Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 111

Thread: #AFL Round 3 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #49
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,329
    Brisbane v Port was an excellent game. Nice to see Brisbane finally putting together a strong team again, after all those years of being plundered by southern clubs.
    Though I'm now feeling a bit nervous, about our trip to the Gabba in round seven.

  2. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Brisbane v Port was an excellent game. Nice to see Brisbane finally putting together a strong team again, after all those years of being plundered by southern clubs.
    Though I'm now feeling a bit nervous, about our trip to the Gabba in round seven.
    Even in the Brisbane glory days we could still beat them.

  3. #51
    Collingwood supporters apparently spent most of their energy booing Dom Sheed and Andrew Gaff who in turn were instrumental in putting the Pies away and leading to a sea of the glumest faces on and around Joffa since the Granny.
    Unsure if Eddies face was evident.

  4. #52
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Hotpotato View Post
    Collingwood supporters apparently spent most of their energy booing Dom Sheed and Andrew Gaff who in turn were instrumental in putting the Pies away and leading to a sea of the glumest faces on and around Joffa since the Granny.
    Unsure if Eddies face was evident.
    Showing Eddies beetroot face immediately after a Pies loss should be mandatory for the TV producers!

    Close ups of the Pies cheer squad show a lot of "beauty challenged" people :-)

  5. #53
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Good to see plenty of discussion today about the way the 'stupidest rule in footy', the 'below the knees' rule, is being adjudicated.....ie: wrongly. Every week this rule embarrasses everyone involved with the game. Get rid of it or CLARIFY it, so it reflects common sense!! In a contact sport where the object is GETTING THE BALL, this rule is an embarrassment to the game....

    ....and please, no lectures from the deluded among us that still think this rule is a good rule.

  6. #54
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Good to see plenty of discussion today about the way the 'stupidest rule in footy', the 'below the knees' rule, is being adjudicated.....ie: wrongly. Every week this rule embarrasses everyone involved with the game. Get rid of it or CLARIFY it, so it reflects common sense!! In a contact sport where the object is GETTING THE BALL, this rule is an embarrassment to the game....

    ....and please, no lectures from the deluded among us that still think this rule is a good rule.
    I agree. We are taught from day one to get the ball. They are now penalising players who do that. This is a bloody disgrace.

    Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

  7. #55
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Good to see plenty of discussion today about the way the 'stupidest rule in footy', the 'below the knees' rule, is being adjudicated.....ie: wrongly. Every week this rule embarrasses everyone involved with the game. Get rid of it or CLARIFY it, so it reflects common sense!! In a contact sport where the object is GETTING THE BALL, this rule is an embarrassment to the game....

    ....and please, no lectures from the deluded among us that still think this rule is a good rule.
    Disappointing choice of language there. Anyone who posts an opinion different to yours is "lecturing"? And "deluded"?

    I am an unabashed supporter of the rule for reasons I won't repeat. However, I don't believe the recent controversial one in the Pies Eagles game should have been paid. Nor do I think Hayward should have received one for an incident in the round 1 Dogs game, nor Lloyd (I think) given one away in the same game.

    I do believe that the majority of the decisions where this rule is applied are correct in accordance with why it was introduced. As with most rules - nay, every rule - sometimes the umpires get it wrong. I don't think anyone would argue for doing away with the rule prohibited head high contact because we still see some given where the receiving player cons the umpire and creates the high contact themselves. And there are still way more of these kinds of free kick paid than the total number of "contact below the knees" frees, despite what the media oxygen would have you believe.

  8. #56
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Stevie J on the 'Game Day' show this morning.....funny guy. Just recounted a story about Hayward on the 'green whistle' at half time yesterday.....and anyone who watches Bondi Rescue will know how funny anyone using the 'green whistle' can be.....

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Disappointing choice of language there. Anyone who posts an opinion different to yours is "lecturing"? And "deluded"?

    I am an unabashed supporter of the rule for reasons I won't repeat. However, I don't believe the recent controversial one in the Pies Eagles game should have been paid. Nor do I think Hayward should have received one for an incident in the round 1 Dogs game, nor Lloyd (I think) given one away in the same game.

