WTF!? - AFL wants to reduce "excessive tackling"

[Boston tiger]

DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW OUR GAME STARTED?

Does anyone ? The first rules are nothing like Rugby.
Full body tackling is a modern thing. Probably came after they started penalising players for throwing the ball out in front when tackled eg early Bartlett. It use to be too much of risk to commit to tackles as they do today.

Pendlebury still does the Bartlett a bit .. pretends to gather the ball and gets held on to.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Gil and his posse can’t fu** off soon enough.

Be careful what you wish for. David Gallop is looking for a job from 2020.

 

[OniAu]

Should be no new rules made or passed until all current coaches and captains vote on the rules.

The games about the players not the rules committee stamping their print on the game for funsies .


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Bunch of clowns. If I didn’t love my club so much I’d be packing it in with the AFL

That's the thing. I'll watch Hawthorn play, but I will barely watch a game as a neutral because by and large they're not exciting to watch any more. Probably not what the broadcasters and the AFL want to read.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I suspect they are trying to get out in front of the looming massive concussion class action.

Its still stupid though.

The thought has occurred that this is a diversion from something the AFL doesn't want to be looked at too closely.

 

[sprockets]

I've said it elsewhere - get rid of prior opportunity. It's a skill to know what's going on around you and if you know you're going to be tackled when you get the ball you should knock it on instead.

 

[Seadog]

I agree with the people who say just pay the free kicks that go unpunished. Throwing the ball is at epidemic proportions, as is dropping the ball.
Laying on someones back, more often than not another bloke climbs on top and the poor bastard at the bottom has 2 people on his back.
I hate rolling maul footy but tackles in open play are exciting and a feature of the game.
Methinks Hocking might wish he had stated their concerns differently.

 

[Pessimistic]

Did he really say "people should take some confidence that we are looking at the right things"? Systematically looking for ways to undermine the sport's fundamentals, and endlessly changing (sorry, "adjusting") rules to chase some retrograde uncontested 'ideal', does not count as "looking at the right things". It's always like this with the AFL - looking at sweeping changes that people didn't ask for, and then not thinking them through properly either... the sooner the morons pushing this awful agenda are gotten rid of, the better.

Just a more eloquent version of sir Joh "dont you worry about that"

 

[mattwa]

Get rid of these two clowns they are ruining the game.

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Hocking and gill need to go.

 

[Toump Ass]

Last team to handle the ball over the line hands possession over answers a lot of these issues. Encourages corridor play as the boundary play would no longer be the safe bet, no stoppages from boundary throw ins, defenders required to keep the ball in play. Stoppages only from tackles and centre bounces makes a lot of sense.

No thanks. We have this in basketball and soccer already, and I enjoy seeing ruck duels.

Hard to know how this rule will actually work in practice too.

I think there's easier solutions to this "issue", ie: throw the ****ing ball up when there's a stoppage.

I've said it elsewhere - get rid of prior opportunity. It's a skill to know what's going on around you and if you know you're going to be tackled when you get the ball you should knock it on instead.

This too. So frustrating how the interpretation of "prior opportunity" changes week to week (quarter to quarter, contest to contest...)

 

[Spuddigger]

"The AFL is examining the issue of excessive tackling, with football boss Steve Hocking saying the AFL wants to reduce the amount of tackling in the game."

Hocking said that tackling had become ‘‘a feature’’ of the game and that the AFL wanted to see the number of tackles reduced, although he did not specify the desired number.

‘‘I have a very strong view on that. It has become a feature of our game and all the stuff that we’re analysing is how to get a balance back in that so that it’s not a feature of the game."

AFL wants to cut back on tackling

The AFL is examining the issue of excessive tackling, with football boss Steve Hocking saying the AFL wants to reduce the amount of tackling in the game.

www.theage.com.au

What the fu** are these morons in charge thinking?

Tackling is an integral part of the game. Stop messing with it. Gahhhh

So let,s you can only bump.I,ve seen that go awry.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

This has AFL media distraction smokebomb written all over it.

