High contact

[RogueSwan]

A lot of discussion around, what I thought, were legitimate free kicks for Lindsay Thomas last night.
Plenty saying the tackler should change their technique just go lower. A fair point and that is what Reg should have done last night. His was just crude and was rightly a free kick.
Anyway, what I think is missing from the discussion is the fact that players that work these tackles into high contact are endangering themselves. Isn't that why a player who ducks into a tackle isn't reward with a free, to discourage head contact. A Joel Selwood who tries to raise the tacklers arm higher or buckles their knees is also putting themselves into a dangerous position.
Smooch's tackle on Thomas that resulted in a free was an example of a player trying to draw high contact and putting their neck and head in a position to receive more damage than if he had just ridden the tackle.
Now I have no real issue with the way things are at the moment but I just felt the need to point out another inconsistency in the AFL rule book.

[stellation]

I agree that they were legitimate free kicks to Lindsay, I didn't enjoy seeing it but they were there. I don't enjoy the practice and how "skilled" players have become at getting high contact frees through bending the knees or through shrugging their shoulders to have hands slip up (our own Georgey is particularly good at that and seems to get one a game from it). Lindsay's look behind/fall back into Nick to get the free for his third goal was high and a free kick, but it was probably the worst example that we've seen of it- normally I'd say "aim for the hips", but I think Nick may have started out by aiming for Lindsay's hips!

I'm actually not sure how the AFL can police it, it definitely is a player forcing a free kick but as long as the contact is there it's usually not a situation where they're milking it by exaggerating contact- and it's a sport where a player's willingness to put their head over the ball to "win the free kick" has long been celebrated. I think it's probably too subjective to expect umpires to pass judgement on it during a game.

[ScottH]

Agree.
The 2nd one against Smith was the only one that looked close to being a "duck".
First one was definitely a free.

It's a tough one to police.

[Zlatorog]

I agree that going for the hips during the tackle is a good option, but the problem is that the ball carrier has free arms to handball it to another player. I wouldn't penalize it if the high is the result of a ball carrier raising their arms in an attempt to force a tackler to tackle him around shoulders instead. I would imagine that smaller forwards can get away with this more often than the taller ones.