SA Footy

ezydoesitbigfella wrote:

bird of prey wrote:

BigB wrote:In the absence of a more suitable thread... I am so concerned about the head high rule interpretation which effectively encourages, and I reckon some sides are coached to do it, risking a neck injury by charging in with the head down to draw the free kick. As a health professional, I think it is the most ridiculous state of affairs when the umps are protecting the players head when the player is deliberately putting themselves at risk.
And I don't think our "amateur" umpires are up to interpreting the rule properly, I have never seen a free kick awarded against someone for charging whilst doing it. It's time for common sense to prevail before someone ends up quadraplegic.

Never heard of a coach telling their players to duck their head into an oncoming player.

The rule is a bit ridiculous though. Every week I see at least 1-2 free kicks given where a player deliberately ducks into a tackler. The umpires are instructed to pay that as a free kick though. I've spoken to the umps during the game about this, and they agree that it shouldn't be a free kick, but they have been instructed to pay them as free kicks by head office. So it needs to be taken up with them.

People will never be satisfied - umpires protecting the ball player at all times - any head high contact is penalised - and if a player "ducks" and seems to be doing it constantly - the umpire reports it to the coach and the matter is dealt with there. Expecting umpires to make a judgement call on whether a player ducks, or slips - in a millisecond - is pure folly - especially in lower grades where their level of expertise may not be as high as higher grades.

It's a simple rule - protect the ball player and any head high contact should be penalised - storm in a tea cup.....

Thankyou for the considered opinions. In response...
1. When the same players use the tactic repeatedly in a game, one can't help but form an opinon. If my opinion is wrong, fine, but my suspicion is that there is a strategy being employed by some players exploiting the rule.
2. My main concern "as a health professional" is that the current rule encourages reckless use of the head with the player knowing they will get a free. It may appear to be a storm in a tea cup to some, but when you're a quad, using said tea cups is problematic. I am suggesting a rule revision at the top level which still protects the player while discouraging "head led" charging, especially given the umpires at amateur level seem unable to determine the difference.

Big B wrote:Thankyou for the considered opinions. In response...
1. When the same players use the tactic repeatedly in a game, one can't help but form an opinon. If my opinion is wrong, fine, but my suspicion is that there is a strategy being employed by some players exploiting the rule.
2. My main concern "as a health professional" is that the current rule encourages reckless use of the head with the player knowing they will get a free. It may appear to be a storm in a tea cup to some, but when you're a quad, using said tea cups is problematic. I am suggesting a rule revision at the top level which still protects the player while discouraging "head led" charging, especially given the umpires at amateur level seem unable to determine the difference.

If a player is willing to lead with his head - there is nothing that any rule can do about it - whether a free is paid or not - it's just s stupid decision to do so....

Why does the League (or the AFL) need to legislate against a person's decision - perhaps a free kick (or report) for "ducking".....would that stop it? (I am not suggesting it for one moment) - but seriously, individuals (players) need to be responsible in how they tackle....and to protect themselves properly when getting the ball.

And if a player repeatedly does it - the umpire will inform the Umpires Coach - who will take it up with the club.....can't legislate against stupidity?

Ducking has been a real bug bear this year with the D1 umps.

A couple of clubs without a doubt are going full Lindsay Thomas to draw the head high contact.

A few weeks ago a player did it to big Jolly. If he wasnt such a nice guy he could do some serious spinal damage to someone pulling that

Instead of thinking that coaches are "coaching" players to "duck" into traffic. How about coaches "coach" players to tackle lower and more discipline instead of what happens 90% of the time when a player sees someone "duck" and tries to take their head off and then proceeds to verbally abuse players and umpires? Thoughts?

