Lack of Logic behind the Contact Below the Knees Rule

[Obeanie1]

Well it was quite interesting listening to AFL 360 Robo and Gerard and comparing their veiw / spin on the sliding rule versus On the Couch and Gerard Healy and Brown.

Robo and Gerard thought the Cripps decision was poor and not why the rule was brought in. Basically accused Cripps of cheating to get a free kick. Even said that call is a problem if the AFL ratified it. Well they did, AFL has come out and said it was the correct call.

Interestingly the On the Couch experts agreed with the AFL and not with their counterparts.Healy then showed some shocking vision of Jamie Graham playing in the WAFL where he kept his feet and a player dived in low for the ball front on, you could see his knee hyper extend and dislocate totally. His lower leg was hanging / flopping around from the break.

Now Cripps in the Pies game came in front on, kept his feet as the rule stipulates and at the last second twisted so he fell backwards over the player who had decided to dive low on the ball.

I ask Robo and Gerard on AFL360 what should have Cripps done to make them happy? Pull out and not contest? Go in front on and risk a serious knee injury? What?

The AFL and the rules are clear, keep your feet. Do not dive on the ball and take out a players legs.

Dangerfield and his tweet is living in the past. Coaches today drill into their players.....DONT LOSE YOUR FEET. STAY ON YOUR FEET. If you lose your footing and fall over you are out of the game.

But Dangerfield is saying that going in low is what we were taught as kids. Well Patrick the game has changed and the AFL isnt U12's.

It would be interesting to hear from Dangerfield should he have his legs taken out and suffers an injury like Jamie Graham's. I would suggest he would hold a different view.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-04...-life-eagles-assistant-graham-on-sliding-rule

 

[Back One Out]

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!

The rule was not brought in solely to stop players soccer slide tackling with feet and knees

That's just what the IDIOTS in the media said.

The rule was brought in to encourage all players to keep their feet and to prevent injuries occurring from ALL forms of dangerous contact to the legs

Here's a textbook example of what the AFL were trying to eliminate from our great game:

 

[Back One Out]

I'm sick of idiots in the media and idiot football fans whining about the "legs" rule

It's a good rule. It's here to stay. Deal with it.

The problem is with some umpires making the occasional mistake and incorrectly penalising some players who do not initiate the forceful contact. When an umpire stuffs up and pays an incorrect HTB decision, we don't get hysterical and say the HTB rule must go. We say the umpire needs to get it right. Well, the same should apply to the 'legs' rule. GET IT RIGHT!

Umpires need to wake up to themselves and stop being SUCKED IN and CONNED by the smart-arses who milk free kicks

Players try to milk free kicks in all situations - umps need to be better at ignoring them

 

[sprockets]

The one paid against McIntosh(?) v Port was wrong as well. He didn't slide in, was clearly attacking the ball, but most importantly contact was at the hip, not below the knees. The way the Port player fell forward may have affected the umpire's judgement but how a player falls isn't what the free kick is paid for. One thing he didn't see was contact below the knees, he just saw a player falling awkwardly. Unfortunately I can't access a video to put it up.

Not that I'm whining, umpiring ebbs and flows and umpires are only supposedly human.

 

[Johnny Karate]

It’s far too technical a rule. It reminds me of my frustration watching/playing basketball when you can have two virtually identical situations where one will be called as an offensive charging foul and the other a defensive block foul.

No we don’t want people’s legs taken out from under them, but even soccer allows you to do it if you get the ball first.

 

[sprockets]

It’s far too technical a rule. It reminds me of my frustration watching/playing basketball when you can have two virtually identical situations where one will be called as an offensive charging foul and the other a defensive block foul.

No we don’t want people’s legs taken out from under them, but even soccer allows you to do it if you get the ball first.

Most of the rules are far too technical and open to interpretation. They need to get rid of some or most.

 

[Do the Dew]

The one paid against McIntosh(?) v Port was wrong as well. He didn't slide in, was clearly attacking the ball, but most importantly contact was at the hip, not below the knees. The way the Port player fell forward may have affected the umpire's judgement but how a player falls isn't what the free kick is paid for. One thing he didn't see was contact below the knees, he just saw a player falling awkwardly. Unfortunately I can't access a video to put it up.

Not that I'm whining, umpiring ebbs and flows and umpires are only supposedly human.

I saw that one, was hip on hip


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Do the Dew]

I'm sick of idiots in the media and idiot football fans whining about the "legs" rule

It's a good rule. It's here to stay. Deal with it.

The problem is with some umpires making the occasional mistake and incorrectly penalising some players who do not initiate the forceful contact. When an umpire stuffs up and pays an incorrect HTB decision, we don't get hysterical and say the HTB rule must go. We say the umpire needs to get it right. Well, the same should apply to the 'legs' rule. GET IT RIGHT!

Umpires need to wake up to themselves and stop being SUCKED IN and CONNED by the smart-arses who milk free kicks

Players try to milk free kicks in all situations - umps need to be better at ignoring them

Your comparison to the HTB rule is wrong, it's a fundamental rule of footy with clear intentions. The forceful contact legs rule was brought in as a knee-jerk reaction and rewards players for being 2nd to the ball and putting themselves in danger. I agree that umps get conned into players milking them, however the AFL then ratifies those decisions as correct. That is where the disconnect exists and where the rule needs to be changed to not penalize the bloke going low and getting down to the ball first


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Back One Out]

Your comparison to the HTB rule is wrong, it's a fundamental rule of footy with clear intentions. The forceful contact legs rule was brought in as a knee-jerk reaction and rewards players for being 2nd to the ball and putting themselves in danger. I agree that umps get conned into players milking them, however the AFL then ratifies those decisions as correct. That is where the disconnect exists and where the rule needs to be changed to not penalize the bloke going low and getting down to the ball first

No, I disagree the forceful contact legs rule was brought in as a knee-jerk reaction. It had been a long time coming. Idiots in the media decided it was a knee jerk reaction to Lindsay Thomas sliuding in and breaking Gary Rohan's leg, but there had been many instances of players receiving knee injuries from players crashing into opponent's legs.

I also disagree that the rule rewards players for being 2nd to the ball and putting themselves in danger. As stated quite clearly in my previous post, it is dumbass umpires who incorrectly apply the rule and reward players for being second to the ball and milking a cheap free kick.

Free kicks are a penalty. Not a reward.
Go to ground (in pursuit of the ball) and crash into an opponent's legs and you probably will be penalised.
Stay on your feet when going into the contest and you will be protected by the rules.

 

[TW Sherrin]

1 bloke gets hurt in 150 years and the afl knee jerk a crap rule to create more confusion.