When you’re trying to teach a small child to do the right thing, it’s important not to encourage them to do the wrong thing – if you want kids to eat well, don’t give them junk food.
The same applies with AFL footballers. Don’t encourage them to use dodgy tactics, when it just leads to actions that are counter to the spirit of the game.
Specifically, here are six things that happen throughout matches these days that are a blight on the game.
One-arm-pinned tackle
A player takes possession of the ball and is wrapped up without prior opportunity. These days, the tackler inevitably pins one arm.
The player can’t handball. In fact, if they are on the ground, it’s impossible to dispose of it at all. But because they have the ball in one hand it appears they are not trying to get rid of it.
Often the tackler forces the ball to drop free. The ball holder shouldn’t be penalised, because they didn’t have prior.
And yet this often results in a holding the ball decision. It is counter to the intent of the holding-the-ball decision and is rather annoying.
Dropping the knees, leaning the shoulder
Slightly further along the annoyance spectrum is an art form that Joel Selwood excels in. An optical illusion is created when the ball carrier sinks the knee and slightly dips the shoulder into the tackler, just enough to draw a high tackle.
This is annoying because it penalises a good tackle and encourages someone to use their head as a prop to get a free, an act that should be strongly discouraged to reduce head injuries. Players should be rewarded for evading an opponent or disposing of it properly, not drawing high tackles.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Drawing the push in the back
The ball carrier gets tackled from behind and so they drop at the knees and let inertia do the rest. The momentum of the tackler inevitably leaves them on top of the ball holder and the umpire pays push in the back.
Again, this encourages the ball holder to effectively cheat, rather than actually out-running the tackler or disposing of the ball.
Release the ball, dramatically fall backwards
A close, but even more annoying cousin to the one prior, is one that Dusty Martin executes perfectly. A player leans forward to pick the ball up from the ground. They are immediately tackled.
Rather than dispose of the ball properly, they drop the ball or leave it on the ground, flail their arms and push their body weight backwards. Because it looks quite dramatic, it’s paid holding the man/woman almost every time.
Pinning the ball under
In this case, someone is trying to pick up the ball while they are under pressure. Often on their knees, they may momentarily drag the ball under. Just because they have dragged it in, shouldn’t mean that the tackler gets a licence to hold the ball in so the player can’t get it out.
If the AFL wants the ball holder to get rid of it, they shouldn’t encourage the person on top to hold it in. It should be a ball up (or possibly a free against the person holding it in). This is very annoying.
Not 15
The biggest pain at the moment is the short kick, particularly because they are so common. It’s become a strategic tactic to combat defensive zoning (which itself is quite annoying).
These nauseatingly annoying string of kicks often don’t travel 15 metres, in fact they often barely go 10 metres and yet they are paid as marks.
These little kicks usually make their way along the boundary line. They prevent run and carry, they stop long kicks to leads and packs, they slow the game down and effectively diminish all that is good about football.
Most annoying is that umpires often have a poor sense of distance and continue to let these go.
Ultimately, if the AFL wants to improve the look of the game, they don’t need a committee to create new laws. We just need to be a bit smarter and stay one step ahead of dodgy tactics by players.
We need to bring out the best features of the game, and stop rewarding those players that spoil it.
Clear as mud
Guest
yes agree with "over the shoulder". how can on the shoulder be "over the shoulder?
Clear as mud
Guest
with that sort of thinking we would never have changed the LBW rule
Bangkokpussey
Roar Rookie
I am not a lover of the arm over the shoulder if it makes no neck contact and doesn't impede the player going for the ball. It happens not infrequently in the forward arc where a player fails to take a mark and is rewarded with a free because the opposition players arm comes down on the shoulder after contesting the mark. The ball carrier must have some leeway in regard to disposal or we get to the ridiculous position of players reluctant to take possession. Maybe a 3 second rule for disposal? In the back is always contentious especially tackling the ball carrier that certainly needs to be cleaned up. It's almost impossible for a tackler to not infringe if he is behind the ball carrier.
