News The Ginnivan Rule - AFL cracks down

[Couch Coach]

Selwood and Shuey all time great duckers / arm raisers / shruggers:

 

[Jafo]

Took Ginnivan just 20 career games to change an AFL rule, what a gun

We have two 19yrs olds in the team being talked up everywhere by AFL and supporters. It’s good when everyone hates us again. Usually means we’re doing well on the field.

 

[Couch Coach]

 

[Couch Coach]

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Joel Selwood does it for 15 years ... AFL said " it's ok...smart play.. Learn to tackle better. " Ginnivan does it for a season and a half and they decide to make a stand to stamp it out based in him doing it.
It started with the media highlighting it... As usual the AFL and umpires knee jerk to perceived pressure.

 

[Couch Coach]

 

[stormskye]

these duckwood vids are so good . Wish the club would bombard the afl with them and ask why a 19 yr old kid is copping it instead

 

[Couch Coach]

 

[sr36]

Spot on. The major problem with this rule change is it doesn't deal with Ginni most of the time. He gathers low & stays low. If interpreted wrongly players will be penalised for picking up the ball.

They'll want to get rid of the main one where he was getting a free nearly every time - where he turns and drops at the tackler so far that his legs go out from underneath him. The problem for the Umps is that the initial contact is usually high, so it's still meant to be a free kick.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

apologies. I thought they clarified the rule to be more specific on certain practices. If not and it always stipulated you wont be paid a free for lifting the arm, shrugging a tackle, and dropping low, then its a real concern that after all these years, free kicks have been paid.

I feel like I need to create a decision tree.

For five years the rule has been that you won’t get paid a high contact free if the initial tackle was ok, it then slipped high and you contributed to it by doing one or more of those things. Then once it’s no longer in consideration for a high contact free, the umpire will have to consider whether you had prior opportunity and a HTB should be paid.

If the initial contact is not ok, then it’s a high contact free regardless.

If you ducked your head into the contact, then it doesn’t really matter whether it was high or not, and if you’re ******ed by the tackle it’s just HTB because you’ve forfeited your right to prior opportunity because you ducked.

EDIT: Haha BigFooty won’t even let me use the word “r3tard3d” to mean “held up” or “delayed”.

 

[VinnieB]

They'll want to get rid of the main one where he was getting a free nearly every time - where he turns and drops at the tackler so far that his legs go out from underneath him. The problem for the Umps is that the initial contact is usually high, so it's still meant to be a free kick.

yeah players don't like Ginnivan, so I'm sure when they see an opportunity to hurt him, they do, regardless how high the tackle.

 

[Markfs]

I love wayne carey's spin on it. Wayne used to be an alpha. Now he's turned into a lap dog for joel. I hope joel gave him a pat after this....

 

[coosaac]

37.50 into this interview on the back chatpod cast, Luke Shuey

13

Luke Shuey

Age

34

Ht

184cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.7

5star

K

13.0

5star

HB

10.7

5star

M

3.3

3star

T

4.9

5star

CL

5.6

5star

D

18.7

4star

K

10.8

4star

HB

7.8

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.7

4star

CL

4.3

5star

D

17.0

5star

K

9.2

4star

HB

7.8

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.8

5star

CL

1.4

4star

describes his way of dealing with a tackle, basically makes all of this Ginnivan debate a joke. The AFL has been letting blokes do it for years and this guy does it in a handful of games (learnt skill from watching players do it for year maybe??) and now its a massive issue.

 

[MyManLynch]

I can understand the rule interpretation if you already have the ball in hand (you are upright), then tackled & you drop into the tackle, creating high contact…play on or HTB if prior opportunity.
However when picking up the ball (you are low), the tackler has a duty of care to tackle you legally & avoid high contact.
Any high contact in this instance should be free kick for high contact.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I can understand the rule interpretation if you already have the ball in hand (you are upright), then tackled & you drop into the tackle, creating high contact…play on or HTB if prior opportunity.
However when picking up the ball (you are low), the tackler has a duty of care to tackle you legally & avoid high contact.
Any high contact in this instance should be free kick for high contact.

Yes and that’s how the rule is effectively worded.

The problem is that the umpires aren’t applying it as they should in Ginnivan’s case, especially more recently.

