The AFL’s umpiring department says the decision to award Luke Shuey a free kick that led to a match-winning goal after the siren in Saturday night’s elimination final was the correct one.
More AFL Finals
» ROSE: Flag race in three
» Semi-finals, preliminary finals fixtures
» Five talking points from Port Adelaide vs West Coast
» Five talking points from Sydney vs Essendon
Shuey was tackled by Port Adelaide’s Jared Polec with less than a minute to go in the extra time period of last night’s final, and while the original point of contact was below the shoulder, the free kick was paid after Polec’s tackle slipped high when Luke Shuey raised his arm.
The umpiring department spokesman said the only question asked of umpire Chris Donlon, who awarded the free kick, was if there had been high contact in the tackle, which Donlon said there was. A second umpire near the contest supported Donlon’s decision.
The AFL’s ticking off of the free kick will no doubt cause consternation for some, as it appears to be diametrically opposed the rule clarification announced at the start of the season which said that a free kick should not be paid if the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact.
An AFL statement in December 2016 read:
“The first assessment for the umpire will continue to be whether the tackle was applied in an appropriate manner.
“Umpires will be asked to call play on when a tackle is assessed as reasonable (no swinging arm or contact being incidental) and the player with the ball is responsible for the high contact.
“It is important to note that at all times the ball carrier retains protection against high or indiscriminate tackling.”
Given the tackle was applied below the shoulder and only became a high tackle after Shuey raised his arm, it is difficult to understand how the AFL could consider it a legitimate free kick under this interpretation.
Shuey was asked on Sunday whether he had contributed to the high contact, but decided to leave the answer up to the pundits.
“Oh, that’s for you blokes to decide,” Shuey said. “It’s irrelevant to us, we are worried about moving on to GWS.”
Port Adelaide senior coach Ken Hinkley was asked about the free kick as well, but preferred to focus on his team’s inability to convert their own chances on goal.
“Kick straight, it’s been our problem for large part of the year, we’ve worked really hard at it all year and haven’t been able to convert the way we should,” he said.
“It costs and hurts and obviously tonight more than you can imagine.”
Paul D
Roar Guru
Catching your hand on a player's neck and ripping his head around is not "incidental" high contact. See, I can state my opinion as fact too
Don Freo
Guest
You actually have predicted every team to miss the eight. You were wrong about 8 of them. You have lost track of all your hate tips. It's all very silly, anon.
Don Freo
Guest
One too many, I'd suggest.
anon
Roar Pro
"Shuey raised his arm to fend off Polec and in doing so, Polec’s tackling technique was exposed, as he had overcommited with his momentum and hadn’t gone in with strength. " If a fend off results induces incidental high contact then it's play on. This is a really simple concept to get your head around.
anon
Roar Pro
I was proven right about Western. I dismissed their premiership as owing to a sequence of favourable matchups on favourable grounds. They finished 7th after the home and away, were 12th in offence in 2016 for a reason. They're a mid-tableish team at best. Around 6th-9th.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Shuey raised his arm to fend off Polec and in doing so, Polec's tackling technique was exposed, as he had overcommited with his momentum and hadn't gone in with strength. He's running at Shuey trying to stop him getting a kick away, his arm slides up and takes Shuey high. Free kick. You are arguing that technically it should not have been a free kick. I am arguing that may well be the case, but in real time it's an ugly looking tackle, and an umpire was always going to blow that as a free kick. Your real argument is with what constitutes a free kick in general, not this specific instance. I love how you've said several times the umpire should be stood down but you haven't bothered to find out his name. Chris Donlon has umpire 267 AFL matches and I'm far more inclined to take his view over yours. particularly considering you seem so reluctant to espouse your qualifications or credentials. I suppose it takes time to invent realistic sounding ones.
Freo As
Guest
There's no debate. In real time you can see where the initial contact is made and it's not above the shoulders. That makes it under the current rules play on. Mistakes are made, and we can move on from that, but if the AFL tries to whitewash it doesn't acknowledge it would learn nothing.
Freo As
Guest
You really have no idea about the rule do you?
anon
Roar Pro
It was high contact because Schuey induced the high contact. It's not a free kick though. No different to if he ducked and was hit high. Wouldn't be a free because he induced the high contact.
Paul D
Roar Guru
At least you're finally admitting there was high contact. You're just blaming Shuey for it How many times have you been tackled anon?
Don Freo
Guest
That's about the 11th time you've said that. Saying it a 12th will still be wrong.
anon
Roar Pro
Schuey induced the high contact lifting his arm/shoulder, then theatrically exaggerated the severity of the high contact by contorting his body as he threw himself to the ground. You believe what you want to believe.
Freo As
Guest
It's not hard if they put some focus and weight on where the tackle makes first contact. Everything after that the umpire can save his or her focus on how the carrier is trying to get rid of the ball.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Apart from when he took Shuey’s head off. He broke that law. Hence the free kick. You have no idea about football. Here’s a hint, watch it in real time. Stop watching the replays online.
Don Freo
Guest
None of that happened on Saturday.
Mattician6x6
Guest
Wow he's bringing the caps watch out, for argument sake we subtract the shuey goal and the Dixon goal and by the laws of mathematics wce win, get over the fact this team of senior citizens won and you're arguments continue to be water tight like a paper bag.
Perry Bridge
Guest
The McLean example is very different to the Shuey one - with respect to an arm down at tummy/waist level and that was lifted up and over the shoulder. The Shuey one in real time certainly looked a high free and I'm not sure the umpires are reasonably expected to determine that one. The shoulder shrug at the level Shuey did it - I reckon is more a concern when it's accompanied by a knee drop and that dropping/ducking to me is what gives up the tacklees rights.
Botticelli
Guest
This is nonsense. Shuey's momentum forward would always cause the tacklers arm to go "high" because the Port player laid a very week tackle high on the chest. He laid a weak tackle because this was all he could do - Shuey was almost through.
Bill
Guest
In real time it was a free kick. Benefit of 2,000,000 replays and we can debate either way
themadchatter
Guest
A player should have the right to try and break the tackle. However Polec's arm initially made contact around Shuey's arm. In the process Shuey lifts his arm and it causes Polec's arm to move up around his neck. Their very rules state this would never be a free kick. Shuey himself caused the "high tackle" should not be penalised. They don't pay them for a guy who runs into a contest head first so why pay this when it was his intention to try and draw a free kick. Shame on you AFL. Can't even stick by your laws of the game