Autopsy Round 14, 2024 : Hawks skin Tigers

[KermitJagger]

All I ask is that you reconcile the AFL statement I link immediately above. Ginni was mistreated. And you are blaming him for that mistreatment.

Playing for a free? Talls play for frees by running into blocks. Who do you condemn for that behaviour? They exaggerate the slightest touch to the back, making it obvious. Mitchell Lewis should stay on the bench? Politely decline the free?

The AFL admitted they got some of the incidents wrong, not all of them. I do actually blame Ginnivan for making it so much more difficult for the umpires to adjudicate by intentionally drawing high free kicks. The umpires ignoring things for Ginnivan when they actually happen is a tale so old it was written a few centuries BCE. The Boy Who Cried Wolf. It's not a vendetta against him, it's just him losing the benefit of the doubt and it was almost entirely his fault.

I think you've lost the thread of the argument here. I don't like playing for a free in any context, you can look through game day threads I consistently post about Sic taking himself out of the game by expecting free kicks. It would make me extremely happy if the AFL took staging more seriously than they do, but they don't because they're not afraid of ramifications from those like they are from concussions. That's why head high contact is such a running theme.

 

[cryptor]

Ginnivan made his bed on the high tackle stuff at Collingwood because he exaggerated by throwing the head back, the arm up and just letting himself flop.

I think he’s genuinely trying to change that part of his game by trying to keep the play going, but he still has what seems to be a reflex to raise his arm when he feels the contact which I think the umpires see as a red flag.

All our players should just go into every game with the mindset that free kicks for high tackles isn’t a thing and play accordingly.

 

[KermitJagger]

All our players should just go into every game with the mindset that free kicks for high tackles isn’t a thing and play accordingly.

This would make me enjoy the game so much more.

Watson won't even need to try to get frees, just try to do something cool using all those exciting traits with ball in hand and take the free if it happens.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

This would make me enjoy the game so much more.

Watson won't even need to try to get frees, just try to do something cool using all those exciting traits with ball in hand and take the free if it happens.

He's so small and elusive that he won't need to do what he did to Vlastuin to get legitimate free kicks, regularly.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

"Conspiracy"? And I'm the one putting words in mouths? Disengenuous much?

Apologies if you took offence to that, it was meant to be a joke.

Feel free to address the actual points.

 

[CD Xbow]

Maybe we need a new thread 'Head high tackles - little peoples fault or not?"

 

[Judd2Sewell]

Maybe we need a new thread 'Head high tackles - little peoples fault or not?"

He's a quick answer - when they duck or play for one it's their fault. When they don't, it isn't.

Simple.

 

[Holy Rioli]

I’ve “defended it” in this thread and another. But to be clear I’m only defending that they were technically free kicks as the rules and interpretations are written.

Watson was 100% drawing the free kicks and would’ve acted differently in both situations if the rules and interpretations didn’t allow for it.

And I stand by my previous thought that it’s a crutch tactic far below his talent level. It wouldn’t bother me if they stopped paying them to him (as long as it was also all players) because it will force him to use his weapons which will get the best out of him.

Just because after contact was made where he did the chicken wing arm lift thing doesn't change the fact the tackle started high and finished high. Any poor tackle where the tackler starts high is a free kick no matter what the player has done to contribute to it.

 

[Holy Rioli]

He's a quick answer - when they duck or play for one it's their fault. When they don't, it isn't.

Simple.

It's not, because some of those free kicks it does look like we played for it, but the tackles were just bad man, started high finished high, just shit tackles, deserved to be punished.

 

[TheFourPillars]

Let me make this abundantly clear. Every player is trying to gain an advantage in the game. Like Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

30

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

who knew his kick for goal was touched but was not going to go and change the umpires mind. A free kick that wasn't there or a dropped mark paid which wins a game or a goal is kicked. It is the same as drawing a free kick everything in the game is about gaining an advantage to win games to win finals to win premierships. Let the losers cry about how hard done by they were and how there is a conspiracy by the AFL.

