Sliding rule

[skipper kelly]

Are you insane? After 121 years since 1897 you want a non contact sport and call it Australian Rules? You should be banned for life from even using the words Australian Rules Football. What is wrong with you? Overhaul what ? Any attempt at that BS and the AFL might find themselves overhauled...

They change rules, players adjust, change more rules players adjust, change more rules players adjust......and on and on. From year to year the game doesn't look much different but then you go back and watch a replay from 30 years ago and the game is completely different.

They won't specifically state in the rules that players must keep their feet but the subtle rule changes and umpire interpretations will make it so that players must keep their feet, if that's what the AFL want. The changes in the game from year to year are such that there will never be a fan revolt.

Anyway, that's my view on it.

 

[Farm Boy]

They change rules, players adjust, change more rules players adjust, change more rules players adjust......and on and on. From year to year the game doesn't look much different but then you go back and watch a replay from 30 years ago and the game is completely different.

They won't specifically state in the rules that players must keep their feet but the subtle rule changes and umpire interpretations will make it so that players must keep their feet, if that's what the AFL want. The changes in the game from year to year are such that there will never be a fan revolt.

Anyway, that's my view on it.

The game isn't playable. At least the AFL recognizes this. If players keep their feet then it will be advantageous to soccer the ball out of congestion - which eradicates the AFL's biggest problem, and that is safety around contested football (with concussions). In the future we will see more soccering the ball out of contests. This is why kicking in danger practically no longer exists, because the AFL know the direction they want to head in. They don't want to penalize kicking in danger, they want to see more of it, but firstly they need players to not be diving on the ball so not to get kicked in the head.

 

[skipper kelly]

The game isn't playable. At least the AFL recognizes this. If players keep their feet then it will be advantageous to soccer the ball out of congestion - which eradicates the AFL's biggest problem, and that is safety around contested football (with concussions). In the future we will see more soccering the ball out of contests. This is why kicking in danger practically no longer exists, because the AFL know the direction they want to head in. They don't want to penalize kicking in danger, they want to see more of it, but firstly they need players to not be diving on the ball so not to get kicked in the head.

Recently I watched 2 old GF's from the 80's mainly focusing on umpire decisions with holding the ball and in the back in tackling. If a player tackled even with their arm across the opponents back then it was a free kick. If the tackle was legitimate (not too high, too low or in the back) then it was holding the ball/incorrect disposal or whatever you want to call the rule. If a player was held off the ball at a ruck contest around the ground then it was a free kick.

Now none of this has anything to do with the sliding rule (thread topic), but if the AFL want to get rid of congestion, IMO, then the umpires have to pay the free kicks regardless of how many there are.

The major changes I noticed when watching those games were all free kicks being paid, tackling and contested marks. The contested marking was sublime.

 

[Plugger35]

You can't go to ground. Its simple. Its clear and its plain. Do not go to ground. Of course Talia deserved to get penalized. You cannot go to ground. FFS.

That just isn't realistic, especially in wet slippery conditions like the game tonight.

Talia did the right thing in those conditions by sliding in to secure possession, had he tried to pick the ball up without sliding in he may have overrun the ball or fumbled it, he also got there first so he had the right to slide in for the ball as he wasn't endangering any other players, the Bulldogs player then came in second and fell over him and the umpire wrongly awarded him a free kick.

It was a disgusting decision that penalised the player that got there first and did what players have been coached to do in that situation in those conditions.

 

[HairyO]

Looked like a free kick to me.

 

[Tex9798]

I don't mind the rule and I think the players have adjusted but far too often the umpires get it wrong.

Last night against Talia is one example, Talia is going for the ball and is not sliding towards the player, you even see the player stick his leg out and shift his body weight to milk it.

I see why they paid it, coz technically there was contact below the knees but you would have to argue he didn't create the contact otherwise people will just be running around falling over players on the ground.

 

[liz]

This has to be one of the least understood rules by the commentators and public. The rule is not about sliding. It is about forceful contact below the knees, which can happen (indeed is likely to happen) when two or more players are in close vicinity and one chooses to goes to ground. Getting to the ball first is not relevant - indeed the reason players choose to go to ground is that it will probably increase their chances of getting to the ball first. But there is still significant risk of leg and knee injuries to players, regardless of who gets to the ball first.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-forceful-contact-below-the-knee

I don't get the idea that Webb caused the contact in this instance. He was in motion and it's not reasonable to expect he was able to suddenly stop the moment Talia went to ground given how close the two players were.

