Lack of Logic behind the Contact Below the Knees Rule

[Do the Dew]

I’ve a bone to pick. With all the discussion about rule changes, the AFL have overlooked a glaring one, a rule that directly contradicts another yet I’ve heard no discussion about it from anyone. The rules in question are the sliding/contact below knees and the ducking into a tackle.

Firstly, ducking into a tackle. Previously when players had the ball, they’d look to duck or drop their head into an opponent (particularly in congestion), thus drawing high contact and winning a free kick. In essence, they were putting themselves in danger (hits to the head) and being rewarded for it. The AFL then brought in the rule that if you chose to duck into contact, it was play on and potentially could lead to holding the ball. This was a great change and led to players not ducking when they saw contact coming (in most cases), but rather getting their head and hands up to release the ball.

However, the thinking behind the contact below knees rule introduction contradicts this. It rewards players that put themselves in danger (legs/ankles/knees) by giving them a free kick. Imagine 2 players going for the ball. One goes low, gets his hands down to the ball. The other runs in upright and flails with his legs over the player with the ball. Guess who gets the free kick…even if the flailing player is second to the ball! The issue with the rule is that it incentivizes players to put themselves into dumb and dangerous positions to win a free kick, completely opposite to the old ducking into the tackle rule. This makes fans go nuts, and I’ve definitely been guilty of this. On AFL 360 Monday, they looked at some of the contact below knees decisions from Rd 1, with Chris Scott and Hardwick admitting that players are using the rule to milk free kicks.

I understand the rule was brought in to stop players soccer slide tackling with feet and knees, however it’s completely warped. Rather than focusing on cleaning up footy fundamentals (ie. getting to the ball first lower and harder than your opponent), the rules committee is bringing in all sorts of crap to ‘improve the state of the game’, despite them having two rules with completely different logic. Would love to hear feedback about this because it’s been annoying me for ages and I think my logic is sound regarding the 2 rules that reward and incentivize opposite things. Rules committee here I come!

 

[Man0gwaR74]

I think the biggest concern to the newest rule interpretations is the 'in the back' call for tackling an opponent or dumping the opponent in the tackle coz it encourages the tackler to twist to avoid them and that increases the risk of season ending knee injuries. Knee injuries are pretty common in AFL so why would they want to risk more?!?

 

[And_ROOS]

The original idea of this rule had some merit. The Gary Rohan leg break, for example, happened while he was standing and Lindsay Thomas went in legs first and thats how it happened.
So the rule should have been that if a player slides into a contest, where they have no way to control what damage they can cause, and contact someone below the knees, its a free kick.


Thats how the rule should be. You are penalising the players being reckless.

The problem is we now have players, clearly second to the contest, going in legs first to milk a free kick like we saw in the WB v Sydney match.


It also happened to Dangerfield v Collingwood, and Chris Scott said the AFL told them it shouldn't have been a free kick on 360.

So the AFL is sending out mixed messages because they are saying one thing and the officials are paying another.

 

[D-N-R]

When the 'sliding' rule was brought in the interpretation was something along the lines of "high impact below the knees likely to cause injury". This is fair enough.

Now it seems to be any contact of any impact. 2 players running almost parallel are not going to endanger each other if one makes contact below the knees. Head to head the impact us going to be far greater.

Over umpired rule and typical of the kind of 'bracket creep' that comes with these knee jerk rule changes.

Watch the same happen with the Toby Green rule. The difference between using your foot to get purchase on a player in a marking contest and what TB did was obvious. It looked wrong. Now watch any contact with the sole of the boot get outlawed. I've seen one free already in a ruck contest and I don't think any contact was made. The leg was just at a funny angle.

 

[Struggle]

Basically all you need to do now is try to bump a player diving on the ball, they'll take your legs and you get a free kick.

The rule should only apply to sliding, not going to ground to pick up the ball.

 

[liz]

This has to be one of - if not the - worst understood rules in recent history, largely due to the number of commentators who wilfully misrepresent what it is meant to prevent.

It is not a sliding rule. Long before this particular rule was introduced it was illegal to slide into a contest with one's feet or knees in a way that was likely to cause injury to another player. Players were suspended for this.