    I do believe that the majority of the decisions where this rule is applied are correct in accordance with why it was introduced. As with most rules - nay, every rule - sometimes the umpires get it wrong. I don't think anyone would argue for doing away with the rule prohibited head high contact because we still see some given where the receiving player cons the umpire and creates the high contact themselves. And there are still way more of these kinds of free kick paid than the total number of "contact below the knees" frees, despite what the media oxygen would have you believe.
    Sorry Liz, yes I was thinking about you.....you shouldn't have bothered replying.....it's THE WORST RULE IN FOOTY....constantly misinterpreted by stupid umpires who pick and choose when and how to (wrongly) apply it. As someone who has played footy and was coached to get the ball at all costs, I constantly see players being punished for doing what their coaches would be proud of.....this alone shows the rule goes against the spirit of the game. If the AFL want 'no injuries' in football, we have a problem on our hands.....and one is this rule.

    PS: It is not 'media oxygen' that has me 'believe' what I believe....it is footy common sense....and I doubt it's just a few media people who agree with me, it would be the majority of sensible football followers. The key word there is 'sensible'. Maybe we have a dearth of those these days....and if you think I am implying you are not being sensible regarding this rule.....you would be right.

    One person I think we all agree is sensible is Patrick Dangerfield....this is his opinion:

    "Contact below the knees.. absolute disgrace," the AFL Players' Association president tweeted before following up with another swipe at the rule.

    "Don't put your head over the ball kids. Lower and harder... na not anymore."
    Last edited by stevoswan; 7th April 2019 at 01:08 PM.

  9. #57
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Disappointing choice of language there. Anyone who posts an opinion different to yours is "lecturing"? And "deluded"?

    I am an unabashed supporter of the rule for reasons I won't repeat. However, I don't believe the recent controversial one in the Pies Eagles game should have been paid. Nor do I think Hayward should have received one for an incident in the round 1 Dogs game, nor Lloyd (I think) given one away in the same game.

    I do believe that the majority of the decisions where this rule is applied are correct in accordance with why it was introduced. As with most rules - nay, every rule - sometimes the umpires get it wrong. I don't think anyone would argue for doing away with the rule prohibited head high contact because we still see some given where the receiving player cons the umpire and creates the high contact themselves. And there are still way more of these kinds of free kick paid than the total number of "contact below the knees" frees, despite what the media oxygen would have you believe.
    Please read. He says it is about the way the rule is being interpreted Liz. Therefore I agree that the way it is worded it is a stupid rule. The interpretation is according to the wording of the rule. The form this rule is in is just stupid. If the wording is cleared up to make it very clear thus rule only applies to sliding in dangerously with the feet it would be a very good rule. But in it's current firm it is just a joke.

    Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

  10. #58
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Sliding in with the feet was never intended to be addressed by this rule. That was outlawed long before this contentious rule was introduced. What’s more, it’s a reportable offence, unlike the vast majority captured by this rule.

    However I believe that when this rule was introduced, at least initially, it was for “forceful” contact below the knees. I think this is where the umpires are sometimes getting it wrong.

  11. #59
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Sliding in with the feet was never intended to be addressed by this rule. That was outlawed long before this contentious rule was introduced. What’s more, it’s a reportable offence, unlike the vast majority captured by this rule.

    However I believe that when this rule was introduced, at least initially, it was for “forceful” contact below the knees. I think this is where the umpires are sometimes getting it wrong.
    This is an amended sliding in rule. All the commentators, rules people and experts say that this rule was the sliding in rule that was amended. It was meant to stop dangerous diving in below the knees. It is the worst phrased rule in a badly phrased group of interpretive crappy rules the AFL has introduced in the last few years

    Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

  12. #60
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    5,788
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Sliding in with the feet was never intended to be addressed by this rule. That was outlawed long before this contentious rule was introduced. What’s more, it’s a reportable offence, unlike the vast majority captured by this rule.

    However I believe that when this rule was introduced, at least initially, it was for “forceful” contact below the knees. I think this is where the umpires are sometimes getting it wrong.
    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.

    And

    (g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by the use
    of hand, arm, foot or leg;
    (h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player, unless contact
    is accidentally made whilst the Player is Kicking the football.

    These are old rules that had previously been tightened. They have returned to the old wording of the rules. There was a specific sliding rule but not now.

    This is the reportable offence:

    (h) attempting to kick another person;

    That is really interpretive. Is a person who slides in deliberately attempting to kick? I'd say no. So this rule is very interpretive. All the rules here are not specific enough. In fact a good lawyer would thelrpw the book at the AFL lawmakers and make huge fun of them in a court of law. Most of the rules are very vague or interpretive. If a lawyer were questioning an umpires intent on making a decision there would be some very interesting moments as he/she suggested different interpretations. The laws of our game have become looser over the years due to lazy governance.

    The specific law outlawing sliding and making it a reportable offence in fact does not exist. It is covered by the bottom example. It is covered in the policies and procedures but not specifically in the rules of governance.

    Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast

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