I do agree that the rule is sometimes over-umpired in situations where players are stationary - or close to it - and the contact below the knees is minor. The rule is meant to reduce "forceful" contact. But I think this Talia-Webb example was clearly what the rule was intended to discourage.

 

[JackFlash]

They change rules, players adjust, change more rules players adjust, change more rules players adjust......and on and on. From year to year the game doesn't look much different but then you go back and watch a replay from 30 years ago and the game is completely different.

They won't specifically state in the rules that players must keep their feet but the subtle rule changes and umpire interpretations will make it so that players must keep their feet, if that's what the AFL want. The changes in the game from year to year are such that there will never be a fan revolt.

Anyway, that's my view on it.

Like a smartarse bratty kid shouting "New rule! New rule!" whenever something happens that he doesn't like, sports leagues love nothing more than changing their rules.
All modern changes, unfortunately, are either about making things safer or making more money for people who aren't us, which obviously does nothing in the direction of making things interesting. ( The safer aspect of it all is just a front). Friday night football is as exciting as watching concrete set this year and in order to make things more interesting, we need to revisit the past, the glorious, horrible, screwed-up past. The early days of Australian Rules Football had some of the most entertaining rules imaginable, the most exciting players, playing a high scoring, high marking, fast and tough brand of football.

The revolt is not too far away at all....i like Australian Rules Football and at some point in the future, a disgruntled entrepreneur will remember that horrible past and come up with a game called "Australian Rules" and go up against the AFL.

 

[JackFlash]

You can't go to ground. Its simple. Its clear and its plain. Do not go to ground. Of course Talia deserved to get penalized. You cannot go to ground. FFS.

Utter madness! Webb had no other intention than run into Talia...he was 2nd to the ball and milked the free from an umpire incapable of officiating in wet conditions!

 

[hawkman]

Utter madness! Webb had no other intention than run into Talia...he was 2nd to the ball and milked the free from an umpire incapable of officiating in wet conditions!

Talia dives on the ball right in front of him, he had no time to change direction to avoid Talia

 

[JackFlash]

Talia dives on the ball right in front of him, he had no time to change direction to avoid Talia

You were fooled more than the umpire...

 

[JackFlash]

The game isn't playable. At least the AFL recognizes this. If players keep their feet then it will be advantageous to soccer the ball out of congestion - which eradicates the AFL's biggest problem, and that is safety around contested football (with concussions). In the future we will see more soccering the ball out of contests. This is why kicking in danger practically no longer exists, because the AFL know the direction they want to head in. They don't want to penalize kicking in danger, they want to see more of it, but firstly they need players to not be diving on the ball so not to get kicked in the head.

Not only Gaelic rules, you also want more Soccering of the ball? Jesus wept...

 

[Plugger35]

Talia dives on the ball right in front of him, he had no time to change direction to avoid Talia

Talia put his body on the line to dive in and win the ball in slippery conditions yet he gets penalised while the other guy that showed less commitment to win the ball gets rewarded with a free kick.

That goes against the way footy should be played and is why both players and spectators alike are incensed by the rule and the way it's being adjudicated.

It's a farce and the rule should either be scrapped altogether or there needs to be better training for the umpires on how and when it should be applied.

 

[W.C. Fry]

Yep stupid rule. Pretty much straight after Talia was 2nd in on a player on the ground, all he needed to do was run his legs into the player and get a free kick. Wish he actually did it, just to take the piss and really highlight how stupid the rule is, especially in wet conditions.

Change it to a dangerous slide rule, make that an instant reportable offense and be done with it. Would be lucky to come up once a year.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Whoever thinks its a stupid rule has never played the game. Don't mind it, protects legs and ACL's as well as the head of the sliding in player. It's dangerous whether you like it or not, and like all other rules there are going to be some contentious 50/50 decisions that don't always go your way. It's just the way it is suck it up.

 

[Dazzler9]

Haven't read the whole thread, but this is why a sliding rule is needed
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hc-yW_lIFKA

 

[bkozican]

Sliding into a contested ball is a weak move imo. The contact the below knees is cringe worthy.

 

[Mitchell54]

Get rid of the rule entirely. Leaves way too much room for interpretation. And questionable goes against the guiding principles of the game.