Heard it all before. I am sure I will keep hearing it. I don't know why we care about what other supporters think. We r winning. Long may it continue.

 

[matey]

After watching the replay geez Tigers have some dirty players from Nank knee lining up Meek’s ribs at a centre bounce, Baker’s little horse kick into a defenceless Wiz while lying on the ground and loved the frustration and agro shown by Lynch at 3qtr time ……. knew he was doing diddly squat, beaten by talent so his dirtbag personality shone through. That crap may have worked against us in the past but not anymore!

 

[flinchfree]

Removed for waffle factor.

 

[cryptor]

Just because after contact was made where he did the chicken wing arm lift thing doesn't change the fact the tackle started high and finished high. Any poor tackle where the tackler starts high is a free kick no matter what the player has done to contribute to it.

Totally agree. But the arm raise is synonymous with staging so when a player does it the umpire is more likely to think otherwise.

 

[cryptor]

I'd love Judd2, Kermit, Cryptor and anyone else who'd like to answer.....Ned, I know you're watching.
Can you describe what you actually don't like about a player 'drawing' a high tackle?
I want to separate that from staging, because I don't think they're the same.
Even if you disagree with that, tell me the part you think is so against the grain for you.

So I’m just going to speak in reference to the two Watson incidents but it also applies more generally.

What he did was clever in that he knows that all other things being equal he’s a small and awkward target to lay a tackle on, particularly for a taller player.

A legal tackle requires that it be applied below the shoulder and above the knee. So if he can keep the shoulder facing the defender as low as he can without dropping his knees then he can create an even smaller legal tackling area. If he can be moving quick at the same time then it’s almost impossible to lay a legal tackle.

He achieves that by trying to burst by the approaching tackler on a very tight arc. Leaning into the space between them like a motorcyclist taking a tight corner. He closes the space so quickly with his body oriented like that there’s almost no way for him to be tackled legally. The outstretched arm has no where to go but into the shoudler/neck and with all the momentum it pretty much ends up with him being clotheslined.

He doesn’t create the head high contact from a tackle that started legally like Selwood did by raising an oiled arm. Instead he challenges the tackler to try and make a legal tackle in a situation that is heavily in his favour.

As I said, it’s clever. He recognises where he can take an advantage and executes it perfectly. Personally I think it’s a bit of a cheap tactic but that’s subjective. But it’s also very divisive when it results in a shot on goal. And he did it multiple times in front of a big audience and now it’s getting a lot of media attention. The AFL likes when games are free flowing and exciting to watch - this ain’t that. Odds are they’ll adjust rules/interpretations to shut this down eventually and then he’ll struggle to get even non-drawn frees.

The main thing I don’t like about Watson specifically doing it is that I know he doesn’t need to do it. Cyril would’ve used his agility to sell some candy, side step two lumbering talls and snapped the goal. Eddie Betts would’ve taken a step or two deeper into the pocket before dribbling it home. Watson is fully capable of both outcomes but instead chose the last resort option that I would expect from a pick 55 with no tricks. And then failed to capitalise both times anyway.

 

[H00t]

Just because after contact was made where he did the chicken wing arm lift thing doesn't change the fact the tackle started high and finished high. Any poor tackle where the tackler starts high is a free kick no matter what the player has done to contribute to it.

Have to remember umps only get one look at something happening very quickly and may or may not have an obscured view.

Any signs that a player is trying to deliberately draw the free is going to lean towards them not paying it.

Especially someone like Ginnivan who has tried to draw frees when he gets hit on the bicep before.

If our players want the benefit of the doubt they can’t give umpires a reason to doubt.

 

[flinchfree]

So I’m just going to speak in reference to the two Watson incidents but it also applies more generally.

What he did was clever in that he knows that all other things being equal he’s a small and awkward target to lay a tackle on, particularly for a taller player.