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
Appreciated the time he was flattering Leigh Matthews for his brilliant coaching in Brisbane's Premiership threepeat. After Bruce finished his gushing Leigh chuckled and said "Anybody could've coached them with that playing list."
dargerovitch
Roar Rookie
"3. Ch 7 commentators" Don't mind them myself , with the stand-out exception of Brian Taylor. He rambles away on irrelevant tangents when there's play to be described. He revels in making stupid mis-pronunciations of players' names , e.g. Orrrrrazio Fantasia and Jake Lllllloyd. So childish and so annoying. And remember that "roaming Brian" rubbish. So glad Covid killed that crap off.
sven
Roar Rookie
nice research kick to kick, knew it was a small goods thing but didnt know the history ...
Richard Atkins
Guest
I agree with all but the first comment, but it is significant in my view. If the player is legally tackled and does not dispose of the ball legally by hand or foot it has to be holding the ball. Prior opportunity is irrelevant if the player is legally tackled and disposes of the ball incorrectly. Prior opportunity is only relevant if they are tackled and don’t dispose the ball incorrectly. The rule is ambiguous so the author may be correct technically, but they need to fix the rule and reward the tackler otherwise we are playing basketball. I feel strongly about this.
Chief Keeffe
Roar Rookie
To be clear, I agree that it should be holding the ball if the player has prior before getting the arm pinned. I disagree with the interpretation that a player that immediately gets an arm pinned should somehow be able to dispose of it. That seems to be the case often.
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
Ha. Love the idea of penalties for pathetic interviews. Have to penalise the interviewers as well. They’re often worse. Hard to change touched the post rules without invalidating all historical goal kicking records and it would mean two lots of records - pre and post the new rule. For example - how many did Plugger actually kick if you include posters that went through? There’s some sense to the idea and the current rule is an outlier compared with all other football codes. But it is what it is and a change would make a nonsense of historical comparisons.
BillyW
Roar Rookie
Not sure if you read the article. The writer has, quite rightly, put the onus on the players not the umpires.
Maxis Pastit
Roar Rookie
There are few things that annoy me that I would like to see change. If the ball goes through the goals it should be a goal regardless of whether it was touched or hit the post. If it hits the post and bounces out it is still in play. If a player is tackled and hand balls to no one just to get rid of it – holding the ball. Players should be suspended for cliche abuse in interviews or maybe rewarded for how many they can actually say in one interview. Players coming off the interchange when the flow of play is going by the interchange. I am sure there are more that other people can think of. These just came to mind as I was reading the article.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
No, why should it? As l said with a rule to reduce ball-ups, as in no-prior, players will develop skills to work within those rules.
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
Ha. Just looked it up. Yes references to the ‘don’t argue’ popped up in football match descriptions from about 1914. They in turn were probably referencing a 1911 Huttons advertisement which shows an Edwardian looking gent with a stiff arm outstretched and his hand in the face of another scruffier looking fellow . The caption says “Don’t argue Hutton’s bacon is the best”. Looks like it’s earliest use was to refer to a stiff arm fend to the face. Maybe a cliche but a time-honoured one.
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
Yep. Spot on
Kick to Kick
Roar Rookie
So the ruck becomes a frenzy of paddle-ball? Thankfully it’ll never happen because it would make a joke of the game. Yes tackling is important and should be rewarded - but not to the point of getting something for nothing.
dab
Roar Rookie
my experience and that of ch7 staff is different
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Yeah they do get a few back. Won't stop them whingeing about injuries if they lose. Should be a tight contest. We need to win this one.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I have to defend Bruce here. I can't stand him. I've known him from late 70s in SA TV and his infectious delivery is v real, OTT even, but nonetheless v real.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
Not really.
pablocruz
Roar Rookie
. . . is what?