When it comes to the laws of the game, footy fans don’t ask for much.
So long as umpires are consistent, fans aren’t too fussed on what gets called. As long as laws are simple, necessary and don’t get changed once a month they’re happy.
But over the last few seasons discontent has grown in the way certain players have been acquiring high-tackle free-kicks.
Geelong’s Joel and Scott Selwood, Brisbane’s Allen Christensen and Rhys Mathieson, Hawthorn’s Paul Puopolo, North’s Lindsay Thomas and Sydney’s George Hewett are just a few players who’ve gained notoriety for ducking to draw high-contact free-kicks.
But last Friday night it was Thomas who drew the ire of just about the entire footy world with his supposedly blatant dropping of the knees to draw the frees.
Hawks legend Dermott Brereton called Thomas’ actions “a blight on the game”, while Twitter was also quick to condemn the Kangaroos goalsneak for actively seeking out the tackler to draw high contact rather than play the game the way it’s meant to be played.
So what can the AFL actually do about this epidemic? Is it something the umpires are doing wrong? Do the lawmakers need to step in?
Or, maybe, do players need to be more careful with how they tackle?
By and large, fans seem to blame umpires for this phenomenon. There are few louder boos you’ll hear than when a player who ducked gets a free kick for high contact.
But is this actually an incorrect application of the laws?
The only part of the law book to touch on this is Law 15.2.3 (a) (iii). It states:
“Where the field umpire is satisfied that a player in possession of the football has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent, the player shall be regarded as having had prior opportunity.”
That’s it.
While a case could certainly be made that umpires aren’t pinging players who do this for holding the ball anywhere near enough as they’re supposed to, the law is certainly very different to the common misconception that high contact is void if the player ducks.
In fact, if you search for the words ‘duck’ or ‘crouch’ in the Laws of Australian Football, you’ll find nothing.
Commentators fuel this misunderstanding regularly, but the laws of the game are pretty clear. If you drive your head into an opponent who’s standing still, you’ll lose prior opportunity, but ducking doesn’t change a thing – if the contact is high, it’s high.
So why don’t we change the laws?
North Melbourne coach Brad Scott said after Friday night’s controversy:
“Every player in the competition tries to do it… so until the rules change, the players will keep doing it.”
Well, the AFL actually tried that a year ago.
Kind of.
Exactly one year ago, to the day, the AFL announced a “new interpretation” for head-high free-kicks. This led to delight among fans but ultimately confusion when nothing really changed on the field.
That’s because this new interpretation wasn’t new at all. The official media release from the time reveals it was simply a “stricter” interpretation of the aforementioned law regarding driving the head into a stationary opponent.
So why has the AFL so far backed down on making any wholesale changes to the way high contact is assessed on the field?
Probably because doing so is fraught with danger.
Premiership coach and laws of the game committee member Leigh Matthews implored the footy public to remember “not being able to be contacted above the shoulder [is] one of the basics of the way the game is played” while also asking fans to “imagine … there is no free-kick for a high tackle. Imagine the game if you could tackle high. It’s a ridiculous debate”.
While nobody is asking for high tackles to be legalised, the scenarios that could eventuate if we permitted high contact on players who duck would be catastrophic.
Do high bumps go unreported because the player ducked? Of course not, because we all know if you elect to bump you must not go high.
Would a strike to the head be classified as a strike to the body at the tribunal because the player ducked? No way!
And what do we make of players who simply slip over? It’s not the tackler’s fault so much if they tackle high in that scenario, but do we really say ‘bad luck, play on’ to the player who’s just copped a whack to the head? I hope not.
With the NFL getting sued left, right and centre by former players suffering from very serious head injuries, there is absolutely no way the AFL can change the laws to make head-high contact less illegal.
At the end of the day, we’re only really left with one option. And that is for players to tackle smarter.
Take rugby league for example.
Rugby league is a much more tackle-heavy sport. For reference, AFL teams average 69 tackles a game in 2016, while Jake Friend of the Sydney Roosters averages 50.
But while AFL teams give away an average of three high-tackle free-kicks a game, do you think Friend is giving away a handful of penalties every week?
