Sliding rule

[sunsaint]

can someone post a link to the crows v ess game
13:20 3rd
free kick to Davey against Reilly
text book

[Viking3]

Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?

Yes, that's an interesting point. It could actually mean more high speed collisions and head clash concussions. I think it's one of those rules we'll need to see in action over a period before its full ramifications become obvious.

jeesh, the rule does not stop players going in head over the ball, it stops players sliding in to take out the opposition...

Where was Reilly trying to take out Davey????
The rule should be as you stated, to prevent players taking out others, but that is not how it is being officiated.

[bigcarl]

jeesh, the rule does not stop players going in head over the ball,

Players will be instructed to keep their feet at all costs so head clashes while they bend over to get the ball are a possibility.

Like I said, let's see it in action for a while before drawing conclusions.

If it looks like being a problem in some way, no doubt the interpretation will change fairly rapidly. The league are experts at policy on the run.

[bigcarl]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/is-wes ... 6605780149

Robbo's take

HAS the AFL's new sliding rule claimed its first broken limb?

West Coast's Mark LeCras will miss up to six weeks after breaking his arm in a collision with Docker Tendai Mzungu, a collision that saw LeCras stop in his pursuit of the ball and Mzungu crash into him.

Both players kept their feet, which was exactly what the rule was designed to do - avoid forceful contact below the knees.

Only LeCras can tell us if he decided to not dive for the ball for fear of giving away a free kick.

Certainly, if he did dive for the ball there would've been contact below Mzungu's knees, whose commitment to the contest was absolute.

Footage of the incident shows both players electing to keep their feet in a contest that saw Mzungu arrive first, by a fraction.

[plugger66]

Maybe the longest bow ever.

[gringo]

I thought it seemed already to be poorly officiated and given very little common sense application. They seem to have a lot of trouble with the rules they have already why would you load them up with more messily worded rules.

If I was a coach I would be telling them to try to get contact to the legs EVERY TIME someone puts their head over the ball. It's a very easily exploited rule and it will substantially increase head high contact. Joel Selwood will break his own neck for a cheap free- this will be exploited in just the same way and will cause a serious injury and then be scrapped.

[Life Long Saint]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/is-wes ... 6605780149

Robbo's take

HAS the AFL's new sliding rule claimed its first broken limb?

West Coast's Mark LeCras will miss up to six weeks after breaking his arm in a collision with Docker Tendai Mzungu, a collision that saw LeCras stop in his pursuit of the ball and Mzungu crash into him.

Both players kept their feet, which was exactly what the rule was designed to do - avoid forceful contact below the knees.

Only LeCras can tell us if he decided to not dive for the ball for fear of giving away a free kick.

Certainly, if he did dive for the ball there would've been contact below Mzungu's knees, whose commitment to the contest was absolute.

Footage of the incident shows both players electing to keep their feet in a contest that saw Mzungu arrive first, by a fraction.

Mzungu did exactly what every player should do when attacking the ball.
Stay on your feet and turn your body to protect your head when you pick up the ball.
It is a shame that LeCras received a broken arm and footy will be poorer for his absence for a few weeks.
But it's better than him receiving concussion and risking a spinal injury and Mzungu being rubbed out for high contact when he attacked the ball.

[Moods]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/is-wes ... 6605780149

Robbo's take

HAS the AFL's new sliding rule claimed its first broken limb?

West Coast's Mark LeCras will miss up to six weeks after breaking his arm in a collision with Docker Tendai Mzungu, a collision that saw LeCras stop in his pursuit of the ball and Mzungu crash into him.

Both players kept their feet, which was exactly what the rule was designed to do - avoid forceful contact below the knees.

Only LeCras can tell us if he decided to not dive for the ball for fear of giving away a free kick.

Certainly, if he did dive for the ball there would've been contact below Mzungu's knees, whose commitment to the contest was absolute.

Footage of the incident shows both players electing to keep their feet in a contest that saw Mzungu arrive first, by a fraction.

Mzungu did exactly what every player should do when attacking the ball.
Stay on your feet and turn your body to protect your head when you pick up the ball.
It is a shame that LeCras received a broken arm and footy will be poorer for his absence for a few weeks.
But it's better than him receiving concussion and risking a spinal injury and Mzungu being rubbed out for high contact when he attacked the ball.

