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

[QuietB]

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.

Love this.

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.

Love this.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

Then explain how half the tackles stick on Selwood and the other half don't?

 

[QuietB]

Then explain how half the tackles stick on Selwood and the other half don't?

bad batch of baby oil

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

The Dustin Martin fend should be banned.

Why? He generally gets his target in the chest.....and the high ones have been penalised.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Why? He generally gets his target in the chest.....and the high ones have been penalised.

Just breaking a tackle.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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

You're weird. We were found guilty and penalised for breaching the salary cap over a few seasons. One of those seasons was NOT 1995. How can it be bending the rules or cheating if we weren't found guilty.
If you have proof, offer it up. I'm not sure why you keep going on about it. These two things are not comparable or related in any way.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

Kudos to you both.
I would say the blame lays fairly evenly between Selwood (and any other player that does it) and the umpires. Absolutely, the umpires can stamp it out quite quickly by following their own rules. If a player with the ball creates the high contact when there was none to begin with, then play on. If the player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball before trying to 'evade' the tackle, then pay HTB against. But the fact remains, that while this 'loophole' in the rules is available for every player to exploit, most players choose not to.

Mningasimisonda, I haven't seen anyone claim that players should be denied the ability to evade/shrug tackles (other than a few Geelong supporters that seem to have wildly misinterpreted other posts). The problem is that Selwood's method shouldn't be drawing frees. The current rules actually don't allow it, as has been pointed out in a few posts. Your point about Gaz's evasive technique is a very poignant one, and I'm glad it was brought up by a Geelong supporter. Murphy and Judd used this technique to great effect, as well as many others. Then you have players like Dusty and Cripps who use brute strength to try and throw the tackler away whilst freeing the arms for a handball.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Has not ducked or bent at the knees at all.
At the worst you can say he has leaned in one direction. Please directly quote the AFL rules where leaning in a direction constitutes a free kick.

The only thing you've done here is drop the mic on your foot and broken your toe.

GO Catters

Bloody hell.

“Has not ducked or bent at the knees at all”.



He’s just magically fallen over.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Where is the 'evade the tackle' bit? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Why? He generally gets his target in the chest.....and the high ones have been penalised.

I love the fend off, but he gets away with a lot of high ones that I wish were called. If they're legal, more power to him. Buddy is just as bad at giving high fend offs.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Bloody hell.

“Has not ducked or bent at the knees at all”.



He’s just magically fallen over.

terrible tackle attempt, high free kick every day of the week.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Bloody hell.

“Has not ducked or bent at the knees at all”.



He’s just magically fallen over.

His right hand starts on Selwoods shoulder.

 

[MinerBoy]

His right hand starts on Selwoods shoulder.

ok then

 

[Brishawk]

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

he is welcome to duck or shrug. But the moment he does so in a way that causes high contact then he forefits the free kick. That is what the afl have said it’s just presently they don’t adjudicate it correctly for one player in particular.

 

[cryptor]

They eventually changed the rules so that if a player ducked their head down to draw high contact it would be called play on and considered that they'd used their prior opportunity. Pretty quickly this eliminated most of the comp using this tactic and we had far less incidents of players copping hits to the heads.

It only makes sense that they apply this same ruling to these incidents where players lift the arms, bend the knee or whatever else to draw the tacklers arm up to their head. In fact they've already brought this into the rules some time ago, they've just not for whatever reason actually been applying it.

 

[MightyHawks]

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

Agree totally. And if there was a kneeing then the umpire would have reported him

 

[dazbroncos]

Bloody hell.

“Has not ducked or bent at the knees at all”.



He’s just magically fallen over.

Yup.. called leaning.

Go Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

Agree totally. And if there was a kneeing then the umpire would have reported him

Well if the tripping free got missed why didnt Selwood get fined for it as misconduct?
Sicily got his week for the dog act.

Go Catters

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

His right hand starts on Selwoods shoulder.

Just NO! Unless you accidentally misspelled bicep?

 

[MightyHawks]

Well if the tripping free got missed why didnt Selwood get fined for it as misconduct?
Sicily got his week for the dog act.

Go Catters

What tripping?

As you said:
Well then if legged there must have been a tripping free paid for it

If the umpire didn't pay it, it didn't happen - easy position to take as a Cats fan

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

His right hand starts on Selwoods shoulder.

Except it doesn’t.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

terrible tackle attempt, high free kick every day of the week.

Hi Razor.

 

[Sassermon]

The thing is this: it’s just a Geelong Hawthorn shitfight masquerading as something else.

Its more than that. I am neither a Geelong nor a Hawthorne supporter and have no prejudice against either team but i find the tactic infuriating and embarassing. All teams have players that do it to varying degrees and it is repugnant no matter who's doing it but I honestly think its hard to dispute that Joel Selwood is the biggest culprit, and possibly a part of why its becomong so commonplace throughout the league. Over the past few seasons it has become more and more a part of his gameplay and its getting difficult to watch. Go to the thread rnd 2 liked/learnt/hated and you will see that one of the biggest hates, from supporters all around the league was Selwoods theatrics (yes including mine)

 

[MrFujiMoto]

"The laws of the game make no exception. A high tackle is a high tackle. However the laws are adjudicated so that there is no free kick paid where the player being tackled contributes to the high contact.

https://m.qt.com.au/news/afl-approves-rules-against-ducking/3136707/

Pretty sure Selwood does lower his shoulder and try to shrug off the tackle. It should be play on every day of the week."

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

That's just semantics Daz. To correct Brizhawk, Selwood has admitted to raising the tacklers arms around his neck to draw high contact frees. It is not an attempt to shrug tackles. He also slides his feet out and leans his head and shoulders into to tackler to initiate high contact.

There should be no argument, it is directly against the direction of the umpiring department - "What we're trying to do there is if the players' legitimate attempt to tackle appears to be correct and that the high contact is caused by the player ducking into the tackle, dropping his knees or trying to shrug it off, then it will be a play-on call,"

It is simply a case of umpires not adjudicating it well enough. They are fallible. The fact Selwood does it smugly and deliberately, knowing it is technically against the rules, is the reason people dislike him doing it more than others. He is the guy that rubs everyone's nose in the fact he seems untouchable to umps. No-one likes that. As of the start of 2017 he had won 45 more head high frees than ANY other player in the comp since 2012. That gap widened to around 60 by the start of this year I think. That has to show something and it is not that he is in the coalface more than any other player. Ironically, at that time, Dangerfield was second.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Just NO! Unless you accidentally misspelled bicep?

Bicep is to high also to start your tackle. almost certainly going to end up high.