Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 97 to 100 of 100

Thread: #AFL Round 12 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I don't agree with you on that point. In almost every instance where a player goes to ground to win the ball, they are not attempting to make contact with a player's legs. It's just got nothing to do with their intention at all. Their intention is to try and win possession.

    But the rule is trying to change players' behaviour by encouraging them not to go to ground at all in those circumstances. It's the action of going to ground that is being penalised, not the outcome of whether forcible contact is actually made, or whether the opposition player is able to take evasive action. This is somewhat different to a player choosing to move towards someone already on the ground and causing the contact below the knees. I have seen instances of this and those are the ones that I think are incorrectly paid. It comes down to the time and space that the players have to adjust their movements. But in this case, the Demons player didn't have the choice of avoiding contact other than by jumping in the way he did. He didn't have time to stop.
    I agree with you again that this would appear to be the AFL's policy goal. However, once again they seem to have undermined it with poor drafting. What you wrote is not what the Laws say. The rule makes no reference to a player going to ground.

  2. #98
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW
    Posts
    6,376
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    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.
    Liz, thanks for clarifying the details.
    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)

  3. #99
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    Sorry Scottee, I collapsed the wording (for brevity) which has been misleading. The full wording does make clear the intent:

    15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick

    A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.

    A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
    if the Player:

    (a) makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury;

    (i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or
    (ii) below the knees.

    etc. (list goes on (b) to (m) of forms of ‘prohibited contact’).
    Thanks Meg. But my bad, I should have checked the source.

    Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
    We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

  4. #100
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,002
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Another problem with AFL umpiring......so easy for an umpire to interpret a situation the way he wants to.....or interpret according to an AFL bias/prejudice.
    That is THE problem!!!

    You could probably also add corporate objectives or insider trading to the potential drivers.

    Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
    We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO