Fixing the contact below the knees rule once and for all.

[kickazz]

Seen a couple of bad examples this week of this rule

Dear AFL, there is a simple fix.

The person first to the ball, who naturally has slowed down or stopped to get the ball, is to be favoured in all circumstances.

If a Johnny Come Lately slides in and takes out their legs, free kick against the guy sliding in.

If a Johnny Come Lately runs in and "falls over" the guy who was there first, then either play on, or free against the Johnny Come Lately for high contact if applicable.

It's that simple. No further discussion required,close the thread and tell the AFL to employ some common sense for once.

 

[AuTo00Z]

Or how about we just scrap this rule alltogether? The only reason this rule was brought in was because Lindsay Thomas slid into Gary Rohan's knees 9 years ago. What's worse is the fact Rohan is still playing today without injury concerns and doesn't seem to have lost any of his speed or talent! So based on this one incident that only cost him a little over a year of his career and nothing else, we now have the most ridiculous rule ever. The AFL need to stop making knee-jerk rule changes and get rid of this joke of a rule ASAP.

 

[kickazz]

Or how about we just scrap this rule alltogether? The only reason this rule was brought in was because Lindsay Thomas slid into Gary Rohan's knees 9 years ago. What's worse is the fact Rohan is still playing today without injury concerns and doesn't seem to have lost any of his speed or talent! So based on this one incident that only cost him a little over a year of his career and nothing else, we now have the most ridiculous rule ever. The AFL need to stop making knee-jerk rule changes and get rid of this joke of a rule ASAP.

I think this "only brought in because of injury" is wrong. It may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but sliding in and taking out the legs was always a trip. A trip has always been illegal.

"Going hard for the ball" slowly creeped toward *taking out an opponent's legs in the guise of going for the ball".

Applied properly it is a good rule

 

[kickazz]

The AFL need to stop making knee-jerk rule changes and get rid of this joke of a rule ASAP.

The rule is here to stay, it's a waste of energy trying to oppose it. The AFL don't want sniping off the line bowling ball style play.

The focus needs to be on making it work properly.

 

[AuTo00Z]

I think this "only brought in because of injury" is wrong. It may have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but sliding in and taking out the legs was always a trip. A trip has always been illegal.

"Going hard for the ball" slowly creeped toward *taking out an opponent's legs in the guise of going for the ball".

Applied properly it is a good rule

It was never that big an issue? I can't think of any incident, let alone any sort of trend of players deliberately taking player's out from below the knees. Can you specify any of those incidents? The tripping rule should be enough to suffice if there were any.

The rule is absolutely ridiculous and only encourages players not to go for the football, which goes against their natural instincts as footballers. Nowadays, umpires and the MRO are making sure players have their eyes on the football when contesting the ball, and with that being the case, you can not reasonably expect players to watch out for other player's legs. Even Rohan himself has said the AFL overreacted in bringing this rule in.

 

[sdfc]

Keep your feet. Pretty simple.

 

[kickazz]

Officiated as I suggested, it encourages players to go for the ball, but also to keep their feet in doing so, meaning packs/ball ups,and yes, injuries are less likely.

As for other examples, you'd see it all the time especially in wet weather games. Yes, it makes sense to go the man instead of the ball in the wet. But do so with a legitimate bump, not a gutless upending by taking their legs out

 

[kickazz]

Keep your feet. Pretty simple.

Yep. And penalise those that illegally take them out from under you. Pretty simple.

 

[sdfc]

 

[kickazz]

Ouch

 

[sdfc]

Bailey Banfield hasn't played since Brad Sheppard dived into his legs in a pre-season game.

 

[HairyO]

That is the exactly thing which is meant to be stopped. And should be 4 weeks as well.

Not penalising the 1st guy in because the 2nd guy deliberately falls over the top of him for a free kick.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Seen a couple of bad examples this week of this rule

Dear AFL, there is a simple fix.

The person first to the ball, who naturally has slowed down or stopped to get the ball, is to be favoured in all circumstances.

If a Johnny Come Lately slides in and takes out their legs, free kick against the guy sliding in.

If a Johnny Come Lately runs in and "falls over" the guy who was there first, then either play on, or free against the Johnny Come Lately for high contact if applicable.

It's that simple. No further discussion required,close the thread and tell the AFL to employ some common sense for once.

I like the rule but it really should be limited to the dangerous sliding action. I don’t think that being stationary on the ground is anywhere near as dangerous.

I also think most free kick rules should be biased against players who leave their feet voluntarily or who are trying to kill the ball rather than contest it with a view to getting it going their teams way.

 

[It Just Is]

Spot on OP. It’s a good rule that is poorly umpired.