Ducking, buckling at the knees, laziness, or sloppy technique. Whatever you call it, you aren’t allowed to make contact to your opponents head in a game of Aussie rules.
So why is it now being pushed onto the umpires to get this injustice in the free kick count sorted?
I umpire sport. It is also a pet hate of myself and other umpires agree, we hate when players “play up” for a penalty. From a personal standpoint, you have to make a split second decision whether the player has put themselves into a position where being infringed upon is the only outcome.
In hockey, there are rules that protect the non-ball carriers from being penalised when they are not at fault – AFL has these rules also.
A key difference though, in AFL especially, there are more players around the ball, and in front of the umpires. The controlling umpire will be around 10-15m away from a ball on most occasions, and will likely have at least two players somewhere in their primary vision other than the direct ball carrier. For the purpose of this article, I will limit the application of the rules to the head high contact, but it is worth stating the umpires have a lengthy rule book to process during play.
So, if I was umpiring and I saw the ball carrier get clotheslined by an opponent; I would likely say that is a breach of the rules. However, I would also have to consider whether the player buckled his knees to draw the free, was getting the ball legitimately, was falling legitimately due to stumbling in traffic, the tackler was pushed illegally in the back and in stumbling made the head high contact.
And the latest craze to hit the AFL is players throwing their heads back in any tackle, to simulate that they have been hit high.
Solving that problem is easy, but I doubt the AFL will pursue it. Quite simply, record the instance that the player does it, and if they are a repeat offender, send them to the tribunal.
I haven’t brushed up on the AFL tribunal rules recently, but most sports have a catch all for ‘conduct that is unsportsmanlike’. Fine the player, take the Brownlow eligibility away (they aren’t a “Fair” player) and consider sitting them out for a week.
Equally, players that perform the head down charge into an opponent to draw free kicks can be put in the same category. They are putting themselves in a needless risk of serious injury for nothing. Start suspending them for their own safety and the practice will likely reduce. With the number of television cameras at games the vision will likely be available to the AFL.
But, this does not solve the in match situation. What can the umpires do to stop this practice? Realistically, there isn’t much they can do. The umpires should be encouraged to ‘call it as they see it’ and there will be instances where they get it wrong.
The umpires ultimately are not the ones making the tackles, or dropping the knees. They have to make split second decisions, without the aid of replays and camera angles from different perspectives. And based on current stats, they don’t seem to be doing that bad of a job.
What does need to change however is the practice that coaches are training players to draw the free kicks. Exploiting a rule designed to protect players from serious injury isn’t meant to be a meal ticket to getting the ball.
The AFL should discourage the practice, and heavily fine clubs for repeat offences. Player safety should be paramount, and being able to walk off the ground and enjoy a normal life post football. Not getting severe head injuries, risking permanent injury for a free kick that likely in its standalone instance won’t influence the game.
Will it take a serious injury or a death for the AFL to act?
It’s ultimately not a simple problem, but the media personalities suggesting it should be the umpire stamping it out of the game is ludicrous. They should be part of the solution, not the whole solution.
Players will learn better tackling techniques; the game will evolve as it has for generations. But making sure everyone makes it home safely after the game should be at the top of the list – not just getting the four points.
Aransan
Guest
Even Roughead had a laugh at that one. I think the umpires need to be especially strict near goal, even just deciding to bounce the ball if they aren't certain a free kick is there.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Saw 1st gamer Kade Stewart of Hawthorn dive, duck n drive and draw high contact on Sat afternoon - early in the last quarter - scores level - and he drew a free about 30 out directly in front. This was a textbook example of one to NOT pay and yet the umpire paid it - after the week of discussion and comment on this issue - the umpire still paid it. Seeing other first year players, Hewett (Syd), Matheson (Bris) in particular using this technique to draw free kicks it shows that something needs to be done because they put themselves at risk of severe injury.
Perry Bridge
Guest
#I hate pies Watch the video - http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-05-31/are-the-umps-lenient-on-lindsay Thomas had to do a double take to pick up the ball due to Waite having a grab at it - because of this he's turned fully side on to Smith and as he picks it up (0:51) Smith is almost on him with left hand heading towards the left shoulder of Thomas. Thomas has done nothing wrong yet and Smith is coming in with his hand quite high - and at this point his weight on his right leg. Thomas puts his left leg forward - his first step at which point Smith's left leg starts to follow through and that dynamic helps push his left arm higher and now his hand and foream is tracking over Thomas' shoulder (towards his head). Thomas still has done nothing wrong to this point. Looking over his shoulder is not an offence and at this point Smiths arm is already high and Smith is fully committed. The point at which Thomas props and leans back is not the point in the video that initiates or causes the high contact. The point at which the tackle is fully laid happens to see Smith at perhaps his highest point as he pushes off his right foot (just in the air) and before his left foot hits the ground - so, Smith is effectively unable to stop. That's not Thomas' fault. Had Smith come in lower and tackled properly below the shoulders then he might have had Thomas cold (should the umpire deem a single step to turn the body is sufficient prior opportunity. The stop, prop and the momentum of Smith makes it look like Thomas has pushed back far more than he actually did. Most of that back movement comes as a result of the tackle of Smith (and whether Thomas 'allows' himself to be pulled back off his feet like a rag doll is another issue).
