Acting for high free kicks has become an unfortunate staple of the modern game. The likes of Joel Selwood and Luke Shuey have developed dropping the knees and shrugging the shoulders into a real art form.
But it was neither of these players who were criticised for ‘ducking’ on the weekend. Instead, it was the series of high free kicks awarded to North’s Lindsay Thomas during the loss to Sydney that had people crying foul.
Former Hawthorn premiership player and commentator Dermott Brereton led the charge, visibly fuming during Fox Footy’s half-time coverage.
“This is a blight on the game and I would call on the league’s rule makers to cut this crap out,” Brereton said. “I hate it.”
And on SEN the next day, Brereton took particular offence to Thomas’ second high contact free, saying the small forward’s actions were “not in the spirit of the game”.
“Lindsay was in a pack, surrounded by two other bodies, and he had an exit passage straight ahead of him,” Brereton said. “But he thought, ‘No, I am going to seek out the tackler’. He actually went into reverse, got lower in reverse, and drove up into the tackle from behind under the armpit.”
“He actually thought, ‘Where is the tackler? I want the tackler, because I can milk a free out of this’. That is not the spirit of our game.”
But while Thomas is notorious for ‘ducking’, and is often used as a poster boy for undesirable acting, he hasn’t been the umpires’ favourite in 2016. In fact, Thomas has only received four high frees this season – that’s including the two he received on Friday night.
In actuality, Lion Allen Christensen and Bulldog Toby Mclean have received the most high free kicks – a staggering 17 frees at this point in the season.
The stats don’t lie. If individual players are receiving such a large number of high frees, then they’re obviously altering their attack on the ball to draw in the high contact.
But are these players solely to blame? Do we have the right to label them as ‘duckers’ and not playing in the ‘spirit of the game’?
While we’re all rightly frustrated, ultimately these acts are well within the rules.
And high free kicks were introduced as a way to prevent serious injury to the neck and head. There will always be that duty of care to the player going in for the ball- whether they act or not.
So do we need to alter the rules then? Or do we need to change the way the umpires are interpreting them?
One popular solution is to have the umps look for the start and end point of a tackle, to see whether or not a player is initiating the high contact. But former umpire Steve McBurney believes this change would only lead to more errors.
“Unless he has a good perspective of that and has uninterrupted vision, he is going to struggle in any occasion to get that full context to make that informed decision,” McBurney said. “We can sit back and watch it in slow-mo replay and maybe make the decision on the third angle, the umpire doesn’t have that luxury.”
So if the umpires can’t change at this point in time- and ultimately they’re only adjudicating with the rules they’ve been given- then we need to put some onus back on the tacklers themselves.
They need to manipulate their own game, in a sense, to win frees. Lower the arms and tackle around the lower torso rather than higher up.
Good tackles will always be rewarded. And if it is a really strong, legal tackle, then it will also be more difficult for players to stage for frees.
Now, this is all very easy to say from the sidelines, especially because it undoubtedly becomes more complicated, the more you look at it.
But until players are penalised for their actions, then it’s extremely naïve for us to think players will stop dropping for frees.
So despite how angry and frustrated we’re feeling- let’s not attack any player smart enough to bend the rules to their advantage.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
Good points, I would say we can have our cake and eat to though, what if even if the tackler goes slightly high, or if a the ball players searches for the tackler then it's play on? If they are making the play, that's fine, free kick, if not and/or the play is to find the tackler and draw a free then it's play on.
I hate pies
Guest
I've also watched all the Dogs games and, as a supporter, it pains me to say that McLean is no doubt a ducker. I cringe when he's near the ball when I see the arm come out to the side I know what's coming every time.
mattyb
Guest
Hi jax and Tara,I've watched all the games this year of the premiership favorites Western Bulldogs and I have no doubt in my mind that McLean drops his knees and plays for frees. I'm slightly worried for his safety to be honest and I don't think he really disguises what he is doing that well. Interestingly the umpires just called play on in the last game we played which has me concerned they may have cottoned on to the tactic. We play the Eagles this week jax so you might get to have a closer look at McLean,he's an excellent prospect but might need to eradicate this out of his game.
jax
Guest
No worries Tara and thanks for taking the feedback as a good sport and as I intended it. Before we jump to assumptions I'd be interested to know how far ahead in free kicks they are to their closest rivals, who those players are and how many games/minutes they've all played in comparison to the next, and of course were they bona-fide free kicks and consistently umpired throughout the game, I haven't watched all of the frees either and you may well be correct but I think it's important for us to check before naming and shaming players. I see some similarities between this ducking debate and people believing that teams should have equal free kick counts at the end of a game. Cheers
Pope Paul VII
Guest
well put MF
InvisiblePJs
Roar Rookie
MF - Huzzah!! Finally a voice of reason in this whole storm in a teacup. As much as I have detested over time the likes of Selwood & Shuey getting away with what they you to milk frees, as long as it is not illegal it's up to the tackler to work it out. As to being a blight on the game, I'm sure some of Dermie's antics during his playing time would probably be considered a blight on the game these days!
harry houdini
Roar Rookie
Just another thought on Lindsay Thomas, my bet is he played up a lot in age groups during juniors although he probably wasn't a big kid and developed this technique to get free kicks in older age groups - no proof just a theory.
harry houdini
Roar Rookie
I agree, very good points, not only that but watching Thomas play a team i don't barrack for makes me think he is actually a pretty smart player, although i think he does it subconsciously if you know what i mean, he just automatically exploits a rule, most likely he has been doing it since junior footy and along the way has enraged thousands of opposition fans :) Pretty funny actually.