Absolutely not.
While it’s worth noting that the top of the shoulder is not high contact like it is in our game, the high shots don’t occur in league anywhere near as much as they do in the AFL.
And that’s because they know how to tackle.
When going for the ball, all footy players are told from day one to go ‘low and hard’, but when it comes to tackling it appears throwing your arm out is the way to go.
Swans coach John Longmire said on Friday night that they “try to [coach players on better tackling techniques], but it’s very hard, it’s a split-second decision”.
But maybe it isn’t so hard?
If going low and hard for the ball is football 101, then surely going low and hard at the man with the ball is 102?
In any case, it probably isn’t worth getting so worked up over the three of your team’s 69 tackles a week getting whistled.
And if it is? Then it’s up to the players to sort it out.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
So what you're saying there is that Thomas did play for the free kick? What you're asking of the tackler there is to expect the unexpected. Or at the very least to have himself ready for a variety of scenarios that require him to be balanced in several ways. It makes it pretty hard on the tackler. I think I'd prefer Thomas to do the instinctual thing and bolt into clear space and get a shot off on goals (eg. what Smith was likely expecting), rather than look to draw the tackle with an idea of hoping for the umpire's intercession.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Dalgety And so - Thomas out thought Smith and won the contest. Simple. Smith had taken a guess, and in effect over committed. Either way though - his arm never had to be that high and as I suggest at the 0:51 second point of the video before Thomas has propped his left arm is straight down by his side so I have no idea why Smith wouldn't target locking that arm down low against the hips.
Perry Bridge
Guest
however in this case Player X wasn't actually running away from player Y - player X had only just taken possession of the ball and taken one large step to turn his back towards the tackler. What then must the tackler be wary of when faced with someones back?? Good tacklers come in low and drop their own knees as or marginally before the commission of the tackle - however AFL coaches don't like a player not staying on his feet - and so they continue to execute high tackles. I can see what's wrong here. In other respects - certain 'ball players' find it really hard to focus purely on the ball due to the amount of unpenalised holding that occurs.
Slane
Guest
'high shots don’t occur in league anywhere near as much as they do in the AFL. And that’s because they know how to tackle.' Have you ever watched a game of League before? They have high contact(that would eaen a free kick in the AFL) in almost every tackle of every game.
Chris
Guest
Lotta good sense here. The AFL has a duty of care. High contact of any kind is dangerous and must be punished. Mostly it is. So what if a player bends or ducks or shrugs? The onus is on the tackler full stop. Only when the player initiates contact WITH HIS HEAD does he take the onus. Kennedy was 100% right.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Smith's arm was tracking that way because he probably thought Thomas would make a beeline towards the empty space between hm and the goals, instead of quite unexpected propping back into him at a low angle. And of course the umpires would hold the party line on this, it's pretty much their usual schtick.
Stewart
Guest
Well put.
Stewart
Guest
Your deflection isn't working.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
"Beautifully played" under the current interpretation, but that was Brad Scott's point they are training to take advantage of that (and pretty much conceding it was a deliberate strategy in the process) with the idea that they aren't going to put themselves at a disadvantage if other teams are too. Of course "player X" had a valid action to try and evade the tackle or hand it off to a teammate, but instead of taking that initiative wholly on himself, player X hopes for the intercession of a third party in that contest. It was also very difficult for "player Y" to go in low when they're chasing someone running away from them, mostly for the sake of balance, speed and to not drive into their back. Player Y also could have every expectation that player X would keep going forwards (or at least diagonal/sideways) and not to drive back into them with knees bent. Now it can be quite difficult for umpires to make that call in frenetic play like that, but players are being conditioned to think "free kick" higher on their list of decision making options. Calling play on for excessive contributions to those sorts of situations more frequently is one way to de-condition players free kick priorities. Perhaps even some sort of review/staging fine as a further remedial action, but that option would come with hefty reluctance on my part.