The umpires are making up their own rules

[lordbob]

This is directly from the Laws of Australian Football pdf on the AFL website and I'm a little surprised it hasn't been picked up earlier.
http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Images/2016 Laws of Australian Football.pdf
Officially there is no rule against making contact above the shoulders or below the knees. Only contact that is "likely to cause an injury" should have a free kick paid against it. (page 49, 15.4.4 a)

Laws of Australian Football 2016 49
48 Laws of Australian Football 2016
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player
if the Player:
(a)
makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part
of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to
cause injury;
(i)
above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or
(ii)
below the knees.

All year the umpires have paid free kicks for any contact even the slightest of brushes on the shoulder as high contact or high tackle. There is no definition of a high tackle free kick outside of this definition in that it would be likely to cause injury.

According to the oxford english dictionary
likely
adjective
1Such as well might happen or be true; probable.

An example of contact unlikely to cause injury is when a player raises his arms forcing the tacklers arm or hand to slowly go above his shoulder. We've seen this paid as a free kick multiple times this year with how many injuries resulting from it? enough to suggest that the action is likely to cause an injury? nope

Other examples are where the force of high contact was below that required to likely cause an injury which are paid throughout the year under a made up "high contact" rule.

This means that the umpires all year have been enforcing a law that doesn't exist and that they have just made up themselves.

(disclaimer: if there is another section which mentions that any high contact results in a free kick then ignore everything above)

 

[Mootsy]

There's already a thread.

You're a Hawks supporter, your team has been exploiting rules brilliantly since 2008..

Even Sydney fans have gotten over it by now..

Jesus..

* throws paper cups in the air, stationary and pencils and walks out*..

 

[Mootsy]

For the record I think you're correct.

It should have been a free..

 

[lordbob]

huh? im not talking about the gf, im talking about the whole year and the application of a rule that isn't in the rule book. Nothing to do with the teams in the GF, was there even a contentious high tackle in the gf?

 

[Taylor]

The severity of the injury isn't detailed, a slight soreness to a decapitation.

 

[lordbob]

The severity of the injury isn't detailed, a slight soreness to a decapitation.

but even slight touching which would not cause any soreness at all is paid as a free kick

 

[D-N-R]

All year the umpires have paid free kicks for any contact even the slightest of brushes on the shoulder as high contact or high tackle. There is no definition of a high tackle free kick outside of this definition in that it would be likely to cause injury.

15.4.1 Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a) For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a tackle correctly if:
(i) the Player being held is in possession of the football; and
(ii) that Player is held (either by the body or playing uniform) below the shoulders and above and including the knees.

A free kick for high contact in a tackle has been a rule since Noah played.

The one you refer to is when players are not being tackled but rather being bumped, etc. If a player has the ball and an opponent puts his hand on his shoulder, then this is an illegal tackle, regardless of any potential injury.

High contact in a marking contest when the player is going for the ball (like jumping on an opponent's shoulders) is permitted. As are knees to the head in the same circumstances.

A hand on the shoulder off the ball (more than 5m) will probably be regarded as a hold, therefore, illegal.

Ruck contests can often have contact above the shoulders as long as the contact is created by the player receiving the high contact. Swinging elbows or hands on shoulders to stop players jumping will be called. (There are separate rules for these).

Situations when players are having a bit of banter and touching opponents on the face (not gouging) or patting them on the head aren't paid as free kicks. Jumper punches are a different story if the umps see them and they are forceful.

WRT to the so called "sliding rule". It is paid for contact below the knee 'likely to cause injury'. So it is more of a 'forceful contact below the knees' rule. A lot of people call it the "sliding rule" (especially commentators), but this leads people to believe that a player must slide into a contest to give away a free kick.

It's not a perfect rule and as we saw on the weekend it probably isn't adjudicated so well. It has reduced the numbers of players throwing their bodies low-down into contests, though.

