Rule 17.12e states "a free kick shall be awarded against a player who makes unreasonable or unnecessary contact with an injured opposition player".

[HairyO]

So if a player has knee strapping an opposition player could remove or dislodge it?

What about pinching the sore spot?

Its a good rule and was enforced properly. How pathetic a game would it be if taggers constantly targetted players with injuries?

Baker got 8 weeks didnt he?

 

[Wojcinski]

So if a player has knee strapping an opposition player could remove or dislodge it?

What about pinching the sore spot?

Its a good rule and was enforced properly. How pathetic a game would it be if taggers constantly targetted players with injuries?

Baker got 8 weeks didnt he?

Baker got 8 weeks for punching an injured player as he left the field for treatment for a broken hand. Baker punched his hand several times as he left the field, very different.

There was an anecdote about Lin Jong strapping his 'good' shoulder after returning from a collarbone injury, full well knowing players would target the strapped side. If you suit up and run out there for a game everything is fair game. If an opposition player intentionally causes injury then they would be punished accordingly.

 

[Thedeftouch]

Just strap your whole body and immunize yourself from contact

Assume that this will never happen (which it won’t). Is there any other argument?

 

[pie35]

For mine any "UNREASONABLE OR UNNECESSARY" contact to any player should be penalised. If the ball is up the other end of the field and a player is whacking his opponent (injured or not), he should be penalised.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It’s hard to believe we are talking about the sport of Aussie Rules, how the supporter demographic has changed. Is there anyone other than mums and little kids who watch it now..........

 

[thewiz0033]

Are all the people criticizing the umpire here the same people who were critical of the umpire for not paying a free kick against Ben Stratton the week before he was suspended for pinching.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

For mine any "UNREASONABLE OR UNNECESSARY" contact to any player should be penalised. If the ball is up the other end of the field and a player is whacking his opponent (injured or not), he should be penalised.

This.

The fact that Kennedy was going at a potentially injured part of an opponent just made something he already shouldn't be doing worse.

A player has an injured arm you want to "test out"? Bring him to ground in a tackle when competing for the ball. Or like when Heath Shaw brought Cameron to ground in the marking contest. A player has an injured shoulder, tackle them to the ground when they've got the ball, collect them with a bump to the shoulder while competing for the ball. Don't go around hitting them in the shoulder when the ball is out of play, or 50m away. Thats not tough footy, thats just being a pathetic sniper.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

I think that the umpire was quite correct in this instance. I am of the opinion that Kennedy was deliberately targeting Cameron's arm off the ball and was not attempting those tactics on any other part of his body.

I know this is late and pretty well past the discussion but after Whitfield fell awkwardly and was hobbled by a bad back, there is plenty of footage of Robertson punching and elbowing him in the back (at one point when he was with a physio). Not a peep from the umpires. They let him get away with it.

Consistency - that’s all I’ve ever wanted and it’s what we don’t get.

 

[jackenny]

No problem with this. One of the more common things I've seen in footy is a thumb / finger being strapped up and opposition giving that hand a good squeeze when the umpire's not looking. Seen opposition go as far as stomping on a strapped hand, too. It's a good rule, and I don't have a problem with the umpire enforcing it. Complaining about it being enforced is only defending snipers and very dirty tactics.

 

[Tiger2709]

The rule is very clear.

If players are returning from ACL injuries, you wouldn't want opposition players pushing and shaking their knees away from the contest.

If your knee is going to be affected by that then you should be out there, just stopping and turning would be a lot more strain than any player wobbling your knee.

I do however agree with you in principle.

 

[RedV3x]

It always amazes me how little people know about the laws of the game especially commentators and players.
This probably because the AFL has never approached the laws to cover every eventuality.

In the injured player scenario, the umpire was right for the wrong reason.
If the ball is not within 5 metres then a player cannot infringe upon anther player.
It's as simple as that - no matter what ex-player commentators say. It's simply not in the laws.
The umpires make a rod for their own back by being selective in their decisions about niggling.
If the ball is not within 5 metres then pay a penalty.
I haven't read the law book in decades because the spirit of the game is more important than the current poor wording.
If there is a law about an injured player then it should be more than just a free kick.
If an injured player is leaving the field, normally he'd be more than 5 metres away from the ball and deserving of a free kick.
If an injured player is leaving the field, normally he'd have his back to the ball and deserving of more than just a free kick.
If a player returns to the field then he cannot be considered injured. We've had replacement players for over a century.
That's what replacement players are for - to replace injured players. The culpability rests firmly with the club.
It's up to the AFL to instruct the clubs to instruct the coaches to get everything cleared by the medical staff as a duty-of-care.

That is just one of many laws that needs rationalization by compete and comprehensive re-wording..