BigAl
Guest
Some very good points Mister
fairsuckofthesav
Guest
Watching the Crows Dogs game was not a happy experience given the number of times Dogs players drove their heads into Crows players and received a free kick. Dogs were the better side but I could do without this interpretation of the rule.
Liam
Guest
Well, yes, if the interpretation is that he is playing low to be taken high, and Selwood isn't especially my target, players like Puopolo and Thomas are, because regardless of how many frees Luke Shoey and Joel/any Selwood get in the midfield, it is the frees that result in shots on goal that are the real blight on the game, because they can sway results. And I defy you to say that Selwood always uses the arm to make the tackle just slide up. He does this with the intent to shrug the tackle sometimes, sure, but others he goes deliberately low into the contest ala Thomas and Puopolo, and gets frees for exactly the reason I'm talking about. The shrugging tackles frees are due to poor umpiring. The going low into the contest is quite something else.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Vocans Last night AFL360 dedicated a large chunk of their show to this so-called issue, and I sort of came to the same conclusion, that pretty much all who were tackled were taken obviously high. The thing which struck me is that there is no one single way players are playing for frees, in fact they came up with a good half dozen verbs to describe some of the different actions being employed. I soon came to the conclusion that this so-called issue has been over-simplified, that it's as much about what tacklers are doing as it is about what the tackled are doing. What do I mean? Tacklers are aiming as their number one priority to pin the arms - which means they are going to start their tackling action relatively high. The tackled take possession of the ball knowing this is where they are heading, but equally, wanting to keep their arms free (which is natural). So the tackler has two choices: 1. go lower, but risk leaving the arms free, allowing the player to handball 2. continue trying to pin the arms, but get outsmarted by the player with the ball. I'm starting to come round in this debate - it's the player with the ball who is making the play, and the opposition must either go lower or give away the free - simple. If they go lower, the ball gets out by way of handball - a good result for the team with the ball, and a good result for the game because we prefer to see the ball alive. In conclusion, the benefit of the doubt must remain with the player getting first use of the ball - the one coming in second must either tackle correctly and legally, or allow him to get his arms free, or give away the free. Let's stop getting sucked into thinking the player coming in second deserves the ball - they don't - they never have in the history of the game, and they don't deserve it now.
Stewart
Guest
I hate Swans players doing it as well, because I don't respect players that milk frees and I'd rather just like all of the Swans players. I don't believe in rubishing your own team, but this is one thing that gets me close. Serial duckers clearly have other things on their mind when they are playing and I don't resect those that don't run straight at the ball.
Stewart
Guest
I didn't say anything about Brereton's 'spirit of the game comment' as it is irrelevant. What he said about the way Thomas approaches the contest is spot on. I think your rosy view of what Thomas did is funny. If he was actually concerned about getting the ball out he would have, but he wasn't and that is the point you are missing. Do you really want the players of the team you support to be focused on trying to create a free kick rather than trying to do something constructive with the ball? Maybe that is why Thomas completely faded out of the game. Maybe his opportunities to milk frees dried up and he had nothing else. The fact is, the ball isn't his prime focus and you don't switch that on and off like a tap. The way he plays is a blight, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be discussed.
Vocans
Guest
The AFL Whistleblowers segment showed a number of claimed ducking high decisions. The umpires got it right in all cases they decreed. I agree except with the one where Thomas backed into the tackler going low. This was a drive, albeit backward, and so should have been play on, and then holding the ball given there was prior opportunity. I think there is a problem, though not necessarily huge. Where it really matters is that it adds to a number of situations in which fairness is at issue. This is not simply an idealistic thing: it matters in real world ways that are obvious in this professional game.
Cat
Roar Guru
Goodes is retired, so apparently it's okay to boo again.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Was a bit rich of the Sydney fans to boo Lindsay incessantly thereafter, given that this was the main defence ( booing a penalty puller )of the hounders of Goodesy.
Tara Cosoleto
Roar Pro
Hi Jax No I haven't seen every single high free kick awarded to Chistensen and Mclean, so it might have been a bit of a generalisation on my part. Sorry for that. But I think it's still staggering that so many high frees were given to two players in the first ten rounds of the season. I have seen these players play, so I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that some (but not necessarily all) of these free kicks involved some sort of acting. Thanks for your feedback.
jax
Guest
I watch every WC game and I can't recall seeing Shuey drop his knees or stage for frees more than the next player for a few years now, he used to drop but he stopped. Maybe you'll find a few isolated incidents in his last 50 games of football but you, and journo's in general greatly embellish things. Players have to play within the rules so if they duck, drop knees, shrug etc and win the free I don't have a problem with it as they clearly have better technique than the tackler at times. If the AFL has a problem with it then they need to change the rules eg play-on. If players stop getting awarded frees then they'll stop doing it, simple. That's what they did with driving for tackles and it's pretty much been eradicated driving from the game very quickly. This is just a storm in a teacup..
JamesH
Roar Guru
I don't think a rule change is required. Umps should simply exercise their discretion not to penalise high contact if they believe it was initiated by the person being tackled. It's no different to calling play on when a player ducks into a tackle. Adding a penalty (i.e. a free kick) against the perpetrator is overkill. You also have to factor in that many of these tackles are just bad. If you're tackling close to the shoulder then you're running the gauntlet. Good tacklers go for the waist with one arm (putting their weight into that part of the tackle) and then use the other to pin their opponent's arm to stop them from releasing the footy. On Saturday night McDonald-Tipungwuti did it brilliantly against Dustin Martin, who is one of the hardest guys in the comp to tackle.