Are The Eagles Duckers?

[MarshallMathers]

Tackling someone on the arms is not too high, or else it would be considered a free kick. It's a clear exploitation aimed at getting free kicks which wouldn't otherwise be there. No different to players falling forward in marking contests for example.

It's definitely more of a skill tho yeh? It's not it's a weak act like diving is...

Kall that's a good point about them going for the arms not the hips because they want to lock the ball in.

So then the argument perhaps turns into has the rule where players are pinged for keeping the ball in leading to all this shit?

[Eagle Empire]

Tackling someone on the arms is not too high, or else it would be considered a free kick.

Tackling the upper-arm region may not be against the rules, but to a player that is willing to exploit the situation, it is "too high" and those who apply such tackles are ill-disciplined.

[Mr Snrub]

Tackling the upper-arm region may not be against the rules, but to a player that is willing to exploit the situation, it is "too high" and those who apply such tackles are ill-disciplined.

wut

[Eagle Empire]

wut

If you tackle a player who is willing to exploit the tackle for a high, don't aim for the upper-arm but rather the waist.

Jeff Gieschen:

"What we say to the players is youve got to get lower, youve got to try and get to the hips"

"These tackles are quite clumsy, people can say what they like, but if you get low you dont run that risk"

"The players might have dropped their knees a bit, but thats just a normal reaction, where you're trying to evade, trying to get away from a tackling player, so no problem with any of those."

"Like with the Melbourne game where the free kick count was lopsided, there was a lot of clumsy tackles that we had to pay, and the ones from that Hawthorn game were very similar"

"[Uneven free kick counts] happens, thats sport, that happens, and West Coast are a very disciplined side, over the years Ive been involved for a long time now they're a very disciplined side. It looks bad, but the bottom line is the free kicks are there and the umpires are obliged to pay them"

"The West Coast Eagles are just a disciplined team and always have been".

[Mr Snrub]

If you tackle a player who is willing to exploit the tackle for a high, don't aim for the upper-arm but rather the waist.

Jeff Gieschen:

Ahh, I get ya

It kind of baffles me that players keep trying to do the upper-arm tackle on Shuey, just grab him around the waist and make him have to get rid of it via handball, much better than him getting a free kick and a shot for goal.

[KaLL]

Ahh, I get ya

It kind of baffles me that players keep trying to do the upper-arm tackle on Shuey, just grab him around the waist and make him have to get rid of it via handball, much better than him getting a free kick and a shot for goal.

It's just the way they're coached i guess. As mentioned, its an effort to gain a free for htb. I'd daresay that in a few games time you'll see most teams changing tackling tactics with WC though.

[Big Sledge]

It's definitely more of a skill tho yeh? It's not it's a weak act like diving is...

Kall that's a good point about them going for the arms not the hips because they want to lock the ball in.

So then the argument perhaps turns into has the rule where players are pinged for keeping the ball in leading to all this shit?

Now this is where your argument falls apart. It is just as bad as diving, both are exploiting certain facets of the rules for an advantage.

There is a skill in milking the dive for an in the back rule. Just don't try and pass off what you are doing as any better than any other such acts.

[Mr Snrub]

Eagles are to ducking what Freo are to sucking LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Indie]

Completely agree with Shuttlesworth here.

[TSYW]

Every team does it, wouldn't be mentioned if we weren't top of the ladder.

[Gamblor]

The thing is though if you're tackling and bringing the guy to ground, you don't need to try and pin both arms and hold the ball to the player in the tackle. That picture posted above illustrates it perfectly, how players tackling techniques are poor. Bigger players (like Buddy, or Barry Hall used to for example) just palm players off and break away from guys who go in like that. Players are tackling trying to get holding the ball frees each time, rather than tackling to try and break up that phase of play and cause a turnover.

If you go to tackle someone at the quad-waist height they can't get free, and will have to dispose of it, however if you go low, pin the opposite arm when possible (Shuey's left in that pic) so he can't dispose legally with a handball he will be HTB anyway.

This 'exploitation' of the rules is no worse than players pinged for holding the ball after an opposition player holds the ball to a player who's dived/dragged the ball in (in that case don't dive/drag the ball in). Or Hawthorn continually rushing behinds in the GF, or players ducking their head, or players falling forward in a tackle or marking contest to win 'push/hands in the back' frees, or players starting melee's then looking for the head high jumper punch, or player initiating contact in a marking contest then looking for a free for holds etc. The list just goes on...

[TSYW]

The one that shits me the most is when the player is standing over the ball, waits for the contact from behind and then dives onto his belly to get the in the back. Far more prevalent then the ducking shit bit Vic teams are doing it, so the ole blind eye gets applied.

[Dev One]

Not one team in the AFL doesn't exploits rules to their benefit, and if they don't, they aren't as hungry as their opponents. How many teams try to milk 50s these days? Every single one of them.

Just as long as it's not 'real' cheating like steroids and the other sorts, I think it's fine and something to move on from. I preferred the 'you ducked into it' rule that was prevalent several years ago but AFL is now more conscious of player safety...

[Embers]

I think its the biggest non story in history and a nice excuse to ignore the fact that every week we have 4 irrelevant football matches on that simply arnt worth discussing

On, On the Couch they talk about the 4 real football matches, glance over the 5 irrelevant ones and then have absolutely nothing to talk about so wind up talking about any storm they can find in a teacup. Sad but true

[Shuttlesworth]

'Well they're cheating too' is not a valid excuse. That's like saying all cyclists should be free to blood-dope because other cyclists do it too. It doesn't change the fact that it's cheating. (obviously it's not exactly the same thing, but the principle is the same.)