Correct. Mzungu gave every youngster watching a lesson in how to attack the ball. Le Cras is a great player, but the old adage, 'If you go in xhard you won't get hurt' whilst often a furphy, proves correct in this instance. Le Cras was caught in two minds....and paid for it.

[sunsaint]

Where was Reilly trying to take out Davey????
The rule should be as you stated, to prevent players taking out others, but that is not how it is being officiated.

have you seen it??? again I will point you to the umpire decision in that case
text book

[sunsaint]

I thought it seemed already to be poorly officiated and given very little common sense application. They seem to have a lot of trouble with the rules they have already why would you load them up with more messily worded rules.

If I was a coach I would be telling them to try to get contact to the legs EVERY TIME someone puts their head over the ball. It's a very easily exploited rule and it will substantially increase head high contact. Joel Selwood will break his own neck for a cheap free- this will be exploited in just the same way and will cause a serious injury and then be scrapped.

Im glad you mentioned selwood.
I have no doubt you would have been one of the people that screamed everytime he dived in, got contact above the shoulders and was awarded a free kick.

and if you truly believe the umpires officiate poorly now, then why would you be worried about any changes,
you already believe the standard will not change.

[Viking3]

Where was Reilly trying to take out Davey????
The rule should be as you stated, to prevent players taking out others, but that is not how it is being officiated.

have you seen it??? again I will point you to the umpire decision in that case
text book

Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.

[plugger66]

Where was Reilly trying to take out Davey????
The rule should be as you stated, to prevent players taking out others, but that is not how it is being officiated.

have you seen it??? again I will point you to the umpire decision in that case
text book

Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.

Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.

And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.

[Cairnsman]

I thought the slide rule went out years ago?

[Viking3]

Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.[/quote]


Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.

And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.[/quote]

I was kinda of hoping you wouldn't be sticking your 'I know everything about everything' bib in, but obviously you couldn't help yourself plugger66.
Just starting some family time with the kids so I'll come back to you later.
Cheers.

[Viking3]

Where was Reilly trying to take out Davey????
The rule should be as you stated, to prevent players taking out others, but that is not how it is being officiated.

have you seen it??? again I will point you to the umpire decision in that case
text book

Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.

Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.

And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.[/quote]

Damn, family time was ruined. Couldn't find the 'Step Brothers' DVD everyone wanted to watch. Will need to buy another copy. May have to sell the house so the kids were wanting to get themselves back up to speed on open for inspection etiquette Brennan & Dale style.

Ok, back to you plugger66,
- I have no idea how you know that Davey "did no such thing". I gather that is just an assumption on your behalf (although I thought you only ever used facts)!! As per my last post, Davey was positioned nicely to take advantage of the new rule (and its interpretation) by pulling up prior to the contact. Not much different to ducking your head as someone tries to tackle.
- I have a serious answer. I think I may have been following the game a little longer than you.
- Your "players 10 years ago..." is irrelevant. The game, especially the speed of it, has changed immensely in those said 10 years and which has seen contests for the ball alter greatly.
- There is a marked difference between a player throwing himself on the ball to one sliding in from 5+ metres away causing a 10 pin bowling effect.
- I think your knowledge of the rules may be a little rusty. If it is as you state then a player would also be penalised if he takes a sliding mark and contacts someone along the way. I don't believe that this is the case.
- Lastly, I'm not going to sit here typing in all the rule changes that the AFL has brought in, stuffing around with our game. I'm sure you have talked with the average bloke in the street like we all have. They all have the same gripes but the AFL doesn't give a fat rats tossbag! By the way you aren't one of the average blokes, your different.

Cheers mate.

[plugger66]

have you seen it??? again I will point you to the umpire decision in that case
text book

Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.

Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.

And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.

Damn, family time was ruined. Couldn't find the 'Step Brothers' DVD everyone wanted to watch. Will need to buy another copy. May have to sell the house so the kids were wanting to get themselves back up to speed on open for inspection etiquette Brennan & Dale style.

Ok, back to you plugger66,
- I have no idea how you know that Davey "did no such thing". I gather that is just an assumption on your behalf (although I thought you only ever used facts)!! As per my last post, Davey was positioned nicely to take advantage of the new rule (and its interpretation) by pulling up prior to the contact. Not much different to ducking your head as someone tries to tackle.
- I have a serious answer. I think I may have been following the game a little longer than you.
- Your "players 10 years ago..." is irrelevant. The game, especially the speed of it, has changed immensely in those said 10 years and which has seen contests for the ball alter greatly.
- There is a marked difference between a player throwing himself on the ball to one sliding in from 5+ metres away causing a 10 pin bowling effect.
- I think your knowledge of the rules may be a little rusty. If it is as you state then a player would also be penalised if he takes a sliding mark and contacts someone along the way. I don't believe that this is the case.
- Lastly, I'm not going to sit here typing in all the rule changes that the AFL has brought in, stuffing around with our game. I'm sure you have talked with the average bloke in the street like we all have. They all have the same gripes but the AFL doesn't give a fat rats tossbag! By the way you aren't one of the average blokes, your different.