The 'forceful contact below the knees' rule was intended to broaden the kinds of prohibited contact to those not covered by the existing sliding rule. If two players are running (especially at pace) towards a loose ball, and one of those players goes to ground in an attempt to win the ball, there is a high likelihood that the player will make contact to the lower legs of the other player. The other player, in many occasions, doesn't have the opportunity to evade the contact because it happens so quickly and the have momentum.

The rule is intended to encourage players to stay on their feet and contest the ball by bending down (and by turning their bodies to avoid head on contact).

A secondary advantage of this, above the reduced risk of injury to another player's legs or knees, is that it reduces the pile-up on the ground that contributes towards congestion.

There are some instances where penalising a player for going to ground and making contact below the knees is a bit dubious - those where one player clearly gets to a loose ball first, and the upright player is moving slowly enough to be able to prevent the contact or to mitigate its effect. There were two frees in Saturday's Dogs Swans game that I thought fell into this category (one paid to each side). However, I think these are a small minority of the frees paid under this rule. In most cases, including most where the commentators whinge about the free, the upright player had very little, or no, chance of preventing the contact.

As with many rules in our game, it's close to impossible for the umpires to always get it right, given the speed of the game and the number of bodies around the ball. I'm happy that they use "going to ground" as the trigger for paying the free, unless it is absolutely clear to them that the upright player ran into a contest they could have avoided. If it means the very occasional dubious one is paid, so be it. That's no different to the (more than) occasional dubious free paid for high contact where the receiving player has substantially created the contact themselves. The number of high contact free kicks paid each game, including dubious ones, far outweighs the number of "contact below the knees" frees paid.

 

[Do the Dew]

The original idea of this rule had some merit. The Gary Rohan leg break, for example, happened while he was standing and Lindsay Thomas went in legs first and thats how it happened.
So the rule should have been that if a player slides into a contest, where they have no way to control what damage they can cause, and contact someone below the knees, its a free kick.


Thats how the rule should be. You are penalising the players being reckless.

The problem is we now have players, clearly second to the contest, going in legs first to milk a free kick like we saw in the WB v Sydney match.


It also happened to Dangerfield v Collingwood, and Chris Scott said the AFL told them it shouldn't have been a free kick on 360.

So the AFL is sending out mixed messages because they are saying one thing and the officials are paying another.

I completely agree, the rule was brought in with the best intentions and when officiated correctly, it is a good rule. The issue is that it has been changed to be pretty much any contact below the knee results in a free kick, no matter how ridiculous. My whole point is I don't get why the AFL are bringing in new rules (666, schoolyard who wants to be the ruck nomination bs, protected area etc.) when they could clean up some other rules and make the game better. I'm more just astounded that no-one brings this up (ie. AFL 360, On the Couch, Coaches, Players, Rule Committee). It makes it seem that the rules committee is perfectly happy with how the rule is written and adjudicated, despite cries of outrage 99% of the time one of these free kicks is paid.

 

[HairyO]

I completely agree, the rule was brought in with the best intentions and when officiated correctly, it is a good rule. The issue is that it has been changed to be pretty much any contact below the knee results in a free kick, no matter how ridiculous. My whole point is I don't get why the AFL are bringing in new rules (666, schoolyard who wants to be the ruck nomination bs, protected area etc.) when they could clean up some other rules and make the game better. I'm more just astounded that no-one brings this up (ie. AFL 360, On the Couch, Coaches, Players, Rule Committee). It makes it seem that the rules committee is perfectly happy with how the rule is written and adjudicated, despite cries of outrage 99% of the time one of these free kicks is paid.

If the AFL stopped meddling then hundreds of people would be out of work. Cant have that.

Its a good rule adjudicated well 95% of the time. The umpires just need to work on the 5%.

 

[captain cotch 9]

Has anyone been injured due to sliding in since Rohan?
Stupid rules.
As a junior your told to be first to the ball. This rule changes that

 

[CrowInFiji]

Its a blight on the game

 

[madmug]

The rule is probably fine. Like a lot of things, its about the interpretation & application.

Sliding in is dangerous. Being down low to pick the ball up is a necessity. Falling over someone is your own fault.

