I don�t mind if The Pies help us to consolidate our ladder position, other than that my hatred is perfectly intact even if Buckley�s slide rated
No 1.
I don�t mind if The Pies help us to consolidate our ladder position, other than that my hatred is perfectly intact even if Buckley�s slide rated
No 1.
While the rule is colloquially referred to as the �sliding rule� there is actually no mention of sliding. It is a �below the knees� rule.
15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player:
makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury below the knees.
As indeed they did, in this case. But they were forced to take action as a result of the Collingwood player choosing to go to ground.
Kieren Jack was forced to take similar evasive action in the second quarter of the 2016 GF when a Bulldogs player went to ground but he was able to almost jump to avoid contact. Except that the umpire pinged him for making high contact with the grounded Bulldog (and then penalised the team 50m). Players who keep their feet in contests shouldn't be obliged to take such evasive action to avoid injury just because an opponent can only "get to the ball first" by choosing to go to ground.
.....and this is my point, that wording is not being interpreted correctly in the way umpires are adjudicating this rule. There is no way an injury could have occurred in today's example.....the only reason the 2nd player fell over is basically because he chose to, knowing he would receive an undeserved free kick. At best, it's a 'noble' rule that is judged in a way that is counter to the spirit of the game.......IMO, just another AFL knee jerk stuff up affecting the game's integrity and fairness.
Last edited by stevoswan; 12th June 2018 at 02:58 AM.
Well then, get ready for far more concussions and head injuries...... I would have thought the head/brain region was far more sacrosanct than a players legs....and what is wrong with going to ground? Players have been doing it for years....it used to be called courage and desperation! The obsession with making this 'contact' sport injury and accident free is taking some of the spontaneity and enjoyment out the game.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
A player going into a contest feet first is very dangerous and is a suspendable offence. It was long before the "forceful contact" rule was introduced.
Thomas didn't go into the Rohan contest feet first. He planted his feet in a position that unfortunately was the exact position where Rohan's feet were but he was attacking the ball with his body. Although the rule was probably introduced in response to Rohan's injury, there was an element of freakish misfortune in that incident.
Easton Wood didn't enter the contest that injured Hannebery's knee in the 2016 feet first. The forceable contact to Hannebery's leg was with Wood's body - the full force of his body at that. Furthermore, Wood didn't slide into that contest. He just went to ground but Hannebery paid the price (and, indirectly, is still paying the price). I think that contest is a better example of the kind of contest - and injury - that the rule is intended to discourage.
Hannebery hobbled by medial knee injury - AFL.com.au
Just because injury doesn't always occur - or in some instances, isn't likely to occur - from a player going to ground isn't the point. A split second difference and it well could. The behaviour that the rule is intended to discourage is the going to ground, and I don't see the benefit from complicating it by permitting players to go to ground if they are approaching the contest from some angles and not others.
Kieren Jack wasn't injured when the Dogs player went to ground late in the second quarter of the 2016 GF because he was able to take evasive action. However, had the umpires correctly called that as a free against the Dogs, a later contest when Papley was quite fortunate not to suffer injury when his legs were taken out from under him might not have occurred. And had the umpires correctly paid the free against the Dogs in that contest, maybe Easton Wood would have thought twice about going to ground and taking out Hanners' legs.
Well, I still believe there will be more head injuries and concussions if players have to always 'stay on their feet', so Liz, you and the AFL just have to decide which part of a players body needs more protection.....their 'legs' or their brain. I know what I think......
Re: the 2016 GF, I think the Dogs had seen plenty that day already to know they could get away with just about anything......paying the free against them for the Jack incident would have IMO changed nothing. If Wood had later stayed on his feet, it's more likely Hanners would have ended up concussed or in a worse case senario, brain damaged. How many times have we seen a head clash resulting in concussion for one or both players.....because they both 'stayed on their feet' when attacking the ball?