I watched Districts beat Goodie Saints yesterday at Goodie Saints in both grades.
Must be a while if ever that both teams have beaten goodies at goodies.
Could Goodwood miss out on finals or even get relegated?
They are a couple of games clear of Districts and Unley but you never know based on their performance yesterday.

footys the winner wrote:Instead of thinking that coaches are "coaching" players to "duck" into traffic. How about coaches "coach" players to tackle lower and more discipline instead of what happens 90% of the time when a player sees someone "duck" and tries to take their head off and then proceeds to verbally abuse players and umpires? Thoughts?

I agree with the principle, but it's pretty hard to lower the tackle when the guys head's coming through aimed at your nads.

Honestly, if a bloke is ducking so that his head, after standing tall, is lower than the tacklers knees the head doesn't deserve protection.

jo172 wrote:Ducking has been a real bug bear this year with the D1 umps.

A couple of clubs without a doubt are going full Lindsay Thomas to draw the head high contact.

A few weeks ago a player did it to big Jolly. If he wasnt such a nice guy he could do some serious spinal damage to someone pulling that

Yep, completely agree!!!

Ironically, I think it's because the umps are better and follow instructions more closely, but also D1 players go harder and are smarter and use it to draw free kicks.

The umps keep reminding us they will pay free kicks for any high contact, which on one hand is great and encourages players to attack the ball. On the other hand, every player knows this and use their head as a battering ram in traffic, which is causing a more dangerous situation than what they are protecting against. Also, as every player knows how touchy they are, when in traffic, especially around goal, players collapse like they've been shot and throw the head back and are constantly rewarded with free kick.

The AFL penalise players who use their head to drive into tacklers by judging it as prior opportunity, we are awarding a head high free. It is seriously a bit of a running joke among the players atm.

In the interests of full disclosure, SN beat us yesterday with this kind of free kick after the siren.

I can name 2-3 from most clubs who have mastered the throwing the head back upon receiving contact. Typically they're the smartest and best players at those clubs.

In any event i hope the League and Colin Rowston (who I think does a very good job) uses the off season to emter a dialogue with the people around the League who seriously know footy (of D1 Clayton, Macca, Paynter and Backwell seem a bloody good start) and start ironing out some of this shit

jo172 wrote:In any event i hope the League and Colin Rowston (who I think does a very good job) uses the off season to emter a dialogue with the people around the League who seriously know footy (of D1 Clayton, Macca, Paynter and Backwell seem a bloody good start) and start ironing out some of this shit

Rowston - Good Umpire for many years at SANFL and equally as good Umpires Coach/Observer.

Jetters wrote:

jo172 wrote:Ducking has been a real bug bear this year with the D1 umps.

A couple of clubs without a doubt are going full Lindsay Thomas to draw the head high contact.

A few weeks ago a player did it to big Jolly. If he wasnt such a nice guy he could do some serious spinal damage to someone pulling that

Yep, completely agree!!!

Ironically, I think it's because the umps are better and follow instructions more closely, but also D1 players go harder and are smarter and use it to draw free kicks.

The umps keep reminding us they will pay free kicks for any high contact, which on one hand is great and encourages players to attack the ball. On the other hand, every player knows this and use their head as a battering ram in traffic, which is causing a more dangerous situation than what they are protecting against. Also, as every player knows how touchy they are, when in traffic, especially around goal, players collapse like they've been shot and throw the head back and are constantly rewarded with free kick.

The AFL penalise players who use their head to drive into tacklers by judging it as prior opportunity, we are awarding a head high free. It is seriously a bit of a running joke among the players atm.

In the interests of full disclosure, SN beat us yesterday with this kind of free kick after the siren.

B Hood? He's a classic for leading with head and milking frees.

B Hood is the one. Earlier in year he got three goals against Goodwood Saints from high tackles for ducking. Even his own supporters were laughing and commenting how he does it all he time. Believe the league were told about him and he is being watched, but pretty hard to make a split second decision in a game if you are the umpire.