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Jack Russell The first one there's no 'possibly' about it - Grundy stepped into the path of Thomas who was trying to get past him. Instead of Grundy going in low - his contact to Thomas is while he's fully standing and while the left arm wraps around Thomas okay it's the right arm/shoulder that collect Thomas in the head and around the neck. Thomas didn't have to do anything for that one. That was a clear as day every day of the week high sloppy tackle free kick. The 2nd one - watch it carefully. Thomas picks up the ball with Smith rapidly closing on him. At that moment Thomas is side on to Smith. Thomas turns his body to protect the ball from the tackler and takes a step and props. He hasn't turned to face the tackler and drop his head as others are prone to do. Thomas is allowed to stop and prop. Prior to the stop and prop you can see Thomas spots the hand of Smith coming in pretty well at or above his shoulder height. Thomas didn't need to duck. He doesn't duck his head. He doesn't shrug his shoulders. No need on either. He props and leans back a fraction and ensures that the left hand of Smith that is coming in high continues on it's trajectory. It was sloppy by Smith. It was pretty quick thinking by Thomas. Yes he played for it. However it was only possible because Smith was coming in high. Remember that Thomas was standing still, bent down to pick up the ball and if you stop the video at the 0:51 second mark have a look at the position of Smith's hand - and allowing for camera angles it'll actually be higher than it appears - his left hand is heading straight at Lindsay's head and at this moment Thomas' left arm is fully extended by his left side - - why the heck isn't Smith wrapping him around the waist and lock that left arm away??? http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-05-31/are-the-umps-lenient-on-lindsay Had that left hand of Smith been tracking towards Thomas' elbow instead then a very different outcome. And the umpires have indicated that both those frees are fines and would be paid again and again.
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
Re: Thomas, the first one you could possibly argue that, but the 2nd was entirely the fault of Thomas. There is no way you could suggest that the high contact was caused by the tackler - it was caused purely because Thomas lent back, lowered his head and shoulders and dropped into the tackle backwards. He played for it - otherwise WTF was he doing?
DB
Guest
To say nothing changed on the field with the stricter interpertaion is wrong. It has significantly lead to a lot less players leading with their heads. Also the high Shots in the League variety of Rugby are common from what I've seen of that sport.
Michael Huston
Guest
Agree, put simply. All this talk stemming from the Lindsay Thomas incidents on Friday night, but the fact is, regardless of what HE did, Nick Smith and Heath Grundy both laid high tackles. Their arms weren't low enough, they weren't smart enough in the heat of the moment. And neither are the dozens of others who lay high tackles on smaller opponents. The best thing to do - and I learnt this from way back in the archaic ages when I used to rip the small forwards heads off because of my height - is to lower yourself to the ground when a smaller opponent has the ball. Rather than trying to be lazy but tough by just grabbing the player the first chance you get, fall to ground and then you have an easier chance to tackle them by the waist, stomach or chest. Obviously it's easier said than done, and I personally could rarely do it because it's just not that easy to do in the split second decision, but it should be trained more. These players are clearly being taught to see player, tackle player, but there's quite obviously no strategy to their tackling at all.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Jack Russell And that's what the 'driving' free kicks are about - and George Hewett received one of those against Hawthorn and one against North Melbourne and those 2 should be the ones under the microscope. Not Lindsay Thomas. The 2 frees on Thomas were there every day of the week and were not 'ducking' and weren't even Joel Selwood shoulder shrugs. They were two clearly high tackles. The media haven't done a very good job of expanding this discussion.
Perry Bridge
Guest
but what was Thomas' action? He turned his body from a side on to the tackler position to protect the ball from the tackler - we teach kids at Auskick to do that. Brace for the contact - I don't think he had a valid option to sprint away from Smith who had all the momentum (Dermott Brereton is a tool mind you on this particular one). Smith was at all times bringing that left hand in very high - aimed at the point of Thomas' shoulder rather than around the elbow region. Thomas has only had time for one clear step and then has, instead of trying to run on, he's propped. A fraction of a knee bend (he hasn't dropped to the ground). And a fraction of a lean back (he hasn't taken backwards/reversing steps) And the tackler cannons into him and does so high. Thomas played it beautifully. Had a Sam Mitchell done it then Brereton would've told us how smart Mitchell is etc etc. This has been so needless whipped into a media frenzy. And - the smarts of Thomas would have been judged differently had the tackle been legitimate however whether there was sufficient prior opportunity would then be the issue.
