Despite having a passionate love for our unique game, every single fan has something they don’t like.
Whether it be congestion around stoppages, umpires not rewarding Travis Cloke enough free kicks or annoying commentators, we all have something that gets under our skin.
You have some not-so-obvious pet peeves, the obvious hates, and then you have ducking into head high tackles, or rather, the ‘dropping of the knees’. This is a pet hate so obvious that makes you want to throw your remote (or whatever we hold more often during the football, most likely a mobile phone) at the television screen.
You throw irate insults at the umpire and indignantly yell out, that once again, the umpire has been sucked in, by the player’s ducking of the head.
But are the umpires really getting sucked in? Jordan Lewis told AFL 360 that it was art form, a statement we have heard on many occasions, by many players. Is it an art form? It has indeed evolved over time, as art does.
Humans have evolved art from cave depictions, to religious artworks, to propaganda, to…don’t even try to make me pin point an explanation of modern art. Please.
Daniel Kerr’s 2007 campaign consisted of 17 games and 51 free kicks, at an average of three a game. In six of his 17 games, he had four or more free kicks, including a tally of eight in one game, which beats Joel Selwood’s free kick record. While not all, surely, were rewards for being taken head high, quite a few were, as Kerr mastered the ‘shoulder-shrug’ technique.
The Selwood brothers followed suit. As did many others. Many players began putting their head over the ball (that’s fantastic) and purposefully charging into the legs, hips and stomachs of the standing opposition around the contest.
And it evolved again, some techniques become less common while others have their 15 minutes. We saw Lindsay Thomas on Friday night on a few occasions lean into the tackler, the dropping of one side of the body and the angling of the head into the opposition allowed Thomas to draw multiple free kicks, mostly in dangerous positions and resulting on shots at goal.
Similarly, Charlie Cameron against St Kilda on Saturday utilised the most recent evolution of the technique, the dropping of the knees. It’s simple. You drop your knees, you become shorter, the tackler takes you high.
Apparently it’s an art form.
Actually, it’s a disgrace.
It would be an art form if you fooled the umpires. These umpires are not being fooled, they are being told to protect the head. That includes players who drop their knees, if their head is hit, they have a duty to protect them and pay a free kick.
The only person these players need to be protected from is themselves. They are causing the damage, if something serious does derive from using the technique.
While I hate this, it’s hard to pinpoint how to counter the issue. Do we accept that it is a part of the game now, and leave it? Do we tell the umpires to stop paying free kicks if they deem the ‘victim’ has initiated the high contact? We do still have to protect the head, some way or another. Do we start handing out fines?
We have handed out fines for staging in the past, and while that is a far less common issue than ducking at stoppages, it has almost entirely stamped out that annoying little facet of the game. How much different to staging is ducking?
It leads me to another question, I’ve mentioned how much I lament seeing this in our great game. But when you get down to the finer points; I hate seeing players do this, I hate seeing the opposition do this, but when it comes to my team, I dislike it, but I don’t care nearly as much. After all we have a free kick. We have the ball. We could kick a goal here, stuff the other team and what they think about that!
And if I (and surely I am not the only one) think that way when one of the players in my colours does it, should we really judge the players that do this on the footy field (and these days there are many)? They go out on to the field to win, and do whatever it takes, what do they care if they’re annoying the opposition by ducking into tackles, if it results in possession, or six points for their side? Blaming the players doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in that regard.
There are too many questions to be asked. All I know, is that it does infuriate me, and though I don’t mind as much when my team is on the receiving end of a few, that’s not to say I don’t want it stamped out completely.
I do. Let the game flow properly, I don’t want an entertaining and intense passage of play cut short by a player milking a soft free kick. I guess that’s just a footy fan’s lament.
DB
Guest
Selwood's technique isto break the tackle as he doesn't go to ground and usually just plays on. Thomas goes to ground to draw the free,( though only one of 3 he got last week was for that reason). but to penalise it is ridiculous unless simulation (love that word) is used. I'm happy just for it to be call play on like the ducking your head into a player which is clearly more dangerous as it coud result in spinal injuries.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Definitely the way I thought it should be interpreted. Surely the rule is to protect the safety of the player and if a tackle slips up, the force of it after the initial contact is negligible.
Wishy
Guest
Completely agree Jax, doesn't help that he was smaller than most people out there as well.
jax
Guest
Your explanation sounds a little like touch rugby when it comes to shrugging and squirming i.e. the first point of contact was legal but the guy getting tackled shrugs or squirms to get out of the tackle so the free goes against the guy with the ball in his hand. I have no issues with shrugging and squirming because the tackle has to be held for a specified period of time before a free kick is awarded so it becomes a battle between the players for those few seconds and that's a good thing. If you insist on doing it the way you described it then I would rather we simply play on as it speeds up the game. Players have been trying to break tackles by shrugging and squirming since day dot and it's not going to change so play on is a far more practical and sensible solution in my opinion. I do have issues with the dropping of the knees however.