 

[lordbob]

But the rules do not say that a free kick should be paid for an incorrect tackle. It doesnt say in the rules that an incorrect tackle should be penalised by a free kick. So technically you can only not get someone holding the ball when you tackle them incorrectly but you can't be pinged for an incorrect tackle.

 

[D-N-R]

But the rules do not say that a free kick should be paid for an incorrect tackle. It doesnt say in the rules that an incorrect tackle should be penalised by a free kick. So technically you can only not get someone holding the ball when you tackle them incorrectly but you can't be pinged for an incorrect tackle.

15.1.2 Awarding Free Kicks
In addition to any other circumstances described elsewhere in these Laws, a Free Kick shall be awarded to or against a Player, as the case may be, when a field Umpire considers that any of the circumstances set out in this Law 15 occur, irrespective of whether the football is in play. Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, a Free Kick shall be taken where it is awarded or where the football is at the time, whichever is the
greater penalty against the offending Team.

If you actually bothered to read the rules you might get an understanding of them. Do you really think that for all these years nobody had noticed that a fundamental part of the rule was missing and you just happened to stumble across it?

 

[lordbob]

I have read the rules and thats why i started this thread. If you read them again you will see that the only part of law 15 that relates to high contact is the part i pasted above ie that contact above the shoulder must be likely to cause injury. Paste the part where it says a free kick should be paid for high contact regardless of whether it is likely to cause an injury or not.

Do i think that it s been misinterpreted all these years? I hope not, which is why I'm hoping someone can point me to the part where it says any head high contact should result in a free kick regardless of it is likely or not to cause injury.

 

[legend166]

Honestly, I wish they actually only paid it when likely to cause an injury. Free kicks for putting your hands on someone's shoulder has never made any sense.

 

[D-N-R]

I have read the rules and thats why i started this thread.

You haven't read them well enough or you don't understand them.

Law 15 is titled Free Kicks. That should give you a clue.

Law 15 covers Free Kicks for all types of things, from prohibited contact in marking, tackling, bumping, shaking the goal post, out of bounds.

The part I linked is at the beginning of the explanation (15.1.2) and states quite clearly that a free kick shall be paid if anything described in Law 15 occurs. Law 15 then goes on to describe all those things, including tackling (15.4.1) and prohibited contact (15.4.5).

If you read them again you will see that the only part of law 15 that relates to high contact is the part i pasted above ie that contact above the shoulder must be likely to cause injury. Paste the part where it says a free kick should be paid for high contact regardless of whether it is likely to cause an injury or not.

I did, in the part when a player is being tackled. 15.4.1 - Correct Tackle. It does not state there that an incorrect tackle must likely cause injury. It simply states that a correct tackle must take place above the knees and below the shoulders. Therefore, an incorrect tackle is a tackle where the player makes contact above the shoulder. Any contact. Most of those brushes across the shoulder and the like happen when a player is attempting to tackle another player with the ball.

Do i think that it s been misinterpreted all these years? I hope not, which is why I'm hoping someone can point me to the part where it says any head high contact should result in a free kick regardless of it is likely or not to cause injury.

The part of the Law you are referring to is when the player receiving the contact is either being bumped in possession of the ball or doesn't have possession of the football. There is no rule that says that all contact above the shoulders is a free kick, well done. But it is a free kick, regardless of potential injury, if it is in a tackle which is what you seem to be confused with.

Most bumps to the head are forceful, therefore fall into the category you are describing. There is also another section with a diagram showing illegal bumps to the head with a protected area where force makes no difference.

Grabbing a player's head or neck, putting your hand in their face would all fit in the category of 'potential to cause injury'. Grabbing the shoulder of a player without the ball would be an illegal hold, regardless of force. Ruffling someone's hair or patting them on the head would not, which is why you never see umpires pay frees for this contact.

15.4.5 ... (j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head;

As you may have noticed, players punch each other in the arms, chests etc. without punishment. It's only when they get them in the solar plexus, and causes injury, that you see free kicks paid. This is consistent with the rule you describe.

