Moved Thread The Slide Rule - The Kommer Incident

[BC9_]

Sliding in can probably protect the player more, however stupid it sounds.

If two players both run at the ball, keeping their feet, they'll have to both put their head down, they will be at the same level and there's a greater chance of a head clash in such a situation.

 

[Visions]

Rule is a sham. Umpires have no idea what to do with it.

Barlow kept his feet in the third quarter, and Hibberd slid into him and instead of a free paid to him, Barlow had it paid against him for too high. Then copped a 50 for advising the umpire how he rightfully fcuked up.

 

[astrowizzle]

In wet weather football (dry also) that rule and that interpretation was an utter crock of S!@t

 

[iDon]

I know i posted this in the match day thread. But my housemate is an NRL fan and very little understanding of the rules of footy. In regards with the Kommer incident, his comment was:

"Why was that a free kick? Can't you go for the ball?"

Summed up perfectly. Scratching my head at the stupidity of the AFL and the rules committee in regards to this.

Years and years of people sliding in and very little incidents, knee jerk reaction and fans are going to berate the umpires further more.

I'd hate to be an umpire at the best of times but this season would be hell.

 

[Mercurial89]

A lot of the freo guys got done by it too. Really Really bad rule

 

[jko'neal]

Or for Aussie rules for the last 120 years

Guys diving courageously for the ball yes, guys sliding for no reason 10m from the ball has crept in to the game in the last few years IMO.

 

[Furn2]

I agree, I disagree with the rule. But sliding like that is for Soccer and Rugby.

Have to be in your feet to play the ball in Rugby that's never been a rule in footy.

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

As simple as this. You go to ground, you place yourself at the mercy of the umpires.

It wasn't all that long ago that players didn't slide for the ball. In fact the best players were those whose balance & poise enabled them to keep their feet when others were going to ground.

That's just nonsense- imagine a ball in dispute, two blokes running up to it, stopping, and standing around awkwardly waiting for one or the other to bend over and pick it up so the other can tackle him. That is what causes rolling mauls in rugby, which are simply not a particularly attractive part of the game.

When you are trying to win the ball, there are times when keeping your feet is more efficient, there are times when the only way to beat the other bloke to it is to cast caution aside and get there quicker.

Remember that time Wayne Harmes saw a ball dribbling towards the boundary line, the clock ticking, the Grand Final in the balance and he...wisely remembered the 'keep your feet mantra' and rather than risk a free kick for sliding, stood by, and watched the ball go out of bounds?

 

[joop]

Guys diving courageously for the ball yes, guys sliding for no reason 10m from the ball has crept in to the game in the last few years IMO.

Yeh and besides the Sydney guy that got injured what effect has it had?

 

[Tas]

That's not a rule, and it's never been a rule. Feet first sliding should have been stopped, but not getting in first and going to get the ball. This rule is garbage.

Didn't say it is a rule, but every coach will tell you to keep your feet.

 

[BC9_]

In wet weather football (dry also) that rule and that interpretation was an utter crock of S!@t

There's a greater tendency to slide in wet and slippery conditions too... so that's where the game will lose most.

 

[purrrrrrrrrrfect]

my take (not that its worth much)...
It should only be payed when a player slides front on into the legs of the opposition.. not when its side on like Kommer tonight

 

[BlueBen]

It's a terrible rule that erodes at a fundamental tenet of our game, that of being first to the ball. The rule rewards the second player to the ball while punishing the first.

A total overreaction to the freak Rohan-Thomas incident - had that never happened, you can be sure the rule would never have been brought in.

 

[Tas]

As simple as this. You go to ground, you place yourself at the mercy of the umpires.

It wasn't all that long ago that players didn't slide for the ball. In fact the best players were those whose balance & poise enabled them to keep their feet when others were going to ground.

They asked Scott what he thought of the change and he said he didn't care because he keeps telling the players to keep their feet, you go to ground the odds are stacked against you that you will lose the contest for the ball.

 

[neroblack]

Didn't say it is a rule, but every coach will tell you to keep your feet.

Generally only in one on one situations though. If there are teammates around, someone has to get the hard ball and get it out to the others. Coaches will say "keep your feet" only when you'll be disadvantaged by going to ground.

 

[footscore]

Hawthorn and Fremantle have made it an art-form.

 

[BigLefty]

i think (HOPE!!!) this was just a poor decision.

that should not be penalised.

 

[dockshark]

Confusing rule is confusing.

 

[Alfonz]

It is a terrible rule, but I think the Kommer one is one of the few which actually fits the decription of what the rule is supposed to be about (sliding).

Funny that the only incident where a player went in and could have caused a serious injury (when Spurr had his leg/knee wrenched around), resulted in a free kick to the person causing the possible injury.

 

[BC9_]

my take (not that its worth much)...
It should only be payed when a player slides front on into the legs of the opposition.. not when its side on like Kommer tonight

This.

Front on suggests that the player is already standing by the ball, and the slider has come in late and has also slid past the ball and into the player. A free paid in such an incident can be understandable... I think.

 

[Tas]

Generally only in one on one situations though. If there are teammates around, someone has to get the hard ball and get it out to the others. Coaches will say "keep your feet" only when you'll be disadvantaged by going to ground.

You can get the hard ball without sliding.

It is just a difficult rule when it is wet because it is hard to keep your feet.

The problem with the modern game is the speed the game is played at and generally the weight of the players, midfielders nowadays are bigger than the key forwards of ye olden days. Velocity and Mass vs Bone and Ligament = it is bad news if you are first to the ball and standing and some beefcake cannons into your legs because he was too slow to get to the contest standing.

I don't like the rule, but I know they want to stop players doing knees and breaking their legs, they can be career killers.

 

[Sea fog]

What is ruining the game is the fifty metre rule and the terrible skill level because there are too many teams in the competition. Week after week there are too many players who can't convert simple shots for goals or hit targets regardless of the conditions. Freo was a disgrace after half time. Then again they are competing with a team which may have an artificial advantage over them. They sure looked bulked up.

 

[Pie eyed]

Was an absolute joke, if that's essentially how the rule is to be applied, we have lost such a great part of our game. Kommer's desperation was great, looked to be first to the ball.

Agree.
Rule conceived and written by *s and interpreted by their mentally deficient minions.

Drop the lot on North Korea.

 

[krisholio14]

Don't blame the rules, blame the majority of football supporters and the media for continually causing the rules to be changed.

This is what happens when you think you can control every single minutiae of the game, and think that somehow by micro managing and fiddling with every facet you can stop players getting injured and/or make the game a better spectacle.

How can the boys be just allowed to play when every single incident is analysed within an inch of its life nowadays?

 

[nicshata]

Stop giving the umpires more rules to * up