jax
Guest
Kerr has been one of the toughest players of the modern era (if not all time)t. He put his head and body where others feared to go more often than practically anyone in the game so of course he was awarded more free-kicks.. Is trying to escape and/or avoid a tackle against the rules or spirit of the game? Dropping the knees is but shrugging your arms up in an attempt to avoid the tackle is not. If a by-product of that action is that the tackle goes above the shoulders then that's the tacklers mistake and he should improve his technique. Don't try to place Kerr in the same camp as some of the other players that have been mentioned here.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Less high tackles paid for sure
AdamG
Guest
I have noticed a lot more abuse at the umps lately (sometimes deserving it, sometimes not), was it last year or the year before that just looking at an ump angrily gave away a 50m free? I wonder what round this year it will be rule of the week?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Well said Captain. I would say in the two Lin Thomas tackles I remember I thought the contact was initially high in both cases but that could be my one eye playing up. Having said that it was the same Essendon player who tackled him both times and then carried on at the ump both times. You'd think he would have learned from the first one?
slane
Guest
Interesting. Would have to see it in action but can definitely see what you are getting at.
slane
Guest
I'm a Richmond supporter and have to wonder why Benny Gale is tweeting about it when we have had Jake King, Trent Cotchin and Anthony Miles doing it as good as Selwood for the last few years.
Sensible
Guest
It should all boil down to the point of contact. If when you first make contact, the tackle is legal that's how the umpire should judge the tackle. It should work for all head high/tripping and in the back free kicks. Can be hard to picture in your head but the principle of the rule would be that 2 players who are already in contact with each other will generally limit the danger of any tackle. Whereas 2 players separated by space will cause a lot more tackles to be dangerous when contact is first made. So, if when you first make contact, the contact is neither head high, too low or dangerous, any subsequent contact would be deemed incidental to the tackle provided you're still in contact with the palayer. On the other hand, if when you first make contact the contact is high or too low, then a free kick should be awarded. This would include the arms and legs. They would need to be in contact as well. So if you lay a tackle but one arm is swinging free, you cant then bring that arm around and collect a players head. Might sound complicated but it is actually pretty simple. Just hard to explain by words. Example. If you tackle a player legally, and he shrugs, squirms and pushes your arms around his head, or drops to his kness or falls over so you land on his back, then no free kick should be paid. But, if you run at a player and land a tackle and the first point of contact is around the head or legs, or the force of the tackle causes a player to fall over and you land on his back, then its a free kick.
BigAl
Guest
I think if a player is completely claimed by an opponent and doesn't get riid of the ball legally then , free kick to the claimer. Shouldn't matter if the 'claim' is above the shoulder or if the player is grabbed from behind, but momentum carries everyone forward, resulting in a ridiculous free kick for in the back. The key is that the 'claim' must be complete (with two arms ?) and not a bump or a blow. The only question could be player safety, but head high 'grabs' are allowed in other sports... IMO this could remove the 'bump' from the game AND get rid of those grey areas where players duck? when grabbed or when they are comprehensively claimed from behind, yet get a free for in the back. All of the above is dependent on the tackler completely wrapping up the opponent with the ball
Perry Bridge
Guest
It's clear that Thomas is now very much not liked by opposition supporters. The irony is that supposedly tough players like the Selwoods and Hawthorns Puopolo have been milking frees from jelly legs for years now. But - suddenly Thomas is the pariah. On Friday night the Baguley free was definitely there and a clumsy tackle. The Melksham one is interesting as Thomas had been airborne taking the ball, and his version of the 'duck' is to go at an almost 45 degree angle to the oncoming tackler. The annoying thing was Luke Darcy started carping on about 'not in the spirit of the game' (yet 2 weeks ago he defended Jordan Lewis as being just a little bit late!!). The fact that Brendon Gale is tweeting about players leading with the head and this was associated to Thomas was the illogical thing in this discussion. Leith Matthews at least pointed that out - that Thomas was not leading with the head, he drops his body weight and the tackler has to be ready to go lower and target the waist. No one stands still waiting to be tackled except the tackle bag at training.
AdamG
Guest
Just tackle them really hard with a "swinging arm" the ducker / shrugger will deflect it to their head.... yoru gonna give away a free kick anyway, might as well make it count. If the player doesn't duck or lift his arm up the tackle will be fine.
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
The annoying thing is they seem to have let some go and others not...
Pope Paul VII
Guest
People have been staging for free kicks since the year dot. In fact you'd be made if you didn't because kicks are hard to get. The rules evolve to combat it and the players look around for loopholes. I agree the umpires need to take a harder look at deliberately ducking and lowering the head. It's pretty hard in real time for umps though. In the meantime tackle lower boys if you recognise a repeat offender.
Paul W
Guest
Two of the Thomas frees were there, not ducking. The one against Jake Melksham was the very doubtful one. Kerr, Selwood/s, Shuey, Hams, etc there was definitely a trend.
Footy Fact
Guest
I like these solutions. Name and shame on the Monday, and we'll weed out the repeat offenders. It's the AFLs version of diving in soccer, where the players intent is NOT to try and beat their opponent on pure ability, but to try to get assistance from the umpire to obtain advantage
saywhatayoyo
Roar Rookie
I like the idea of fines being handed out. All head high frees to be reviewed on Mondays and a financial penalty applied to those who have been judged guilty of initiating the contact. $2000 a pop and it will dissapear like magic.
Maca
Guest
The umps are only too happy to call play-on when they deem a player to have ducked his head. Occasionally we also see them penalise the bloke with the bleeding brow when he slid below the knees of the standing player to initiate dangerous contact. If WE can see the knees go, or the shoulder dip, then surely of the plethora of field umpires can also spot them 9 out of 10 times. Bring on the rules committee - time for a mid-season rule change.