Punches to the head are almost always called frees because of the potential for them to cause injury. Leaning on a player's head with your elbow has the potential to cause injury. Putting your hands and fingers in the face of an opponent has the potential to cause injury. Forcefully pushing / punching a player in the chest, less so.

I hope this clears it up.

 

[lordbob]

You are confused. The laws do not state that an incorrect tackle should be awarded a free kick but rather any contact resulting from a correct tackle is permitted (15.4.3.c) and that for a player to be caught holding the ball a correct tackle must be performed.

The confusion comes because they define a tackle, but it does not say that an incorrect tackle should be rewarded a free kick.

The entire point of 15.4.1 in defining a correct tackle is so that during further references in the rules to free kicks resulting from a correct tackle, it is defined to avoid any misinterpretation of what a correct tackle is. To read into it as more than a definition is seeing what isnt there.

"that a free kick shall be paid if anything described in Law 15 occurs"

FREE KICK – PERMITTED AND PROHIBITED PHYSICAL CONTACT
15.4.1
Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled
(a)
For the purposes of these Laws, a Player executes a Correct Tackle
or a Player is Correctly Tackled if:
(i)
the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(ii)
that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above
the knees.
(b)
For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by
holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the
front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is
not pushed in the back.

This describes a correct tackle, it then goes on to describe permitted contact
15.4.3
Permitted Contact
Other than the Prohibited Contact identified under Law 15.4.5, a Player
may make contact with another Player:
(a)
by using their hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided
that the football is no more than 5 metres away from the Player;

(c)
by executing a Correct Tackle;

As you can see there is no where to cover the high and low contact other than that which is likely to cause an injury. A player may use his hip should, chest, arms or open hands on an opposition player in a tackle if it is not likely to cause an injury. However, in adjudication as to whether it is holding the ball or not, the tackle must be a correct tackle.

So the way it seems to have been written is that: contact above the shoulders that is not likely to cause injury should be play on but holding the ball cannot be paid. That there is no likelyhood of causing injury means that there is no case to penalise that tackler.

I have no issue with bumps to the head. They are clearly described. My question is to do with contact to the head by a tackler (not a bumper) where the contact above the head is not likely to cause injury. Nor is there any question around striking. This is all about tackling (where no bump and no strike has occurred)

 

[D-N-R]

You are confused. The laws do not state that an incorrect tackle should be awarded a free kick...

15.1.2 Awarding Free Kicks
In addition to any other circumstances described elsewhere in these Laws, a Free Kick shall be awarded to or against a Player, as the case may be, when a field Umpire considers that any of the circumstances set out in this Law 15 occur, irrespective of whether the football is in play. Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, a Free Kick shall be taken where it is awarded or where the football is at the time, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team.

I can't make it clearer than that. He makes permitted contact if he executes a correct tackle. A Correct Tackle is defined in 15.4.1.

15.4.5 refers to contact that is NOT covered by rule 15.4.1 (i.e. all things that are not tackles). It does not provide a definition of rule 15.4.1.

You will notice that Correct Tackle is in capitals. At the beginning of the Laws it is written as one of the Definitions and Interpretations.

Correct Tackle or Correctly Tackled: the conduct permitted under Law 15.4.1.

The punishment for not applying a Correct Tackle is spelt out in 15.1.2 NOT 15.4.5.

15.4.5 describes the situations that define Prohibited Contact and it does not mention Tackles, therefore it does not refer to Tackles.

Send an email to the AFL and ask them to clarify it. I can't be bothered trying to get you to understand the document.