A legal tackle requires that it be applied below the shoulder and above the knee. So if he can keep the shoulder facing the defender as low as he can without dropping his knees then he can create an even smaller legal tackling area. If he can be moving quick at the same time then it’s almost impossible to lay a legal tackle.

He achieves that by trying to burst by the approaching tackler on a very tight arc. Leaning into the space between them like a motorcyclist taking a tight corner. He closes the space so quickly with his body oriented like that there’s almost no way for him to be tackled legally. The outstretched arm has no where to go but into the shoudler/neck and with all the momentum it pretty much ends up with him being clotheslined.

He doesn’t create the head high contact from a tackle that started legally like Selwood did by raising an oiled arm. Instead he challenges the tackler to try and make a legal tackle in a situation that is heavily in his favour.

As I said, it’s clever. He recognises where he can take an advantage and executes it perfectly. Personally I think it’s a bit of a cheap tactic but that’s subjective. But it’s also very divisive when it results in a shot on goal. And he did it multiple times in front of a big audience and now it’s getting a lot of media attention. The AFL likes when games are free flowing and exciting to watch - this ain’t that. Odds are they’ll adjust rules/interpretations to shut this down eventually and then he’ll struggle to get even non-drawn frees.

The main thing I don’t like about Watson specifically doing it is that I know he doesn’t need to do it. Cyril would’ve used his agility to sell some candy, side step two lumbering talls and snapped the goal. Eddie Betts would’ve taken a step or two deeper into the pocket before dribbling it home. Watson is fully capable of both outcomes but instead chose the last resort option that I would expect from a pick 55 with no tricks. And then failed to capitalise both times anyway.

I guess the interesting part to me is, what are we trying to achieve with the rules of our game?

If it's player safety, then the best and quickest way to largely remove head high tackling is penalize it more harshly.
A free kick plus a 50 meter penalty would super quickly result in tackling technique being taught at Clubs where you just don't clamp down on a player instinctively - but instead in a measured fashion.
Player is protected.
Also has the added benefit of further encouraging the ball winner to be just that, for him/her to use all evasive skills available to create a moment to advance the ball, and for the creative element of our game to be emphasized.
Interestingly (and hugely satisfying to me) the NRL has massively tightened up it's own head high tackling rules such that standing tall in the tackle or bursting through at belly height are treated equally now - head high is head high. The onus is on the tackling players to have a duty of care for their competition mates, even when the player drives their head into spaces unsafe, and all players understand and work to tackle shoulders down.
You can't get a more obvious situation of driving head high and using that advantage of care to create more chances to break tackles, yet their solution has only improved the safety and excitement of that game.
It's just that simple and in my mind such an improvement to that game, where previously I cringed as forearms whacked against cheek bones and flattened noses. Never understood how that was tough, or part of any understandable game.

If it's the sanctity of the spirit of AFL footy that people have trouble with, well sheesh, I know of no other game where you are told you can evade being tackled - in fact some of the most beautiful examples of player movement come when attempting thus - but somehow it's no good if you're not giving the tackler time to adjust his tackle. Which is all this really comes down to.
Personally, when I see a Hawthorn player tackle high on an oppo player who's gone low, I never once get angry at the oppo player. Reckon that's where the onus should lie, on the tackler. I might feel sorry for our player and not be mad at him, or I might quietly roast him for not being more expeditious, but I never feel like it's a dirty play by the opposition player with the ball.
The only time I feel there's possible injustice to the tackler called for incorrect head high is when the player attempting to collect (or has collected) runs forward with head down parallel to the ground and into the midriff of the tackler. In as much as the tackler hasn't used his arms to collect high, and is simply a wall the ball carrier runs in to.
In my mind this has been perfectly re-interpreted within the rules of the game and the tackler is now not penalized in that instance.

You want REAL injustice? How about when a tackler causes the player with the ball to be dispossessed but holds on to the tackle fractions or moments too long, unaware the ball has left the opponents grasp?
Where's the outrage for that one? Plenty of players manipulate that rule and throw their hands outwards to desperately illustrate they are no longer in possession, reckon that's at least on par but where's the BF consternation?