So it really should about who causes the contact.

The slider to the ball or the player coming in & falling over the other player who was their first. The thing is that the 'slider' cannot be sliding past where the ball was & go on towards the upright player, or slide into someones legs. Thats what is dangerous.

Someone coming in second & falling over a lower player, is their own fault.

Is that fair enough?

 

[Sparkle]

The original idea of this rule had some merit. The Gary Rohan leg break, for example, happened while he was standing and Lindsay Thomas went in legs first and thats how it happened.
So the rule should have been that if a player slides into a contest, where they have no way to control what damage they can cause, and contact someone below the knees, its a free kick.


Thats how the rule should be. You are penalising the players being reckless.

The problem is we now have players, clearly second to the contest, going in legs first to milk a free kick like we saw in the WB v Sydney match.


It also happened to Dangerfield v Collingwood, and Chris Scott said the AFL told them it shouldn't have been a free kick on 360.

So the AFL is sending out mixed messages because they are saying one thing and the officials are paying another.

Agree with this 100%, and I was thinking the same thing on Friday night when Dangerfield kept having free kicks paid against him. The rule was brought in to stop players flying in at 100km/h and taking out someones legs (a la Lindsay Thomas and Gary Rohan) but is consistently being interpreted wrong (Dangerfield vs everyone, Lloyd vs Richards).

Has the AFL ever performed a mid-season rule change? If it's allowed, I think the sliding rule will be cleared up (second to the ball, no free kick; only dangerous contact results in a free kick) and runners will be allowed on the field (except for the final two minutes of any quarter) by the bye weeks

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

When the 'sliding' rule was brought in the interpretation was something along the lines of "high impact below the knees likely to cause injury". This is fair enough.

Now it seems to be any contact of any impact. 2 players running almost parallel are not going to endanger each other if one makes contact below the knees. Head to head the impact us going to be far greater.

Over umpired rule and typical of the kind of 'bracket creep' that comes with these knee jerk rule changes.

Watch the same happen with the Toby Green rule. The difference between using your foot to get purchase on a player in a marking contest and what TB did was obvious. It looked wrong. Now watch any contact with the sole of the boot get outlawed. I've seen one free already in a ruck contest and I don't think any contact was made. The leg was just at a funny angle.

The intent of the outstretched leg by Toby was never " to get purchase on the opposition player".

It was to prevent an opposition player entering his space when in position to mark the ball. Toby has unusual co-ordination and used it to block players from all directions. Most players cant do that. It "looks bad" because many people dont like Toby and read nefarious intent.

Jack Riewoldt was penalised in JLT1 for using his boots to ride a players back, Jack is the antithesis of a dirty player, but that has always been pretty common and an accepted part of the game. Players are given a fair bit of margin when attempting to mark the ball.

It is still legal to use the knees in the same situation and arguably less safe. The only advantage of the outstretched leg is greater reach.

 

[Obeanie1]

The other area that is out of sinc is playwr diving across a players legs ro smother a kick. Ainsworth from the Suns just copped a six week knee injury from having his legs taken out whilst kicking. His knee was twisted and buckled due to a player attempting to smother a kick.

This happens much more than a sliding tackle but the AFL lets rhis dangerous act continue.

Whats the difference?

 

[TedDougChris]

The other area that is out of sinc is playwr diving across a players legs ro smother a kick. Ainsworth from the Suns just copped a six week knee injury from having his legs taken out whilst kicking. His knee was twisted and buckled due to a player attempting to smother a kick.

This happens much more than a sliding tackle but the AFL lets rhis dangerous act continue.

Whats the difference?

Just came in to say this. This was the only ‘dangerous’ contact below the knees that I saw on the weekend - and it wasn’t paid.

 

[Stopher]

The other area that is out of sinc is playwr diving across a players legs ro smother a kick. Ainsworth from the Suns just copped a six week knee injury from having his legs taken out whilst kicking. His knee was twisted and buckled due to a player attempting to smother a kick.

This happens much more than a sliding tackle but the AFL lets rhis dangerous act continue.

Whats the difference?

Correct. Let's not forget Nathan Brown's horrific injury came from a smother.