Cheers mate.[/quote]


Not a great response but you have obviously eaten to much. I do have an opinion as well as dealing in facts or I wouldnt have started a thread on the side for this week. IMO Davey didnt squib going for the ball. The last player who did that, Josh Hunt, copped it in the media for a week. No mention re Davey. No idea how long you have followed the game but maybe it is that long you are suffering memory loss. Got no idea what the speed of the game has to do with standing on your feet or not sliding in to the get the ball. Again I have no idea what you are on about with a sliding mark. A mark is different to just trying to get the ball other wise a player going for a mark and gets a player in the head when flying high would be penalised. They arent. Surely you knew that. And finally I dont stop guys in the street to ask about rule changes but I do hear the radio on SEN everyday and many complain about the rules but when asked to come up with ones that have wrecked the game they are as quiet as you,. Im the same as all my mates and pretty much everyone at our local footy club so if im different im very happy.


Cheers mate.

[sunsaint]

I thought the slide rule went out years ago?

really
humour?
that will never help

[Viking3]

Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.

And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.[/quote]

Damn, family time was ruined. Couldn't find the 'Step Brothers' DVD everyone wanted to watch. Will need to buy another copy. May have to sell the house so the kids were wanting to get themselves back up to speed on open for inspection etiquette Brennan & Dale style.

Ok, back to you plugger66,
- I have no idea how you know that Davey "did no such thing". I gather that is just an assumption on your behalf (although I thought you only ever used facts)!! As per my last post, Davey was positioned nicely to take advantage of the new rule (and its interpretation) by pulling up prior to the contact. Not much different to ducking your head as someone tries to tackle.
- I have a serious answer. I think I may have been following the game a little longer than you.
- Your "players 10 years ago..." is irrelevant. The game, especially the speed of it, has changed immensely in those said 10 years and which has seen contests for the ball alter greatly.
- There is a marked difference between a player throwing himself on the ball to one sliding in from 5+ metres away causing a 10 pin bowling effect.
- I think your knowledge of the rules may be a little rusty. If it is as you state then a player would also be penalised if he takes a sliding mark and contacts someone along the way. I don't believe that this is the case.
- Lastly, I'm not going to sit here typing in all the rule changes that the AFL has brought in, stuffing around with our game. I'm sure you have talked with the average bloke in the street like we all have. They all have the same gripes but the AFL doesn't give a fat rats tossbag! By the way you aren't one of the average blokes, your different.

Cheers mate.[/quote]


Not a great response but you have obviously eaten to much. I do have an opinion as well as dealing in facts or I wouldnt have started a thread on the side for this week. IMO Davey didnt squib going for the ball. The last player who did that, Josh Hunt, copped it in the media for a week. No mention re Davey. No idea how long you have followed the game but maybe it is that long you are suffering memory loss. Got no idea what the speed of the game has to do with standing on your feet or not sliding in to the get the ball. Again I have no idea what you are on about with a sliding mark. A mark is different to just trying to get the ball other wise a player going for a mark and gets a player in the head when flying high would be penalised. They arent. Surely you knew that. And finally I dont stop guys in the street to ask about rule changes but I do hear the radio on SEN everyday and many complain about the rules but when asked to come up with ones that have wrecked the game they are as quiet as you,. Im the same as all my mates and pretty much everyone at our local footy club so if im different im very happy.


Cheers mate.[/quote]

Not a great response to my response!
No idea about any of your ideas!!
You have used your usual ploy again:
- make bold statements in one post then pass them off as opinion the next or even alter the statements intent altogether.
- make out you don't understand people's responses and thus they must be wrong.
- and finally, waffle on like an old windbag so we all lose interest.
ZZZZzzzzzzzz

[Devilhead]

What the decision if you gather the ball on the half volley in the committed act of diving to take a mark and you so happen to take out an opposition player legs coming the other way??

