AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

[LP]

Selwood forces the tacklers arms up by lifting them with his, he uses strength he rarely ducks (IMO). The filth prick folds his knees the instant he is touched and goes to ground. He is a cheat.

Selwood drops at the knees, you'll see 3 perfect examples of it in the replay of last weekends game.
 

[WASurfer]

And watch Selwood lodge a claim against the AFL in years to come as a result of the numerous concussions he's "suffered". If they're as serious about the concussion issue as they claim, the umpires just don't pay those free kicks to the likes of Ginnivan where they deliberatly instigate the head high contact....by whatever method....in a few weeks they'll stop doing it. Michael Walters is another one always trying to milk high contact frees and in The West after the weekend loss to Sydney where a review of each player was reported, the journo said something along the lines of "needs to stop playing for free kicks". The umpires are a wake up to him too.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Selwood gets away with it because he is seen as the footballers " footballer", Ginnivan is a show pony lair only loved by his mum and Collingwood fans and doesnt have the same respect in terms of runs on the board and has been highlighted as a staging artist.

[WASurfer]

AFL Statement today:

“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.

“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.

“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.

[ElwoodBlues1]

AFL Statement today:

“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.

“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.

“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.

Be a novelty seeing players like Selwood go unrewarded for staging high contact for a few weeks but then it will revert to normal viewing and umps will be paying the name players a free for staged high contact and letting the no name players get their heads ripped off under the guise they are cracking down on stagers..

[WASurfer]

That's probably the frustrating part I guess EB....if they applied the same rules to everyone, including Selwood, instead of just making an example of one bloke like Ginnivan, we could live with the rule whether you agree with it or not.

[BluePhantom]

Selwood drops at the knees, you'll see 3 perfect examples of it in the replay of last weekends game.

Wanganeen was a classic at doing this

[kruddler]

AFL Statement today:

“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.

“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.

“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.

I have posted similar decade or so ago based on similar statements.

Once upon there was a rule that said "If a player with he ball contributes to the high tackle, then no free kick shall be awarded for high contact"
I used to point this out in the same way the AFL is doing now, to stop players like Ginnivan (in my case Selwood) from 'earning' free kicks by "contributing" to the high contact.

AFL swept it under the carpet, because, Selwood, and now are trying to dig it up again.

[Gointocarlton]

AFL Statement today:

“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.

“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.

“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.

The Full AFL statement contains this table, shrugs (ie Selwood) should be play on.

[madbluboy]

AFL Statement today:

“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.

“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.

“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.

Have you seen the examples? Pickett didn't even duck, it was just a poor tackle.