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Maybe Lindsay is looking for a bit of equality. Contemporaries Benny McGlynn and Cyril Rioli have played about a seasons less games for 1 less free vs Cyril and a whopping 62 less vs Benny.
Don Freo
Guest
One is in the spirit of the game...and according to the intentions of the rules...and the other isn't.
Stephen
Guest
No, Prior opportunity is opportunity to dispose of the ball BEFORE being tackled. If you are tackled with no prior opportunity you must make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. Given that you may need to handball, you are entitled to try to free your arms enough to handball, if the tackler's arms are deflected upward and he takes you too high that is his bad luck. He could tackle lower, but his objective is to trap you holding the ball. The tackler is trying to get a free kick too you know! Two sides to every story everyone wants to bag the guy with the ball playing for free kicks, but the tackler is also trying to get a free kick his way!
I hate pies
Guest
On most occasions the offender angles down with one shoulder and then lifts the arm on that side up to force the tackling arm over his shoulder.the umpires can see this; the know when they're doing it. The problem is with the "interpretation" of the rule (yet again lawyers are ruining everything). All the have to do is change the "interpretation"; OR just man up and not pay a free kick when they know they are cheating.
DB
Guest
Better Link http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-06-01/afl-crackdown-on-headhigh-free-kicks
I hate pies
Guest
North fan? Open the other eye and you'll see Thomas look over his shoulder, then throw himself backwards whilst pretty much throwing Smith's arm over his shoulder. It was the worst one I've seen yet, from anyone. That was more than out of the spirit of the game; it was down right cheating.
DB
Guest
The AFL don't call it ducking, they call it leading with the head.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Just out of interest did anyone see these? There were two other more serious crimes against humanity in this match once by North and once by Sydney. On both occasions the tacklee slammed on the breaks and bent forward instinctively nearly double, sending the sprinting tackler flying dangerously head first, via the back, over into the deck. The umps paid in the back but there was no doubt the ball carrier initiated the contact and did not attempt disposal.
DB
Guest
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-18/afl-wants-to-crack-down-on-players-ducking-to-earn-free-kicks
Cat
Roar Guru
If a player leads with their head, it's hardly another players fault for hitting their head. The chance of injury remains the same, but the culpability changes.
Daz
Roar Pro
But high contact is high contact regardless. If you hit someone in the back of the neck, do they get less hurt if they ducked for it?
Slane
Guest
Would love to see that, even though my team would probably be penalized the most. Can't stand the way that Vickery and Riewoldt throuw their arms out and fall over whenever they get beaten in a contest.
Slane
Guest
Which is all fine and dandy. The issue is actually not the similarities between the AFL and NRL rules, but the difference. That is, AFL players are being rewarded for forcing their opponent to touch them above the shoulders.
Don Freo
Guest
That's fine...if he disposes of the ball. If he doesn't the tackle must be rewarded...not ignored and defaulted to 3 actions diwn the path. Choosing to free the arms is prior opportunity. The time to do that is before the tackle.
Wayne
Roar Guru
As an umpire, I would love that. Won't happen, but you can dream
Stephen
Guest
I think that you make the assumption that the shrugging of the arms isn't part of an attempt to dispose. It is difficult to dispose with your arms pinned, given that there are only two legal ways to dispose of the ball. If a player's arms are pinned why shouldn't he be allowed to free his arms enough to handball if he has the strength to do that? the other alternative is to try to get boot to ball, but this risks being adjudged illegal disposal if the the swinging boot misses the ball. Might be best to go back to the old holding the ball rule where you would not be penalized if you were ATTEMPTING to dispose of the ball. Let's face it, these days the tacklers are trying to pin the arms in such a way that a handball is impossible, sometimes the only escape is to force the tackler's arms higher using strength and this is good play.
Perry Bridge
Guest
The irony of course is that both his frees on Friday night that are questioned were cases of Thomas getting the ball, and then being tackled poorly. The first free on Grundy there was certainly no 'milking' and it was a sloppy tackle by Grundy who then, as the bigger, heavier, stronger player dropped his legs to pull Thomas back down to the ground. The 2nd free Thomas did do a smart thing and locked Smith's arm (once high contact had already happened) to ensure the umpire saw it and the free was won. The irony is that he should have got a free for being held without it is seconds before but the umpires probably thought he was playing for the free so I can't help but feel that Thomas was determined to ensure he got his free. The irony is - despite for example George Hewett executing an example of the 'driving' free kick and that being the type that should have drawn the media ire - that instead the attention was directed on Thomas. Brad Scott was at least able to admit that North had laid a couple of sloppy tackles. What is clear is that on Thomas, both Grundy and Nick Smith laid sloppy tackles and didn't go low enough. Thomas neither shoulder shrugged or head ducked.