If we want to talk real shitey ness player manipulation of the rules, it's in the current tactic of blocking the run of players attempting to mark.
It happens probably 30-40 times a game and with such faux nuance that players have learned they can fake this con, to the complete corruption of the spirit of our game, when even the umpires know it's happening. You literally have to **** it up and look directly at the guy you're blocking to be penalized.
Weird that no one worries about that, yet head high is the focus when questionable outcomes might happen a half dozen times per game.
Probably an out and out rort 2-3 times, and even then one that can be defended - at least by their own supporter group 50% of the time.

But we're going to worry about a kid who's what, 5ft 6, that didn't find a better solution in a phone box area of space under intense physical examination in probably a 1/2 second of decision making opportunity?

In your example, you're asking our 18 year old draftee to resemble the greatest evasive players of all time, as though that's a realistic bar to set for any player.
I'd like a more attainable strategic plan.

Let the players who win the ball have the advantage. They are already surrounded 360 degrees with defenders that can and will come from any direction, must choose an option at a rate of speed that's never been more difficult in the history of the game, face very harsh consequences if they get it wrong with penalty that could result in an opposition goal - or in the least give the oppo a chance to go coast to coast as skills of passing and strategy make this ever more attainable - and now face public scrutiny to an embarrassing level over every twitch they make.

I see absolutely nothing un sportsmanlike in attempting to evade being tackled legally.
Game would be better imo if that were the standard and everyone played to it.

 

[HawthornHawk]

After watching the replay geez Tigers have some dirty players from Nank knee lining up Meek’s ribs at a centre bounce, Baker’s little horse kick into a defenceless Wiz while lying on the ground and loved the frustration and agro shown by Lynch at 3qtr time ……. knew he was doing diddly squat, beaten by talent so his dirtbag personality shone through. That crap may have worked against us in the past but not anymore!

Really? Didn't think there's anything in that Baker one at all

 

[bigmaxi]

My entire thesis in bringing it up initially was that he's too talented to even partially be drawing high free kicks, that he would eventually have it highlighted because the footy world at large would definitely consider it a drawn high free, and that would result in free kicks - even those 100% there because he is very short - not getting paid.

I respect the "well about time we get them" perspective because it's unashamed bias and self interest, accepting that it's a bit dodgy but if it's in our favour it's all cool - that's a natural fan thing to have. I'm a bit bemused by the flat out rejection that it's a drawn free kick, because to me it's obvious that drawing a free is the intention and it's going to be even more obvious to non-Hawks fans and people in the media.

I feel in both of those cases it's short sighted because the AFL has shown that they're extremely wary of any contact with potential impact to the head - that includes both the player tackling, and the player getting tackled. This means, just like with Ginnivan when he was at the pies, it will eventually result in a reputation and a loss of the benefit of the doubt with the umps. We're already two thirds of the way there with Talking Footy having highlighted it last night.

As a footy fan free kicks make footy less enjoyable, and it sucks that drawing a free is his instinct when the Wiz is good enough to do pretty much anything else.

Unless it’s a Will Day run down that scores a holding the ball, that gets me out of my seat smacking my hands and screaming ball! But with you on the rest.

 

[suedehead]

This is going to get tedious if it turns into an ongoing discussion. Watson is going to be the shortest player on the ground in every single AFL game he plays, and that alone ensures he's going to frequently be tackled high regardless of any technique or lack thereof.

Sent from my SM-F711B using Tapatalk

 

[TheFourPillars]

This is going to get tedious if it turns into an ongoing discussion. Watson is going to be the shortest player on the ground in every single AFL game he plays, and that alone ensures he's going to frequently be tackled high regardless of any technique or lack thereof.

