Slide rule decision on Lenny

[stevie]

Vowed Sat nite I wouldn't watch any more games unless we were involved. Watched none of yestys game. Have no interest at all. Will not be involved in tipping or SC, couldn't be f***ed.

Our game is ruined at the moment.

[stinger]

If you don't mind, umpire: the most contentious umpiring decisions of AFL Round 1



Herald Sun31 March 2013


Umpiring is a tough job - getting tougher every year with more rule tweaks and interpretation changes - and most of the time the men in white/green/red do a great job. Sometimes, however, we need to examine some issues closer to get a clear explanation and help everyone's understanding of the game.

Each week we'll nominate five decisions that demand a second look. Then we'll take on board your views and any nominations we've missed, and get a verdict from AFL House.

Have your say on these decisions and let us know any we missed by leaving a comment below or sending a note on Twitter or Facebook

1. LENNY'S SLIDE

Lenny Hayes on the ground. Ball in dispute within arm's reach. No number of pre-season DVD viewings will change what happens next - Hayes pounces on the pill. The only problem is the legs of an opponent - Gold Coast's Jared Brennan - were nearby and new rules mean that is a free kick against Hayes. At least it was on Saturday night on the Gold Coast.

The AFL's desire to prevent players from the sort of horrific injuries suffered by Gary Rohan and Scott Pendlebury last year is understandable, but it's hard to see how Hayes' actions would have required even a band-aid for Brennan. Perhaps the umps are just getting the feel of this new rule and need to look more at the part that demands a free only for "forceful" contact below the knees. Or maybe the whole thing is just a bad idea. It's certainly very difficult to umpire.

[saintbrat]

http://www.saints.com.au/video/2013-03- ... -free-kick



dal's response
http://www.saints.com.au/video/2013-03- ... -free-kick

[bigcarl]

http://www.saints.com.au/video/2013-03- ... -free-kick



dal's response
http://www.saints.com.au/video/2013-03- ... -free-kick

No sound on the Dal Santo response, which is a shame because I'd like to have heard it.

[saintbrat]

worked on mine
http://www.saints.com.au/video/2013-03- ... -free-kick

[Life Long Saint]

Why this rule is stupid!

Exhibit A:
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-14/sliding-or-high

Under the rule, O'Brien should have got the free but he ends up being reported.

Idiotic rule and idiotically interpreted.

[plugger66]

Why this rule is stupid!

Exhibit A:
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-14/sliding-or-high

Under the rule, O'Brien should have got the free but he ends up being reported.

Idiotic rule and idiotically interpreted.

I know you wont agree but just because he was reported doesnt matter the rule stupid. It may make the report stupid. We will find out today. I will concede if the report stands then I am confused.

[Life Long Saint]

How many times do we need to make excuses for the umpires with this rule (or vice versa)?
That alone says that the rule is poorly thought through, poorly communicated, poorly understood and poorly interpreted.

[plugger66]

How many times do we need to make excuses for the umpires with this rule (or vice versa)?
That alone says that the rule is poorly thought through, poorly communicated, poorly understood and poorly interpreted.

There are as many if not more mistakes with other rules but because this is new we notice it.

[perfectionist]

Changing the rules because of an unfortunate outcome of a single event is fraught with danger. Putting your body on the line in order to be first for the ball has been a part of the game for as long as I remember. Standing up and waiting for the someone else to pick up the ball is not something that should be encouraged. If a player goes for the ball and makes incidental contact with the legs of an opponent (very common) then it should be play on. If a player deliberately takes the legs of an opponent (very rare) then it should be a free. If an opponent makes high contact with a player who is going for the ball then it should be a free (quite common). If a player puts his head down and makes contact with the legs of an opponent then it should be play on. These rules worked well for over 100 years.

The incident with O'Brien and Hodge, showed how difficult the new law is to interpret. It should have been a free to O'Brien. Hodge dived on the ball and O'Brien did all he could to avoid high contact. In fact, I don't think he actually hit him high, but did contact his back. Hodge milked it.

[Life Long Saint]

How many times do we need to make excuses for the umpires with this rule (or vice versa)?
That alone says that the rule is poorly thought through, poorly communicated, poorly understood and poorly interpreted.

There are as many if not more mistakes with other rules but because this is new we notice it.

So rather than simplify the rules we have, we go out and introduce a new one and make them harder to interpret.
Sheer lunacy.

[plugger66]

How many times do we need to make excuses for the umpires with this rule (or vice versa)?
That alone says that the rule is poorly thought through, poorly communicated, poorly understood and poorly interpreted.

There are as many if not more mistakes with other rules but because this is new we notice it.

So rather than simplify the rules we have, we go out and introduce a new one and make them harder to interpret.
Sheer lunacy.

Well we obviously disagree. i have seen less packs and less ball ups and more players trying to stay on their feet to pick up the ball. To me the rule is working very well. Players are very good at adjusting. Dont think this rule is going anywhere.

[sunsaint]

Changing the rules because of an unfortunate outcome of a single event is fraught with danger. Putting your body on the line in order to be first for the ball has been a part of the game for as long as I remember. Standing up and waiting for the someone else to pick up the ball is not something that should be encouraged. If a player goes for the ball and makes incidental contact with the legs of an opponent (very common) then it should be play on. If a player deliberately takes the legs of an opponent (very rare) then it should be a free. If an opponent makes high contact with a player who is going for the ball then it should be a free (quite common). If a player puts his head down and makes contact with the legs of an opponent then it should be play on. These rules worked well for over 100 years.

The incident with O'Brien and Hodge, showed how difficult the new law is to interpret. It should have been a free to O'Brien. Hodge dived on the ball and O'Brien did all he could to avoid high contact. In fact, I don't think he actually hit him high, but did contact his back. Hodge milked it.

I have watched about 15 games so far this season, not once I have noticed players hesitate and not "pick up" or go for the ball
it mught be harder for some players to adjust but its pretty simple really, keep your feet
and every coach will tell you you ar eout of the contest if you are on the ground
40 years ago you could the ball out on the full