The guiding principles for the Laws of the Game are:

• The unique characteristics of the game should be maintained and encouraged
• Player health and safety is protected via the Laws of the Game, interpretations and officiating

• A priority of the Laws, interpretations and officiating is to reward and protect the player who makes winning the ball their primary objective (AKA, player sliding in desperate for the ball and has tunnel vision for the ball)

• Australian Football at AFL level should be maintained as a physically tough and contested game with appropriate consideration to player health and safety
• Players of various sizes, football and athletic ability have an opportunity for success in the game played at the highest level
• The direction and movement of the ball is unpredictable and has few restrictions
• There are few restrictions on where player can be located across the ground
• Continuous and free flowing football is encouraged ahead of repetitive short passages of play
• The Laws of the Game balances offensive and defensive aspects of play, where an attacking style of game is encouraged

Good rule in theory. Bad in practice. The advantage should be the one going in hard for the ball. There already disadvantaged as they are not on their feet so need a teammate to extract it to.

 

[smashbox gill]

Taylor Adams yesterday. Stupid rule which is being interpreted incorrectly.

Yes to sliding in legs first, No to being first to the contest and putting your head over the ball.

This rule is a digrace

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Adams a bit stiff to be paid as he was first to the ball by a millisecond but everybody knows you shouldnt dive on the ball when opposition legs are in the vicinity.

 

[Stopher]

Adams a bit stiff to be paid as he was first to the ball by a millisecond but everybody knows you shouldnt dive on the ball when opposition legs are in the vicinity.

That's the annoying thing. Anyone who watches or plays footy can see that Adams' only objective was the ball and never was the opposing player in danger of having his leg injured by Adams. That said, the rule in its current form actually encourages the standing player to ensure contact is made to his own leg in order to draw the free, as was the case yesterday. This goes directly against the point of the rule in the first place, but I can understand why players do it as the interpretation of the rule currently is.

 

[Scroater]

That's the annoying thing. Anyone who watches or plays footy can see that Adams' only objective was the ball and never was the opposing player in danger of having his leg injured by Adams. That said, the rule in its current form actually encourages the standing player to ensure contact is made to his own leg in order to draw the free, as was the case yesterday. This goes directly against the point of the rule in the first place, but I can understand why players do it as the interpretation of the rule currently is.

Even more annoying when you look at it and the 2nd player doesn't even make contact with Adams. Adams must have pointed that out because you can clearly hear the umpire say "It doesn't matter, you made him jump over you." WTF???

That means you can throw a haymaker at someone and miss and the umpire gives a free kick for too high, because you made him duck.

There was even an occasion during the game where two players running from either direction didn't want to go to ground, so they didn't. They ended up chesting each other at very low speed and the third player picked up the ball at their feet and took off with it. Both players looked stupid and the third player is classed as skilful.

 

[Lawbreakers]

I can understand the need for the rule, however there is a lot of conjecture in regards to the interpretation.

The rule should penalise the player that makes any contact to the leg of another player prior to touching the ball. It should not penalise the player that gets to the ball first and makes contact with the ball before any contact to another player is made.

The player second to the ball should be penalised if they make illegal contact above the shoulders or below the knees.

 

[SuperSteele22]

Something needs to be done about this. If I’m a player I can take great comfort in the fact that if I’m second to the footy, all I have to do is fall over the top of the bloke willing himself to try and win the footy and I’ll be rewarded with a free kick. For generations kids have been taught that if you’re first to the footy and put your head over it then you will be looked after and we must keep that mindset amongst the junior ranks.

 

[liz]

I can understand the need for the rule, however there is a lot of conjecture in regards to the interpretation.

The rule should penalise the player that makes any contact to the leg of another player prior to touching the ball. It should not penalise the player that gets to the ball first and makes contact with the ball before any contact to another player is made.

The player second to the ball should be penalised if they make illegal contact above the shoulders or below the knees.

Except that it's the action of going to ground that the AFL is trying to eliminate. Agree or disagree, their reasoning is that by going to ground a player is significantly increasing the chances of causing serious injury to the leg or knee of an opponent. Very often, the only reason a player gets to the ball first is because they have gone to ground. And even then, they only get there a split second beforehand.

I have seen some frees paid under this rule that I think were incorrect - where a player is already on the ground and a player on their feet but not moving at speed moves towards the player on the ground. But this wasn't one of them. The Melbourne player was already in motion and close to the ball and there was absolutely no way he could have stopped when Adams chose to go to ground. He leapt as a protective response.

When it comes to tribunal decisions, a common criticism is that the outcome is penalised rather than the action. This is an example of the AFL penalising an action (via a free in most instances, not a suspension) yet many people seem to think the adjudication should be outcome based.