 

[frizzle]

In his defence he did say Selwood shouldn’t be given a free kick if him shrugging a tackle leads to head high.

I think this is a good rule change and will make Ginnivan a better player. I mentioned it previously that footage over the weekend showed on a couple of occasions where he grabbed the ball and could of handed it off to a free player with an easy goal, but his initial reaction was to wait to get tackled or when it didn’t happen then hurriedly handball it to no-one.

The kid has talent. Now he can show everyone.

I hate the kid looking for free kicks. I hated it when Selwood done it & all others who followed in his example.
I'm glad they are going to change the rules but it is about 10-15 years too late.
If they had paid play on to Selwood for all those years then we wouldn't have ended up where we are today.
Better late than never I suppose. Lets see if Ginnivan can adapt.

 

[Couch Coach]

I hate the kid looking for free kicks. I hated it when Selwood done it & all others who followed in his example.
I'm glad they are going to change the rules but it is about 10-15 years too late.
If they had paid play on to Selwood for all those years then we wouldn't have ended up where we are today.
Better late than never I suppose. Lets see if Ginnivan can adapt.

They changed the rules in 2015 and further in 2017!

AFL introduces new rule against ducking

The AFL has taken the radical step of introducing a mid-season rule change after concerns that players were willingly risking head injuries by ducking into contests.

www.theage.com.au

Home – Triple M

www.triplem.com.au

"Schwab spoke on Friday and moved to clarify the rules around ducking.
“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,” he said."

5 years later Selwood, Shuey, McLean, etc. are still doing it.

But it's not until Ginni comes along that the AFL start enforcing their own rules.

Why did the AFL wait years to change the rules when it was being noted early in the 2010's?
HIGH CONTACT FREE KICKS DRAWN IN TACKLES (2013-2015)
Individual players
Joel Selwood: 85
Allen Christensen: 41
Paul Puopolo: 40
Anthony Miles: 39
Trent Cotchin: 34
Lindsay Thomas: 33

 

[Carringbush2010]

Looking forward to this being applied fairly and league-wide, and not just against Ginnivan

Yeah that's highly optimistic, it'll be inconsistent as always.

 

[gouki88]

Yeah that's highly optimistic, it'll be inconsistent as always.

Was being sarcastic, not sure it conveyed.

I think it will just make things more difficult

 

[eyeroller]

On paper I suppose I don't mind it but... seems hard to adjudicate in real time. Can't help but feel like Jack's gonna be decided to have 'brought on' the high contact in every instance- whether he did or not.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

On paper I suppose I don't mind it but... seems hard to adjudicate in real time. Can't help but feel like Jack's gonna be decided to have 'brought on' the high contact in every instance- whether he did or not.

Razor Ray said that the “drop” as described in the table you posted, is by far the hardest to adjudicate. Whereas previously he only had to decide whether a drop had occurred if the initial tackle was legitimate, i.e. started at the arm/bicep/shoulder, now with the new interpretation he will have to decide whether the ball carrier “dropped” for any attempted tackle. Yikes.

 

[Mollythedolly]

It looks like AFL house are changing/cracking down on the rules on tackling in response to Ginnivan's high free kicks. Selwood has done it for a decade play on. But you can't have Collingwood gaining an advantage. We can add this to the Clement rule for out positioning your opponent under the ball. And the Malthouse rule, where giving your players regular breathers on the interchange bench, became outrageous for * knows why.

View attachment 1450078

Wasn’t that already the rule?

 

[Kappa]

Massive blow for Ginnivan, a lot of his goals came from this.

 

[MyManLynch]

Now that Ginnivan has successfully forced the AFL to clarify & redefine high tackling adjudication, his next target will be the ‘in the back’ rule…by falling forward & drawing a free from the tackler who finishes up falling on the back of the player being tackled.
Then he will be taking on the arm chop marking rule.
Jack Ginnivan…the man on a mission to right wrongs, seek justice & fight for all Football citizens.
Jack Ginnivan “can’t we all just get along” & play by the rules.
He will be known from this day forward as ‘Jack the clarifier’.

 

[anshell]

Football players have been ducking and dropping their legs to win free kicks since time immemorial and getting away with it.But now that a 19 year old Collingwood player does it,it requires an immediate rewrite of the rules from the AFL.Talk about an over reaction.