Contact below the knees

[scottywiper]

The worst umpired rule in footy. Thanks Lindsay.
It should ONLY be paid when a bloke takes out another player's legs in a dangerous fashion.
Not when a guy at ground level is fighting for the ball and some gibberer runs in and runs into him.
It happened twice tonight, and was umpired exactly oppositely on the two occasions.
Which is about what we've come to expect with the piss poor implementation of what was an overreaction of a rule.

 

[Hojuman]

Even the Swans players ran back toward our goal.

 

[Tas]

It is meant to be "forceful contact", not any contact.

 

[Only Forwards]

It's a grey area

The rules are full of them

Grey areas breed inconsistency and ire.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Wells was first to the ball. The rule should only apply if player is second to the ball.

 

[trooroo4life]

Incident in the first where the sydney bloke (cunningham?) runs/slides into jmac's legs resulting in a free their way for high contact. It is such an inconsistent rule, and one the game survived over a hundred years without.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Wells was first to the ball. The rule should only apply if player is second to the ball.

That Swans player forgot to RSVP for the ball and arrived halfway through the first dance unannounced.

 

[SMaturin]

The very wording of the rule is bollocks.

 

[Rooboy 96]

I will never forget when McMahon gave away that free against Brisbane when he was kicked in the hand, for contact below the knees, worst umpiring decision ever.

 

[Woodson]

Been saying it for years.. Hotch potch rules which allows for 'interpretation' will forever allow a license for inconsistency. How about some accountability with the umps in the media so questions can be asked??

We all know why this ain't never gonna happen. Vindicated again.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I'm more concerned about the interpretation of HTB, man they have rooted that rule, loved J Mac taking the piss out of the ump for it, because he knew many were an absolute joke.

 

[Arden]

I'm more concerned about the interpretation of HTB, man they have rooted that rule, loved J Mac taking the piss out of the ump for it, because he knew many were an absolute joke.

You mean like the 'perfect tackle' on Gibson.

A tackle be all kinds of perfect but if the bloke is tackled simaltaneously to collecting the ball, he is still entitled to prior opportunity. And the fact that the tackle was perfect, means he had no potential to legally dispose of the ball.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

You mean like the 'perfect tackle' on Gibson.

A tackle be all kinds of perfect but if the bloke is tackled simaltaneously to collecting the ball, he is still entitled to prior opportunity. And the fact that the tackle was perfect, means he had no potential to legally dispose of the ball.

This quite annoying. It's called an opportunity, if they have an opportunity to knock it out or dispose of it, not because the tackle looked good, what opportunity did Gibson have or have their HTB in their forward fifty, they were legit taking the piss when they did and weren't consistent for Swans players running 5 m, getting tackled and then dropping the ball, play on, consistency, FFS, it's not hard.

 

[DarwinRoo]

If we applied this rule to the roads it would be the guy going straights fault even though the other bloke ran a stop sign at a T intersection.

 

[scottywiper]

You mean like the 'perfect tackle' on Gibson.

A tackle be all kinds of perfect but if the bloke is tackled simaltaneously to collecting the ball, he is still entitled to prior opportunity. And the fact that the tackle was perfect, means he had no potential to legally dispose of the ball.

I'm ok with the perfect tackle...if you cna pin one arm and stop him getting it off, that should be a free IMO. But you have to be consistent. and you can't just allow a player who is subjected to a perfect tackle to just drop it and then call play on.

 

[scottywiper]

If we applied this rule to the roads it would be the guy going straights fault even though the other bloke ran a stop sign at a T intersection.

When they brought it in it was a massive overreaction to one incident. Fuelled by the media, again. Blind Freddy could see it would be a disaster.
Very early on I saw GGB (genuine good bloke) Hodgey deliberately run into a bloke from side on while the guy was on the ground. Hodgey threw himself over the bloke and immediately motioned to the umpire that he'd been contacted below the knee. And he got the kick. It was calculated and clever, and just showed how pathetic the rule is.

 

[Marstermind]

When they brought it in it was a massive overreaction to one incident. Fuelled by the media, again. Blind Freddy could see it would be a disaster.
Very early on I saw GGB (genuine good bloke) Hodgey deliberately run into a bloke from side on while the guy was on the ground. Hodgey threw himself over the bloke and immediately motioned to the umpire that he'd been contacted below the knee. And he got the kick. It was calculated and clever, and just showed how pathetic the rule is.

Are you suggesting a player milked a free kick and it wasn't Lindsay Thomas?!?!?

INCONCEIVABLE!!

 

[scottywiper]

Are you suggesting a player milked a free kick and it wasn't Lindsay Thomas?!?!?

INCONCEIVABLE!!

Hodgey invokes the GBC (good bloke clause). The media moves on.

 

[BigRedRoo]

You mean like the 'perfect tackle' on Gibson.

A tackle be all kinds of perfect but if the bloke is tackled simaltaneously to collecting the ball, he is still entitled to prior opportunity. And the fact that the tackle was perfect, means he had no potential to legally dispose of the ball.

Gibson's mistake was not falling to the ground like Sydney did all night when Perfectly tackled.

 

[scottywiper]

Just so it's clear. The head is sacrosanct. But then they brought in the contact below the knees rule to protect legs. So now you can clatter into blokes with your lower leg and not only not be penalised, but expect to win a free kick. But the head is still sacrosanct.
It's farcical.

 

[Arden]

I'm ok with the perfect tackle...if you cna pin one arm and stop him getting it off, that should be a free IMO. But you have to be consistent. and you can't just allow a player who is subjected to a perfect tackle to just drop it and then call play on.

Nah, perfect tackle is still irrelevant if there is no genuine prior opportunity. Otherwise you have blokes waiting half a step off, waiting to lay the tackle instead of winning the footy.

 

[Woodson]

Just so it's clear. The head is sacrosanct. But then they brought in the contact below the knees rule to protect legs. So now you can clatter into blokes with your lower leg and not only not be penalised, but expect to win a free kick. But the head is still sacrosanct.
It's farcical.

Accidental injury can't be helped… these rules were simply knee-jerk reactions. It's a physically demanding sport. Now you can appreciate why the NDS's of the league stay clear of any contact..

 

[Woodson]

Wells was first to the ball. The rule should only apply if player is second to the ball.

Common sense says that.. but hey.. what do I know? The interpretations are forever a lottery week in week out. Been like that for ages now. Kicking at goal skills from gettable angles- distances keep falling thru the floor.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

A rule brought in due to a freak, one off incident brings confusion.

Who'd have thought?

 

[scottywiper]

A rule brought in due to a freak, one off incident brings confusion.

Who'd have thought?

Altho Gerard Healy managed to find a leg injury in the WAFL too...