to change the rules (or enforce them more sensibly).

Same for Puopolo who doesn't even have his eyes open when he drops. If he's going all in on the free kick don't call it for the incidental high contact, but call holding the ball if he is then tackled after that and doesn't dispose of it. Lying on the ground hardly gains an advantage for a player.

Yeah this.

I hate Selwood's tactics in drawing free kicks; just like I hate it when Puopolo, Shuey, McLean etc do the same. The discussion should be based on what can be done to eradicate it, not which players do it the most (yes, that would be Selwood - the stats prove this unquestionably), but these threads always end up with the same old bullshit arguments.

Personally I think a free kick should only be awarded for a dangerous tackle, rather than simply high contact. I don't watch NRL so I don't know if it's indicative of their standard season matches, but every year I watch the State of Origin and wish the AFL would judge dangerous/high tackles like they do there.

To use the example from this thread, Selwood was in no danger of being hurt from Burton's tackle so I don't think it should be a free kick regardless of any high contact, and regardless of who caused the high contact. Penalise the swinging arms, coat hangers, head locks etc, but an arm slipping over the shoulder during a tackle isn't going to hurt anyone.