Hawks blast Eagles for ducking tactics

Basically, this is what happens when you let the rules committee run untethered through the game. Every attempt at making the game politically correct, or "safer", has just opened up the opportunities for the smarties to work it to their advantage. The excuse being that "it's in the rules". No sooner had the AFL finished making all its pious noise about the sanctity of the head than the Selwoods of this world (and others) started falling at the knees as soon a tackle get close. Or raising their arms to lift the tackling arms higher around their own shoulders and head. Next there was the "in the back" interpretations which encourage every player to dive forward the instant a tackle is felt in the hope of dragging the tackling player on top and milking a free. This, in turn, has led to players increasingly "going in low" for the ball knowing the umpire will reward any contact at all with a free simply on the basis of a player "going forward" or, with any luck, taking out the opposition's legs so he falls on top of your back or, even better, getting a shin to the head. To that end, in the last couple of weeks, we have seen Goodes suspended because he chose not to fall over his opponent and break his leg but match the "going low". Given Goodes had no desire to particularly injure himself he went low with his legs leading the way. No contact with the knees but "shin on shin" led to the MRP having apoplexy and giving him a match. This week Lindsay Thomas has been suspended for going for the ball. How dare he? He followed the mantra and went low to facilitate an "in the back" free kick just in case he failed to get the ball - which, incidentally, he got. Unfortunately, Rohan - having seen what happened to Goodes last week - decided not to also go low and got his leg broken for his politeness. Let that be a lesson young man. Better a week in the stands than a compound fracture! Curiously, the Brisbane player who seemed to deliberately fall over into Gary Ablett's legs, thus causing an injury, was deemed to have done nothing wrong. Presumably because Ablett did not break a leg or suffer a season ending knee injury. All of which raises the question, "Is it still considered to be dangerous, and suspendable, if a player does not suffer a serious injury as a result?" The answer, it seems, is "No!" The Brisbane player, as far as I could see, generated no particular comment at all concerning has actions. Presumably he was just trying to milk a free for in the back. Unfortunately, Ablett was aware enough to dive over the top though not before getting some damage. Perhaps if the AFL went back to the old interpretations about "in the back", or "high" tackles, we could be spared all the cleverness which surrounds the art of conning the umpires these days. It's in the back if hands, or perhaps shoulders, deliberately push the opposition thus. It is not in the back if the tackling player simply falls forward or is already lying face down on the ground. It is not in the back if a player is tackled from the side but falls forward owing to the fact both players are heading, at speed, in the same direction. It is not high if the tackled player ducks, drops his knees, bends over into an on-coming tackler or raises his arms (in a ball and all tackle) to cause the tackling players arms to slide upwards (the particular beef that Clarkson has with the Selwoods and the Eagles). Of course, these interpretations require the umpire to think so that's a problem right there. Far easier to just pay everything (if only they did!) and encourage the duckers, divers and charlatans among the playing group. That way, nothing is the umpire's fault. So while I agree one hundred percent with Clarkson I fear the game has gone way beyond common sense and logic. To that end we are doomed to see multiple repeats of players, like Thomas, getting rubbed out for going for the ball having been encouraged by the rule makers and adjudicators to "go low and go first". I imagine Lindsay Thomas is a bit confused right now. I can only say, "Don't worry LIndsay, you've done nothing wrong. It's just that, these days, the powers that be are just a bunch of reactionaries who, without question, all sit down to pee". Once I just loved Aussie Rules footy. These days I confess that I often find it embarrassing. Pathetic, unintelligent interpretations of what is, and is not, a free kick. Considerable inconsistency in same because of the "cleverness" now built into the various dos and don'ts, seriously embarrassing decisions of the MRP, pious, pompous talk from the chiefs about what is, and is not, acceptable language and comment (even in private conversations). Clarkson is absolutely right - but it won't change anything. .....and please don't start me on the interpretation of what is, and is not, "holding the ball"..........

-- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

A better tackling technique is the only way to stop the "shrug". Look to rugby and see how they start a lot lower than Aussie rules players do and then drive up through the body. I don't see it can be seen as cheating. The umpire is the one making the decision and he will always pay over the shoulder whether accidental or on purpose. Same with contact to the head. I think clarko needs to get over himself and try to find the real reason why his side can't seem to beat a team when they have them at their mercy. Perhaps dare I say he should be asking why the hell Cyril rioli can loaf through most of a game and not get reamed for it. Two minutes of effort per game just doesn't justify the pay check mate. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.

"Going harder" is not shrugging the shoulders to attract a free kick.

Willing to go harder than the other guy, isn't this what AFL is supposed to be about?

If it does, then blame rests with the ball carrier who slips deliberately lower into the tackle.

Well, I suppose it is easier to complain about other teams avoiding or invalidating your tackling than it is to coach players to tackle better.

Because it gets your head ripped off?

Last time i checked clarkson won a premiership by cheaply conceding points. wat a hypocrite.

Jeez Clarko, a good coach might take this into account if it is such a regular problem and coach his players to tackle lower on the body of the opposition. If you can get to their shoulders you can get to their waist and hips (and deliver a better tackle while at it). I'll support the duck being made against the rules when Clarkson supports the rules that are already in place which most would agree "should" stop Buddy running 5m off the side of the mark when taking set shots.

Gaining advantage via deceptive means treads awfully close to cheating in my book. How is it different to diving in soccer?

It's not cheating if it's within the rules

This is no better than diving head first at a players legs with the aim of milking a free kick. By all means penalize high contact but if the ball carrier contributes to it by shrugging his shoulders in order to turn a good tackle into a high one then it should be play on.

How many ducks could a Selwood duck if a Selwood could duck ducks? Maybe this is why Troy selwood had to end his career prematurely due to too many concussions? I hate what they do, it is unsporting and it is ugly to watch. the tackler should be penalised for a poor tackle, not a well executed one that is maniupulated into a high tackle. Umpire should say play on in every instance of a "Selwood".

I've been watching this and it's cheating. When the ball carrier shrugs his shoulders or drops his knees, the tackler cannot possibly win. It's been quietly creeping into the game and the AFL needs to wipe this out quickly. If a ball carrier manipulates the tackle so as to render a legal tackle an illegal tackle, that is cheating.