It wasn't hood

the hood in question did disquise the position of the head on numerous occassions and in my opinion all hoods should be banned from football as the true location of the head cannot be seen when a hood is tackled

Not sure why goodwood continue to employ having such hoods out there

Eagles2014 wrote:B Hood is the one. Earlier in year he got three goals against Goodwood Saints from high tackles for ducking. Even his own supporters were laughing and commenting how he does it all he time. Believe the league were told about him and he is being watched, but pretty hard to make a split second decision in a game if you are the umpire.

<edited: quit the name calling, how old are you? 12?> . Get the ball first you get the free. And Salisbury North are usually first the ball.
This thread should be more about Unley being a bunch of snipers. That should be in div 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

the joker wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:B Hood is the one. Earlier in year he got three goals against Goodwood Saints from high tackles for ducking. Even his own supporters were laughing and commenting how he does it all he time. Believe the league were told about him and he is being watched, but pretty hard to make a split second decision in a game if you are the umpire.

you my friend are a knob. Get the ball first you get the free. And Salisbury North are usually first the ball.
This thread should be more about Unley being a bunch of snipers. That should be in div 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there ya go.. try having a serious discussion about the rules and player safety and someone with no potential for original thpught simply blowing a raspberry. How about visiting a spinal unit mate, check out the stories of how a severed spinal cord have affected dreams and aspirations. the players head deserves protection and the current rule does not achieve that intent, at amateur level at least.

BigB wrote:

the joker wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:B Hood is the one. Earlier in year he got three goals against Goodwood Saints from high tackles for ducking. Even his own supporters were laughing and commenting how he does it all he time. Believe the league were told about him and he is being watched, but pretty hard to make a split second decision in a game if you are the umpire.

you my friend are a knob. Get the ball first you get the free. And Salisbury North are usually first the ball.
This thread should be more about Unley being a bunch of snipers. That should be in div 4


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

there ya go.. try having a serious discussion about the rules and player safety and someone with no potential for original thpught simply blowing a raspberry. How about visiting a spinal unit mate, check out the stories of how a severed spinal cord have affected dreams and aspirations. the players head deserves protection and the current rule does not achieve that intent, at amateur level at least.

Agree with that, well said. Joker - think you are over reacting with those comments!! Was not having a go at SN at all, they are playing good footy at the moment. My point was some well known SN supporters and B Grade players made the same observation about No.8, that's all. As BigB said, just hope he does not get seriously hurt by doing it.

Footy Chick wrote:

Zartan wrote:

ezydoesitbigfella wrote:Sean Jackson sacked as coach of ROCS?

What's that about?

Officejet wrote:Hey, which club was David Wildy talking about last night on 5AA, when he said he had heard of an amateur club flicked their coach for exposing the clubs drug culture…sounds pretty grubby if that’s the case.

Would have thought the club would back the coach to fix the issue.

I suggest you don't go down that path because you're not even close.

Wrong div.

Care to comment on today's story in the paper than FC?

jo172 wrote:

Footy Chick wrote:

Zartan wrote:

ezydoesitbigfella wrote:Sean Jackson sacked as coach of ROCS?

What's that about?

Officejet wrote:Hey, which club was David Wildy talking about last night on 5AA, when he said he had heard of an amateur club flicked their coach for exposing the clubs drug culture…sounds pretty grubby if that’s the case.

Would have thought the club would back the coach to fix the issue.

I suggest you don't go down that path because you're not even close.

Wrong div.

Care to comment on today's story in the paper than FC?

What's the story?

Footy Chick wrote:

Zartan wrote:

ezydoesitbigfella wrote:Sean Jackson sacked as coach of ROCS?

What's that about?

Officejet wrote:Hey, which club was David Wildy talking about last night on 5AA, when he said he had heard of an amateur club flicked their coach for exposing the clubs drug culture…sounds pretty grubby if that’s the case.

Would have thought the club would back the coach to fix the issue.

I suggest you don't go down that path because you're not even close.

Wrong div.

You sure about that FC????