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

[MinerBoy]

I've got no issue with the knee drop / arm shrug. Not against the rules to do it and quite often he continues to bulldoze on anyway and keeps playing the ball and moving it forward regardless of the whistle.

However if he does it and doesn't then dispose legally he should be conceding the free kick, not receiving them. You simply should never receive a free kick when your own actions initiate the high contact.

These are issues that the umpires should be getting correct though. They aren't Selwood's problem. The reason I struggle to find anything endearing about him, despite his obvious champion playing ability and courage, is that he has the temerity to often then complain to the umpires despite being given such a charmed run by them. Add this to the after the siren sulkiness and poor sportsmanship he has at times shown in losses and he is just a hard bloke to like. The sense of entitlement is staggering.

 

[Ricketz]

The tackle only ends up high because Selwood lifts his arm and makes sure the arm slides up into his neck.

Sheeet, you Hawks fans don't seem to be getting any more observant as this tired thread drags on. The tackle ends up high because of the poor tackling technique of the tackler - it doesn't really matter how Selwood contributes to it, just tell your guys that it has been illegal to coathanger your opponent for some time. I know you thought it wasn't, probably because your blokes have been getting away with it for years (Lethal/Brereton/Hodge)...

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

He did in that case, but the first attemp by Burton was a free.

The first attempt by Burton was correctly not called because Selwood used the arm flick. If he's evading the tackle, why did he go to ground?

 

[Ricketz]

Oh Lordy, a Geelong supporter thinks that lifting your arm to get a free is a perfectly legitimate action.

Sorry, where does it say it isn't? Players are entitled to attempt to break tackles - it is sheer fantasy for you Hawks crybabies to suggest otherwise.

 

[MinerBoy]

Sorry, where does it say it isn't? Players are entitled to attempt to break tackles - it is sheer fantasy for you Hawks crybabies to suggest otherwise.

Shoulder shrug to break tackle is perfectly legal. You're 100% correct.

It's also play on if that action contributes to high contact and holding the ball if you don't then legally dispose of the ball having taken that prior opportunity.

 

[Ricketz]

He ducks 20 times a game and has been doing it for a decade.

Are you blind?

Have you been taking LSD?

 

[JoeHawk]

Did they show his reaction for either free? I don't recall it being shown.

FMD....Ch7 showed his reactions almost as much as the game itself. How could you miss it? It was bloody annoying

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

I thought so too.

I did forget this: "That's ball, sunshine"

Apparently not.

 

[Ricketz]

Shoulder shrug to break tackle is perfectly legal. You're 100% correct.

It's also play on if that action contributes to high contact and holding the ball if you don't then legally dispose of the ball having taken that prior opportunity.

Hmm, no - you are also wrong about the second part, I am pretty sure:
"Any movement where a player drives or leads with their head into a stationary or near-stationary tackler will be deemed as a drive and will be umpired as the player with the ball having had prior opportunity."

"The player must immediately kick or handball or a free kick for holding the ball, under the prior opportunity rule, will be paid against him."

Selwood does not drive with his head trying to milk a free, initial contact is below shoulders and the tackler slips up to head height - its a free every day of the week.

Happy for any one of you Hawk's fans to show me the rule where it says otherwise.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Sorry, where does it say it isn't? Players are entitled to attempt to break tackles - it is sheer fantasy for you Hawks crybabies to suggest otherwise.

I think this thread is getting a very true indication of who is living in the fantasy.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Sheeet, you Hawks fans don't seem to be getting any more observant as this tired thread drags on.

It's not just Hawks fans, but please continue to ignore the many neutrals that feel the same way.

The tackle ends up high because of the poor tackling technique of the tackler - it doesn't really matter how Selwood contributes to it,

Wrong, and it was even recently clarified and cracked down on by Peter Schwab.
“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,”

 

[MinerBoy]

It's not just Hawks fans, but please continue to ignore the many neutrals that feel the same way.