 

[lordbob]

You can't see it. 15.4.5 outlines all aspects of free kicks paid for incorrect tackles.

tripping
push in the back
high contact (if likely to cause injury)
low contact (if likely to cause injury)

A definition of a correct tackle does not mean a incorrect tackle is a free kick. This is a LEGAL document. Legal documents specify exactly what they mean. If they meant that an incorrect tackle should result in a free kick then it would specify directly that eg Committing an incorrect tackle will result in a free kick. They do not say this in the entire document. Ergo, it is not a free kick to perform an incorrect tackle. It is only a free kick where the rules say "a free kick shall be paid if: "

"circumstances set out in this Law 15 occur" : An incorrect tackle is not set out in law 15. Only a correct tackle is defined. It is defined to clarify that any contact made during a correct tackle is legal contact.

You are essentially reading between the lines: if i like the numbers 1, 3 and 4, your logic would then conclude that i dislike the number 2. I may however be only impartial to the number 2 or or even more than like the number 2. A legal document states what it means. reading between the lines is to see what is not intended.

 

[D-N-R]

You can't see it. 15.4.5 outlines all aspects of free kicks paid for incorrect tackles.

tripping
push in the back
high contact (if likely to cause injury)
low contact (if likely to cause injury)

A definition of a correct tackle does not mean a incorrect tackle is a free kick. This is a LEGAL document. Legal documents specify exactly what they mean. If they meant that an incorrect tackle should result in a free kick then it would specify directly that eg Committing an incorrect tackle will result in a free kick. They do not say this in the entire document. Ergo, it is not a free kick to perform an incorrect tackle. It is only a free kick where the rules say "a free kick shall be paid if: "

Those examples you cite could relate to contact with a player who does not have possession of the ball. A trip when a player has the ball is an incorrect tackle. A push in the back is specifically mentioned in Correct Tackle. High Contact and Low contact are specifically mentioned in Correct Tackle.

If you think that for the last 100 years or more umpires have been incorrectly paying free kicks for high tackles and nobody but you has noticed, then you need to step away from the bong. Seriously.

 

[lordbob]

Those examples you cite could relate to contact with a player who does not have possession of the ball. A trip when a player has the ball is an incorrect tackle. A push in the back is specifically mentioned in Correct Tackle. High Contact and Low contact are specifically mentioned in Correct Tackle.

If you think that for the last 100 years or more umpires have been incorrectly paying free kicks for high tackles and nobody but you has noticed, then you need to step away from the bong. Seriously.

what? no where does it say that those only apply to making contact with a player without the ball

15.4.5
Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.

There is no mention of if the player has the ball or doesnt have the ball.

 

[D-N-R]

what? no where does it say that those only apply to making contact with a player without the ball

15.4.5
Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they
are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.

There is no mention of if the player has the ball or doesnt have the ball.

From one of your posts, and this is where your confusion is;

As you can see there is no where to cover the high and low contact other than that which is likely to cause an injury. A player may use his hip should, chest, arms or open hands on an opposition player in a tackle if it is not likely to cause an injury. However, in adjudication as to whether it is holding the ball or not, the tackle must be a correct tackle.

This part of the document you are quoting does not refer to tackling, but contact made to a player in the form of a bump, block or such like. When was the last time you saw someone use their hip to tackle someone? Tackling is defined in the Law on Correct Tackle as holding a player by their body or uniform. You cannot hold someone with your hip or your chest or an open hand. These are bumps and pushes and blocks.

15.4.2 Shepherd
A Shepherd is using the body or arm to push, bump or block:
(a) a Player who does not have possession of the football and who is no further than 5 metres away from the football at the time when the push, bump or block occurs; and
(b) where such contact is otherwise not Prohibited Contact under Law 15.4.5.

You will notice that this Law makes a direct reference to the Prohibited Contact Law. But the Correct Tackle doesn't. Why is this? Because the Correct Tackle Law stands alone. It is clearly defined and anything that happens contrary to this definition is an Incorrect Tackle and a free kick against, as noted in the early part of the Law.

I understand what your point is, but I think you are misreading the document and conflating two issues which are not related.

 

[lordbob]

The correct tackle DEFENITION is used to clarify what that term means when used in future parts of the document. In no place does it say that an incorrect tackle results in a free kick.