Sent from my SM-F711B using Tapatalk

Yep we need a seperate thread to discuss it if need be

 

[BobHawk]

Playing for frees by ducking and raising the arm is not OK. Don't see Day and Duke doing it. Nor Bont or Heeney. In fact, I am of the opinion that players that do it consistently generally don't make it in the AFL. We had one a few years ago and it was embarrassing to watch. He didn't make it. I know. Just one example. Still, I think Selwood was an exception. I have no evidence but I can't think of a player in the AFL that is known to play like that. Consistently. We have a couple. Possibly. If it becomes a thing it is an issue for them and the club. You cannot possibly think that this is one of the tools in your toolbox playing high performance professional sport. Its actually amateur.

 

[cryptor]

I guess the interesting part to me is, what are we trying to achieve with the rules of our game?

If it's player safety, then the best and quickest way to largely remove head high tackling is penalize it more harshly.
A free kick plus a 50 meter penalty would super quickly result in tackling technique being taught at Clubs where you just don't clamp down on a player instinctively - but instead in a measured fashion.
Player is protected.
Also has the added benefit of further encouraging the ball winner to be just that, for him/her to use all evasive skills available to create a moment to advance the ball, and for the creative element of our game to be emphasized.
Interestingly (and hugely satisfying to me) the NRL has massively tightened up it's own head high tackling rules such that standing tall in the tackle or bursting through at belly height are treated equally now - head high is head high. The onus is on the tackling players to have a duty of care for their competition mates, even when the player drives their head into spaces unsafe, and all players understand and work to tackle shoulders down.
You can't get a more obvious situation of driving head high and using that advantage of care to create more chances to break tackles, yet their solution has only improved the safety and excitement of that game.
It's just that simple and in my mind such an improvement to that game, where previously I cringed as forearms whacked against cheek bones and flattened noses. Never understood how that was tough, or part of any understandable game.

If it's the sanctity of the spirit of AFL footy that people have trouble with, well sheesh, I know of no other game where you are told you can evade being tackled - in fact some of the most beautiful examples of player movement come when attempting thus - but somehow it's no good if you're not giving the tackler time to adjust his tackle. Which is all this really comes down to.
Personally, when I see a Hawthorn player tackle high on an oppo player who's gone low, I never once get angry at the oppo player. Reckon that's where the onus should lie, on the tackler. I might feel sorry for our player and not be mad at him, or I might quietly roast him for not being more expeditious, but I never feel like it's a dirty play by the opposition player with the ball.
The only time I feel there's possible injustice to the tackler called for incorrect head high is when the player attempting to collect (or has collected) runs forward with head down parallel to the ground and into the midriff of the tackler. In as much as the tackler hasn't used his arms to collect high, and is simply a wall the ball carrier runs in to.
In my mind this has been perfectly re-interpreted within the rules of the game and the tackler is now not penalized in that instance.

You want REAL injustice? How about when a tackler causes the player with the ball to be dispossessed but holds on to the tackle fractions or moments too long, unaware the ball has left the opponents grasp?
Where's the outrage for that one? Plenty of players manipulate that rule and throw their hands outwards to desperately illustrate they are no longer in possession, reckon that's at least on par but where's the BF consternation?

If we want to talk real shitey ness player manipulation of the rules, it's in the current tactic of blocking the run of players attempting to mark.
It happens probably 30-40 times a game and with such faux nuance that players have learned they can fake this con, to the complete corruption of the spirit of our game, when even the umpires know it's happening. You literally have to **** it up and look directly at the guy you're blocking to be penalized.
Weird that no one worries about that, yet head high is the focus when questionable outcomes might happen a half dozen times per game.
Probably an out and out rort 2-3 times, and even then one that can be defended - at least by their own supporter group 50% of the time.

But we're going to worry about a kid who's what, 5ft 6, that didn't find a better solution in a phone box area of space under intense physical examination in probably a 1/2 second of decision making opportunity?

In your example, you're asking our 18 year old draftee to resemble the greatest evasive players of all time, as though that's a realistic bar to set for any player.
I'd like a more attainable strategic plan.