Wrong, and it was even recently clarified and cracked down on by Peter Schwab.
“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,”

Saved me the trouble

 

[Wesley2]

Apparently not.

Read the last few posts. Apparently so.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Read the last few posts. Apparently so.

Read the paper - says it wasn't.

Wish they stopped paying him the free, wouldn't stop him too much, might stop all the bleating.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Shoulder shrug to break tackle is perfectly legal. You're 100% correct.

It's also play on if that action contributes to high contact and holding the ball if you don't then legally dispose of the ball having taken that prior opportunity.

That'd be great, tell the umpires, no reason to sook about Joel.

 

[MinerBoy]

I've got no issue with the knee drop / arm shrug. Not against the rules to do it and quite often he continues to bulldoze on anyway and keeps playing the ball and moving it forward regardless of the whistle.

However if he does it and doesn't then dispose legally he should be conceding the free kick, not receiving them. You simply should never receive a free kick when your own actions initiate the high contact.

These are issues that the umpires should be getting correct though. They aren't Selwood's problem. The reason I struggle to find anything endearing about him, despite his obvious champion playing ability and courage, is that he has the temerity to often then complain to the umpires despite being given such a charmed run by them. Add this to the after the siren sulkiness and poor sportsmanship he has at times shown in losses and he is just a hard bloke to like. The sense of entitlement is staggering.

That'd be great, tell the umpires, no reason to sook about Joel.

If you're reading all the posts and not just keyboard mashing you may have seen this one just a few posts up.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Read the paper - says it wasn't.

Wish they stopped paying him the free, wouldn't stop him too much, might stop all the bleating.

Gee that's a groundbreaking revelation... stop paying him the frees he doesn't deserve and it might stop people complaining about it... ya think?

 

[Muddiemoose]

I remember when Anthony Miles was playing for us consistently couple of years ago he was pretty decent at drawing the high contact free kick

 

[RedmanWasHere]

Joel Selwood, 680-318. (251 games.)
Paul Puopolo, 212-114. (150.)
Toby McLean, 70-22 (40.)
Luke Shuey, 288-183 (159.)

FWIW Toby's becoming my most hated using this free kick method.

He's a good player but, like the others, I want him to cut it out.

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Gee that's a groundbreaking revelation... stop paying him the frees he doesn't deserve and it might stop people complaining about it... ya think?

I think you'd still find something to complain about.

Do we agree that it's not Joel's problem?

 

[The Swert]

Why is this thread allowed on the main board but the thread about Dangerfield never getting a holding the ball decision against him was moved to The Bay?

 

[blaisee]

Joel Selwood cops a lot of flack for his ducking tactics and rightly so, but Paul Puopolo is just as bad.

As a neutral observer watching the game today, I was amazed at how often this guy not only ducked like Selwood, but also flopped and dived time after time. I am amazed that he doesn't receive nearly as much criticism as Joel, as he is just as bad if not worse.

An absolute blight on the game.

probably true, up there with Shuey

problem is Selwood is considered an all time great, when he is actually an indictment on the game, we are rewarding exactly what we should not be encouraging youngsters to do.

Selwood will end up like Greg Williams and will not remember his career most likely

Tragic.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

I does surprise me the AFL allows a player to perform an action that results in him being hit in the head considering the whole focus concussion and hits to the head in recent years.

 

[Square Peg]

I think you'd still find something to complain about.

Do we agree that it's not Joel's problem?

When he no longer whinges about not getting a free for it, it will be credible to claim Joel is not part of the problem.

 

[Walshawk]

Sorry, where does it say it isn't? Players are entitled to attempt to break tackles - it is sheer fantasy for you Hawks crybabies to suggest otherwise.

It says it here on the AFL website
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-17/high-tackle-rule-tweak-wont-see-selwood-change
Under the new tightened interpretation, if a tackle is reasonable and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a "shrug, drop, arm lift or duck, play on should be called".