 

[And_ROOS]

Has anyone been injured due to sliding in since Rohan?
Stupid rules.
As a junior your told to be first to the ball. This rule changes that

If I remember correctly when they brought this rule in there were two injuries used as the justification, Gary Rohan and someone I believe in the WAFL or SANFL. Want to say it was a ruck or tall forward, someone slid in, front contact, broken leg.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

There was a Freo player (I think Tucker?) who already had his hand on the ball v North (he was stationery as well btw, didn't slide in, simply dropped down to collect the ball)

And a North Player then came in to the pack and instead of going for the ball, just tripped over the freo players hand and got a free kick for a trip/contact below the knees. It was closer to kicking in danger than a trip and it was nowhere near the North player trying to kick the ball or gain possesion anyway.

I'd rather the rule be more used when a player slides in to clear out a contest when a player either already has made a move to pick up the ball or has possession (smothers don't have to be used to take an opponents leg out - just block the kick) - you don't have to slide in recklessly ala association football - and even then you have to get the ball first and there's no damage done via a trailing leg etc.

 

[captain cotch 9]

If I remember correctly when they brought this rule in there were two injuries used as the justification, Gary Rohan and someone I believe in the WAFL or SANFL. Want to say it was a ruck or tall forward, someone slid in, front contact, broken leg.

True. I think it was an ex eagles player in the WAFL.

 

[D-N-R]

The intent of the outstretched leg by Toby was never " to get purchase on the opposition player".

It was to prevent an opposition player entering his space when in position to mark the ball. Toby has unusual co-ordination and used it to block players from all directions. Most players cant do that. It "looks bad" because many people dont like Toby and read nefarious intent.

Jack Riewoldt was penalised in JLT1 for using his boots to ride a players back, Jack is the antithesis of a dirty player, but that has always been pretty common and an accepted part of the game. Players are given a fair bit of margin when attempting to mark the ball.

It is still legal to use the knees in the same situation and arguably less safe. The only advantage of the outstretched leg is greater reach.

I know his intent was never to gain purchase. That's what I wrote. Players in the past have used the boot to ride a player to gain height over that player. IMO that's fine and is part if speccy marks.
TB and some others [Waite from Carlton I Think] use it to block opponents. It's that part they should have outlawed and it's easy enough to spot. Now they'll kill a whole raft of spectacular high marks.

 

[Cold Sober]

There can be NO contact below the knees at all. That is what happens when you rule out diving on the football. So how the 'hell' do you get the football out if you cannot dive on it, and there is no contract below the knees? Logically you soccer it into space or tap it on. This is why the game of Aussie Rules is now inherently flawed. May as well be soccer.

 

[CakeEater]

True. I think it was an ex eagles player in the WAFL.

Jaymie Graham.
and no I wont upload the footage.

On a par with Brown's one.

 

[juss]

I wonder if we could change the wording to say you can't slide legs first and take out someones knees.
Or could we do similar to marking where if it's an unrealistic or dangerous attempt it's a free, but if you attack the footy and win possession it's fine.
That way if you are legitimately attacking the football as your main priority, there is no free kick, as should be the case. The only thing that gets paid against is a legs first slide or a charge to take out the knees with no eyes or hands on the footy.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I wonder if we could change the wording to say you can't slide legs first and take out someones knees.
Or could we do similar to marking where if it's an unrealistic or dangerous attempt it's a free, but if you attack the footy and win possession it's fine.
That way if you are legitimately attacking the football as your main priority, there is no free kick, as should be the case. The only thing that gets paid against is a legs first slide or a charge to take out the knees with no eyes or hands on the footy.

Too logical for the AFL but makes 100% sense. There are already limited instances of players (or need to) sliding in legs first other than a toe poke/soccer off the ground - and even then there's a little rule called 'kicking in danger' that seems to have gone out the window since the sliding rule farce

 

[juss]

Too logical for the AFL but makes 100% sense. There are already limited instances of players (or need to) sliding in legs first other than a toe poke/soccer off the ground - and even then there's a little rule called 'kicking in danger' that seems to have gone out the window since the sliding rule farce

Who would win the free if a bloke slid in and I kicked him but he took my knees out? Answer that one AFL.