Let the players who win the ball have the advantage. They are already surrounded 360 degrees with defenders that can and will come from any direction, must choose an option at a rate of speed that's never been more difficult in the history of the game, face very harsh consequences if they get it wrong with penalty that could result in an opposition goal - or in the least give the oppo a chance to go coast to coast as skills of passing and strategy make this ever more attainable - and now face public scrutiny to an embarrassing level over every twitch they make.

I see absolutely nothing un sportsmanlike in attempting to evade being tackled legally.
Game would be better imo if that were the standard and everyone played to it.

I think what the rules of the game are trying to achieve is a fair contest that is also safe for the participants. Which is why drawing free kicks is looked down upon so much. The player is using the rules that are there to protect them to gain an advantage within the rules of the competition itself.

What do you think Watson would have done differently if there was no high contact rule to protect him? Reckon he'd have run the same line he did knowing that Vlastuin could legally clothesline him and drag him to ground by the neck to win a holding the ball call? I think he'd have tried his best to keep his distance while utilising his agility and speed to create a scoring opportunity another way.

And he's got more than enough evasive tricks in his bag right now if he'd just back himself in.

 

[DogDaySonny]

I think what the rules of the game are trying to achieve is a fair contest that is also safe for the participants. Which is why drawing free kicks is looked down upon so much. The player is using the rules that are there to protect them to gain an advantage within the rules of the competition itself.

What do you think Watson would have done differently if there was no high contact rule to protect him? Reckon he'd have run the same line he did knowing that Vlastuin could legally clothesline him and drag him to ground by the neck to win a holding the ball call? I think he'd have tried his best to keep his distance while utilising his agility and speed to create a scoring opportunity another way.

And he's got more than enough evasive tricks in his bag right now if he'd just back himself in.

Would be play differently if the rules were different? I wonder if he would bounce the ball if there was no rule you had to bounce it.

 

[peetoo]

Playing for frees by ducking and raising the arm is not OK. Don't see Day and Duke doing it. Nor Bont or Heeney. In fact, I am of the opinion that players that do it consistently generally don't make it in the AFL. We had one a few years ago and it was embarrassing to watch. He didn't make it. I know. Just one example. Still, I think Selwood was an exception. I have no evidence but I can't think of a player in the AFL that is known to play like that. Consistently. We have a couple. Possibly. If it becomes a thing it is an issue for them and the club. You cannot possibly think that this is one of the tools in your toolbox playing high performance professional sport. Its actually amateur.

But you get a grandstand named after you

 

[flinchfree]

I think what the rules of the game are trying to achieve is a fair contest that is also safe for the participants. Which is why drawing free kicks is looked down upon so much. The player is using the rules that are there to protect them to gain an advantage within the rules of the competition itself.

What do you think Watson would have done differently if there was no high contact rule to protect him? Reckon he'd have run the same line he did knowing that Vlastuin could legally clothesline him and drag him to ground by the neck to win a holding the ball call? I think he'd have tried his best to keep his distance while utilising his agility and speed to create a scoring opportunity another way.

And he's got more than enough evasive tricks in his bag right now if he'd just back himself in.

It's all good.
We just see it differently.
If there was no high contact rule I just wouldn't watch the game, let alone care how one gladiator was avoiding being necked by another. To be fair, I can't watch a second of MMA for exactly that reason. I know others love it, to me it's entirely soul destroying watching human beings prepare and descend on eachother that way while being televised and egged on by millions more.

You and others see what Watto did as some enormously embarrassing act to the game, I thought it was nothing.
On the 1-100 scale of weak act to draw a free kick, it was a 3 for me. It's an imperfect game played by imperfect players, umpired imperfectly, judged by fans and onlookers imperfectly, but here we are.

Being as short as he is, you're going to hate watching his career. Those moments are unavoidable, and I guess so will be the consternation and teeth gnashing on here from many.