As I have previously plainly stated, if there is a place for this rule, it should only be paid when the player who goes to ground is coming from the opposite direction, ie: "in a way likely to cause injury" as the rule is actually worded. It is so often paid when players go to ground from the side or from the same direction, where the likelihood of injury is minimal. I really struggle to see why this concept is so hard for some to understand.......
Last edited by stevoswan; 12th June 2018 at 05:18 PM.
Has it occurred to you that I understand. I just don't agree.
The rule is about trying to change players' behaviour so that they don't go to ground to contest a ball. We frequently hear complaints that players are expected to make split second decisions and suspended when they make the wrong one, and now you want them to calculate the angle at which they are approaching a contest before deciding whether or not to go to ground. And if they get it wrong, an opponent might land up with a broken leg or a serious knee injury, all for the sake of one hard ball get out of many in a game. Surely injury risk reduction (in a situation where injury can be avoided without significantly changing the game) is better achieved by getting them out of the habit of going to ground.
The argument that more head clashes are likely to occur I find sensationalist and, frankly, daft. The argument that the AFL needs to decide whether the head or legs need more protection I find disingenuous. The obvious answer is "both". And while I applaud the AFL's increased protection of the head and acknowledge that the long term effect of multiple head clashes isn't well understood, serious knee and leg injuries cost players a lot of games too.
This rule has been in for a few seasons now, and there is rarely more than one or two frees paid for contact below the knees that raise the ire of spectators. More are paid, but I think most are accepted as reasonable. That suggests that, on the whole, players have adapted and are keeping their feet in contests far more often. Have we seen a proliferation of head knocks/injuries in that time? Can you point to any such injuries that you think would have been avoided had a player been allowed to go to ground to contest?
We also have various rules prohibiting head high contact in circumstances where the risk of injury to the head is extremely low, but they are there to make players aware of being careful in close proximity of opponents' heads. Just like the "contact below the knees" rule, players don't get suspended for the vast majority of transgressions of these rules. They just get a free kick paid against them. The rules are there to alter players' behaviour so that they don't engage in the type of actions that are likely to cause forceful contact to the head.
Here is what Jimmy Bartel and Matthew Lloyd have to say about the rule. The relevant discussion starts at about the 5 minute mark.
Flag fancy won't 'make the eight' - AFL.com.au
This sucks completely.....
EXCLUSIVE: Hawks, AFL in trial of on-field zones - AFL.com.au
Nothing like a leg up for the Hawks.....and where's the leagues integrity on this one? Sounds like Clarkson's got not only Gil but the league in his pocket.....
I actually think a lot of the reason for the debate on this thread is based on the very poor drafting of the rule itself:
"makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury below the knees."
Surely the above literally translated could mean that if you bumped a player shoulder to shoulder while he was unbalanced and he twisted his ankle you could be free kicked.
It should read; "makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body below the knees of an opposition player in a manner likely to cause injury"
If you take Hanners case as an example, Wood did nothing wrong because the injury was to the knee, not below the knee. Typical AFL sloppiness with serious consequences for players.
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!
This (may) be my last post on this subject. The AFL have given us all their 'verdict' on the Taylor Adams 'sliding in' free kick and of course, like the biased dumb bastards they are, have given it the thumbs up!
Ump got it right, but Pie questions rule - AFL.com.au
I implore everybody to read Adams thoughts (I agree 100% with him), especially this bit, "Adams said the interpretation had shifted in recent years and had gone away from why it had been introduced in the first place."........this is exactly my point.
Also, listen carefully to the commentary. Now I know we don't rate the Ch 7 commentators but I think they actually reflect the thoughts of, well at least most, sensible footy fans and players on this one, a noble rule repeatedly judged incorrectly.....and I ask yet again, what is wrong with going to ground? Why are acts of desperation being discouraged? Why do the AFL think they can make a brutal contact sport 100% safe? If what you want is 'no injuries' in Australian Rules Football......you must ban the game. Yes, I agree, that is just stupid.....about as stupid as trying to make it 100% safe. Never going to happen.......
Last edited by stevoswan; 13th June 2018 at 01:35 PM.
Bookmarks