 

[Suma Magic]

Hocking is impressively short-sighted.

The real issue is that he has been given this role and crazy scope. The commission are responsible for this.

 

[Juddernaut08]

It's as if this bloke has been handed a microphone and told to keep talking, about whatever possible idea pops into his head, just because.

"Let's reduce tackling!!!"
"Let's double the size of the goal square!!!"
"Let's re-write history to include premierships from another competition during the gold rush years!!!"

Don't mind the extra flags.

 

[falcons2]

I think the AFL, clubs and players group things like tackles together rather than highlighting the differences.
Some tackling is to try and win a free kick, others just to pressure the ball carrier, others to create a stoppage. There would be others. Just guessing but i'd say its the tackles to create a stoppage that are the concern.

I cant think of a solution to improve these stoppages, except to pay the obvious frees.

 

[The Warlord]

For me, that tackling skill isn't so well executed if they end up lying flat on top of him, but they, umpires / league by deeming that to no longer be a free kick are empowering them to keep doing it.

I was watching one of the shows in the wash-up of the weekend's games and the umpiring around Cunnington being tagged was really very poor. They showed multiple instances of Cunnington being tackled or at the very least, ******ed before he had even taken possession. As soon as he took possession, the tackle was already 3/4 of the way completed, he never stood a chance. (the show may have been On The Couch)

It is interesting, there's been a huge push to allow forwards to ply their craft, jeez a backman has to get it 100 per cent spot on with only contacting the ball otherwise a free is paid.

Pure ball winning players like Cunners should be allowed to ply their craft as well.

 

[Makka]

Speechless!

 

[kickazz]

Good skillful tackles are a great part of the game.

Players (often multiple) standing next to someone at a stoppage ready to instantly tackle them if they get the ball so we can have another stoppage and do it all again - booooooring.

 

[kickazz]

Surely most would agree that we want quality tackling, not quantity? I think that is the gist of all of this.

 

[kickazz]

I reckon when the ball goes out of bounds the ball should be thrown in immediately, but in the same position on the other side of the ground.

Like Pacman?

 

[Grrr]

You mean what is described as "tagging" Ben Cunnington? Aka Jack Steele or Dylan Clarke or Matt De Boer sits behind Cunners shoulder at every contest and as soon as Cunners touches the ball they leap on him and rolls him down as you describe? Cunnington has no prior opportunity so doesn't get pinged HTB and the tackling skill is so well executed they don't get pinged from holding the back or in the back.

The answer isn't to ban tackling, it is for Cunners to go forward imo.

The answer is your team mates to hit him with a hip and shoulder when he gets the chance and make the tagger earn his keep. Oh wait a minute, that has all but been outlawed.

 

[The Warlord]

The answer is your team mates to hit him with a hip and shoulder when he gets the chance and make the tagger earn his keep. Oh wait a minute, that has all but been outlawed.

Yeah, I'm sure if he thought he could do it without getting eight weeks, his captain would steam through the first contest and do exactly that.

But ever since Ziebell got four weeks for CONTESTING THE BALL that's not been on option.

 

[Grrr]

I agree with the people who say just pay the free kicks that go unpunished. Throwing the ball is at epidemic proportions, as is dropping the ball.
Laying on someones back, more often than not another bloke climbs on top and the poor bastard at the bottom has 2 people on his back.
I hate rolling maul footy but tackles in open play are exciting and a feature of the game.
Methinks Hocking might wish he had stated their concerns differently.

Correct, third man in makes it impossible to get the ball out, perhaps that should be looked at. (only when they play schoolyard stacks on).

 

[Grrr]

Yeah, I'm sure if he thought he could do it without getting eight weeks, his captain would steam through the first contest and do exactly that.

But ever since Ziebell got four weeks for CONTESTING THE BALL that's not been on option.

Yup, free reign for scraggers. Ziebell did what had been happening for decades, helping to protect the man with the ball. It is a fine line, because the head hit needs policing, but they do go overs.