Perry Bridge
Guest
In neither case on Friday night did Thomas duck. Watch the current AFL Whistleblowers segment on the AFL website - the first free kick to Thomas was very much a clumsy high tackle by Heath Grundy on Thomas who had taken possession and was trying to get around Grundy and Grundy's initial movement to his right to step into the path of Thomas it is clear that Grundy isn't getting low enough (the ideal is to drive a shoulder into the test - instead Grundy has missed the chest (Thomas a bit nimble for him) and while Grundy's left arm seems okay wrapped around Thomas it's his right arm that locks over the shoulder and around the neck and only then does Grundy try to 'go lower' by dropping himself and Thomas to the ground. The side on shows that Thomas didn't even drop his shoulder - he didn't have to - Grundy's right shoulder contacts Thomas in the head. Thomas wasn't ducking or doing anything untoward - he was simply trying to run past the taller Grundy. That's a free kick every day of the week and there's no way at all that Thomas should receive criticism for it. The 2nd free is a different issue but again - Thomas takes the ball from the ground side on towards the oncoming Smith. Thomas has only had time to stand up with the ball and turn his body a fraction boundary side away from Smith as Smith is lunging towards him with the left hand already at a height of Thomas' shoulder. Thomas has one left foot stride and effectively props - he's not dropping to the ground (like Puopulo) and he's not front on (like the duckers/drivers such as George Hewett). He's protecting the ball with his body. That's okay. He hasn't really had time to go backwards - however he's braced for contact, Smith is fully committed and Thomas has dropped the knees fractionally as he props - the clear fact remains that Smith from the outset chose to go in relatively high and Thomas out played him. The remonstrations of the tacklers and Swans players was juvenile - and illustrated also in the reaction of Puopulo in the Haw v Bris game where he took Christensen high and managed to drop the elbow into his back when on the ground. Dirty stuff from 'Poppy' and such irony that he got 'out Poppied' by Christensen. The shame out of all this is that Thomas is being seen as the villain and becoming synonymous with an issue that he doesn't deserve to be. I watched George Hewett of the Swans the week before against Hawthorn and again on Friday night versus North and HE should have been the big story on the topic of ducking/driving. The other irony is Thomas became synonymous with the sliding after the Garry Rohan broken leg - alas that one was another cruelling of Thomas as despite getting an MRP report he was not suspended by the tribunal because he was not seen at fault and his action was not what the sliding rule was designed for. Then there was the 'head is sacrosanct' where Thomas got no suspension for his 'bump' (shepherd) on Ben Reid as at the time he had elected to bump ('shepherd', tackling wasn't an option) and hadn't left the ground and it was accidental head clash but again - Thomas became in some ways synonymous with the head high bumps. So - I ponder what is it about Lindsay Thomas???
Jack Russell
Roar Guru
If you want to be pedantic, taking a hanger on the head of your opponent is a free for either too high or in the back as well if you read the rules completely literally. It's no excuse for umpires not to interpret the rules with a bit of common sense. If you cause the high contact, then you shouldn't get a free kick.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
I reckon Derm should get his Perm back and take up umpiring so he can stamp out this heinous practice game by game. Maybe build a wall to keep out all the Lindsay Thomas'? Then he can get started, simultaneously, on solving the middle east crisis and global warming.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Let's not confuse this, I'm talking about Thomas' action, not Thomas. The point is that action meant the tackler had little chance to adjust to Thomas' deliberate movements, so it wasn't really any reasonable technique problems for the tackler. And show me in the laws where it conveys any special status on the person "getting to the ball first". People say this as though the person getting to the ball first has some sort of moral superiority by their virtuous efforts or skill. In reality a lot of the time it's a lot of luck that they've got to the ball first.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Why what's so bad about being second to the ball that it should be seen as a position subject to lesser status? It's become a bit of a mythical concept of privilege that gets promoted around. The only added status to being first to the ball under the rules is if the player marks it. Otherwise it's just a contest for the ball and the bonus the player who is first to the ball gets is first dibs at disposing of the ball to his teams advantage?