2017 AFL Finals

[bulldogsthru&thru]

So it was definitely the week off that led to Geelong and GWS losing in the prelims last year.....

[Topdog]

So it was definitely the week off that led to Geelong and GWS losing in the prelims last year.....

Yes, which means that Geelong will definitely win this week against the same team at the same venue where they lost because of the bye

[jeemak]

If you tackle around the waist and the person you're tackling contorts their body making your tackle slip to below the knees resulting in a trip, should it be holding the ball?

Footballers have been bending their knees manoeuvring in traffic forever, do they all have to run around as upright as they possibly can now, so as to ensure a tackle doesn't slip over the shoulders?

It's a bonkers rule change. If you're going to try and pin the arms by tackling well above the elbow then you risk tackling high, and so be it.

[bornadog]

If you tackle around the waist and the person you're tackling contorts their body making your tackle slip to below the knees resulting in a trip, should it be holding the ball?

Footballers have been bending their knees maneuvering in traffic forever, do they all have to run around as upright as they possibly can now, so as to ensure a tackle doesn't slip over the shoulders?

It's a bonkers rule change. If you're going to try and pin the arms by tackling well above the elbow then you risk tackling high, and so be it.

I agree, once more a knee jerk reaction without thinking of the consequences of changing a rule.

[Ozza]

You could argue over the Shuey decision all day - but either way, its very borderline and was paid in real time - not on slow mo replay.

My reaction at the time was that finally the eagles actually had a 50/50 go their way. Port can't be complaining about the umpiring really, they were on the better end of it all night (as were Adelaide at the same venue on Thursday).

I didn't expect they game to be so entertaining - thought it would be the snorefest of the 1st round - but couldn't ask for much more than a kick after the siren in extra time.

Tough to see the Eagles coming up that well after a full on contest with 10 minutes extra time and so many older players having to get themselves up again. Amazing amount of running that Gaff does - how many times was he involved in the back pocket, and then moments later in the eagles forward line.

[bornadog]

You could argue over the Shuey decision all day - but either way, its very borderline and was paid in real time - not on slow mo replay.

My reaction at the time was that finally the eagles actually had a 50/50 go their way. Port can't be complaining about the umpiring really, they were on the better end of it all night (as were Adelaide at the same venue on Thursday).

I didn't expect they game to be so entertaining - thought it would be the snorefest of the 1st round - but couldn't ask for much more than a kick after the siren in extra time.

Tough to see the Eagles coming up that well after a full on contest with 10 minutes extra time and so many older players having to get themselves up again. Amazing amount of running that Gaff does - how many times was he involved in the back pocket, and then moments later in the eagles forward line.

I can't believe WC are into the second round of finals. They were not impressive all year round.

[Topdog]

I can't believe WC are into the second round of finals. They were not impressive all year round.

Improved on last year

[always right]

If you tackle around the waist and the person you're tackling contorts their body making your tackle slip to below the knees resulting in a trip, should it be holding the ball?

Footballers have been bending their knees manoeuvring in traffic forever, do they all have to run around as upright as they possibly can now, so as to ensure a tackle doesn't slip over the shoulders?

It's a bonkers rule change. If you're going to try and pin the arms by tackling well above the elbow then you risk tackling high, and so be it.

Disagree. One is trying to escape the tackle whilst the other is trying to create a free kick.

[comrade]

Disagree. One is trying to escape the tackle whilst the other is trying to create a free kick.

You could argue that Shuey/Selwood/McLean are also trying to escape the tackle. The opposition arm either catches them high or slips over the head entirely, allowing them to get free. Players need to tackle better and not give the opponent an opportunity to escape or draw a free. The rule as it stands is currently unworkable.

[Sedat]

It's a dumb rule. Either you tackle below the neck or you don't.

In a sea of dumb rules the AFL have recently introduced as a response to other issues, this is probably the dumbest. In real time it is absolutely impossible to detect a tackling arm initially starting at the bicep and ending up around the neck. The game is breakneck speed and all the umpire will see is the tackle around the neck.

The only way to stop this scourge of diving/shrugging/arm raising/lowering the body is for the AFL to publicly to name and shame all the players that do it (and there are 50+ players that do it regularly). They should be identified as part of the MRP every Monday and given a formal warning. Do it again and they get a fine. Do it a 3rd time and they get a week. I can't see any other way to stop this scourge.

[jeemak]

Why don't players tackle around the waist like they used to? Once again, if you go for a high armed tackle you take the risk of slipping high and giving away a free kick.

Shrugging or going lower is a response to a changed tackling strategy, why do we need to change the rules to adapt to a changed tackling strategy?

[bornadog]

Why don't players tackle around the waist like they used to? Once again, if you go for a high armed tackle you take the risk of slipping high and giving away a free kick.

Shrugging or going lower is a response to a changed tackling strategy, why do we need to change the rules to adapt to a changed tackling strategy?

It was nice to see Selwood, try shrugging the Buddy tackle and do his ankle, then last Friday tried the same and ended up with a whack to the nose. No frees in both incidents.

[always right]

You could argue that Shuey/Selwood/McLean are also trying to escape the tackle. The opposition arm either catches them high or slips over the head entirely, allowing them to get free. Players need to tackle better and not give the opponent an opportunity to escape or draw a free. The rule as it stands is currently unworkable.

So if they manage to shrug the tackle it's play on and they get the benefit of breaking free. They don't need a free kick.

[Ozza]

Why don't players tackle around the waist like they used to? Once again, if you go for a high armed tackle you take the risk of slipping high and giving away a free kick.

Shrugging or going lower is a response to a changed tackling strategy, why do we need to change the rules to adapt to a changed tackling strategy?

Because if the arms are free, you aren't stopping the player from moving the ball on to their team mate via handball.
There are plenty of situations where players would rather risk giving away a free, than letting the handball get out.

[jeemak]

Because if the arms are free, you aren't stopping the player from moving the ball on to their team mate via handball.
There are plenty of situations where players would rather risk giving away a free, than letting the handball get out.

Bingo. So if you want to lay the perfect tackle and lock the ball in, you risk giving away a free kick for too high should it slip up above the shoulders. If you want to negate the player but lower the risk of giving away a free kick, you aim lower.

A player lowering their centre of gravity or raising arms when tackled isn't instigating high contact - it's the tackler who's doing that. Lowering your centre of gravity enables you to dispose of the ball more effectively, it also gives you options of going low or high with the handpass in congestion.

Why the AFL gave into the hysteria is beyond me. Now all we have is more hysteria.