[bigcarl]

What the decision if you gather the ball on the half volley in the committed act of diving to take a mark and you so happen to take out an opposition player legs coming the other way??

You are in trouble, I think, but ask the man in white.

[Devilhead]

What the decision if you gather the ball on the half volley in the committed act of diving to take a mark and you so happen to take out an opposition player legs coming the other way??

You are in trouble, I think, but ask the man in white.

And I would have to say which one??

As no doubt the interpretation from umpire to umpire is likely to be different - much like the interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds rule from umpire to umpire

[bigcarl]

What the decision if you gather the ball on the half volley in the committed act of diving to take a mark and you so happen to take out an opposition player legs coming the other way??

You are in trouble, I think, but ask the man in white.

And I would have to say which one??

As no doubt the interpretation from umpire to umpire is likely to be different - much like the interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds rule from umpire to umpire

i meant the resident one who seems to be able to untangle the myriad of rules thrown at us by the AFL.

[plugger66]

What the decision if you gather the ball on the half volley in the committed act of diving to take a mark and you so happen to take out an opposition player legs coming the other way??

You are in trouble, I think, but ask the man in white.

And I would have to say which one??

As no doubt the interpretation from umpire to umpire is likely to be different - much like the interpretation of the deliberate out of bounds rule from umpire to umpire

No free. Going for a mark just as no free when going for a high matk and you knee someone in the head. No free when smothering as well.

[plugger66]

Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.

And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.

Damn, family time was ruined. Couldn't find the 'Step Brothers' DVD everyone wanted to watch. Will need to buy another copy. May have to sell the house so the kids were wanting to get themselves back up to speed on open for inspection etiquette Brennan & Dale style.

Ok, back to you plugger66,
- I have no idea how you know that Davey "did no such thing". I gather that is just an assumption on your behalf (although I thought you only ever used facts)!! As per my last post, Davey was positioned nicely to take advantage of the new rule (and its interpretation) by pulling up prior to the contact. Not much different to ducking your head as someone tries to tackle.
- I have a serious answer. I think I may have been following the game a little longer than you.
- Your "players 10 years ago..." is irrelevant. The game, especially the speed of it, has changed immensely in those said 10 years and which has seen contests for the ball alter greatly.
- There is a marked difference between a player throwing himself on the ball to one sliding in from 5+ metres away causing a 10 pin bowling effect.
- I think your knowledge of the rules may be a little rusty. If it is as you state then a player would also be penalised if he takes a sliding mark and contacts someone along the way. I don't believe that this is the case.
- Lastly, I'm not going to sit here typing in all the rule changes that the AFL has brought in, stuffing around with our game. I'm sure you have talked with the average bloke in the street like we all have. They all have the same gripes but the AFL doesn't give a fat rats tossbag! By the way you aren't one of the average blokes, your different.

Cheers mate.[/quote]


Not a great response but you have obviously eaten to much. I do have an opinion as well as dealing in facts or I wouldnt have started a thread on the side for this week. IMO Davey didnt squib going for the ball. The last player who did that, Josh Hunt, copped it in the media for a week. No mention re Davey. No idea how long you have followed the game but maybe it is that long you are suffering memory loss. Got no idea what the speed of the game has to do with standing on your feet or not sliding in to the get the ball. Again I have no idea what you are on about with a sliding mark. A mark is different to just trying to get the ball other wise a player going for a mark and gets a player in the head when flying high would be penalised. They arent. Surely you knew that. And finally I dont stop guys in the street to ask about rule changes but I do hear the radio on SEN everyday and many complain about the rules but when asked to come up with ones that have wrecked the game they are as quiet as you,. Im the same as all my mates and pretty much everyone at our local footy club so if im different im very happy.


Cheers mate.[/quote]

Not a great response to my response!
No idea about any of your ideas!!
You have used your usual ploy again:
- make bold statements in one post then pass them off as opinion the next or even alter the statements intent altogether.
- make out you don't understand people's responses and thus they must be wrong.
- and finally, waffle on like an old windbag so we all lose interest.
ZZZZzzzzzzzz[/quote]


Terrible response. Well I will add you to the list of people who cant debate a simple topic. And to think I thought you may have had some idea. Disappointing.

[Viking3]

Definition of debate
noun-
a formal discussion on a particular matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward:

You don't debate plugger. You tell people they are wrong because you are all knowing.

I could construct pages on this topic but posters don't like seeing responses clogging up the various topics.

Also disappointed.