Its is an official AFL position

[joffaboy]

According to Adrian Anderson just on SEN that taking out an unsuspecting player more than 5 metres off the ball is OK.

There is no such thing as the 5 metre rule according to Anderson when an unsuspecting player is sniped. It only has to do with if there is a free kick involved or not.

There is high contact and high contact. Apparently now it is OK to hit a player in the head ig there is no injury.

Even though Clarke was carried off on a stretcher, the Saints were down to 17 men for three minutes, the bench was down to 3 for twenty minutes, and Anderson admitted that Clarke was hit high and more than 5 metres off the ball, because he wasn't knocked out, apparently it is OK.

So th question has to be asked

1) why didn't umpire pay a free kick, but instead pat West on the arse as if to say good hit?

2) Why is high contact now legal?

3) When did the 5 metre rule suddenly go out of the rule book?

So there you have it. If Lyon doesn't tell his players to go out and snipe players off the ball because there is no 5 metre rule he is derilict in his duty.

Anderson you incompetent halfwit. The blood will be on your hands when somebody is seriously injured because of your ineptness.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

andersen should know by now just to shut his mouth on anything regarding the state of the game...he truly has no idea

[my les foote]

It must be a different Adrian Anderson to the one quoted in "The Australian"

In March last year the general manager of football operations at the AFL, Adrian Anderson, introduced new guidelines after Justin Koschitzke suffered a fractured skull when he was bumped by the Bulldogs' Daniel Giansiracusa the previous season.

Anderson said: "It's still fine to execute a legitimate hip and shoulder bump, that is here to stay as part of the game. But if a player suffers an injury to the head or neck from a bump and you had other options then you will be held responsible."

[Mr Magic]

Well he needs to tell his chairman of the Rules Committee because KB said this morning teh West hit on X was a disgrace for a number of reasons, including THE BALL WAS MORE THAN 5 METRES AWAY.

[joffaboy]

Well he needs to tell his chairman of the Rules Committee because KB said this morning teh West hit on X was a disgrace for a number of reasons, including THE BALL WAS MORE THAN 5 METRES AWAY.

Anderson said that KB was entitled to his opinion but went on to say (for about the tenth time ) that the MRP were highly respected ex footballer blah blah blah....each case on its merits blah blah blah, X Clarke wasn't even injured blah blah blah...spin.....spin....spin.

The guy is a deadset tosspot.

Didn't you read MM, apparently and suddenly 5 metres means nothing?

Doesn't exist, each on its merit, highly respected members of....blah blah farkety blah.

[Behind Play]

Anderson wouldn't know what the AFL is about. I honestly hope he is hauled over the coals for the remarks he spruked off tonight.
I hope KB has a go.

[Grimfang]

May as well delete that "Laws of the Game 2008" file I downloaded. Apparently, whilst they are the laws it seems they are conveniently ignored if it suits the powers that be and, therefore, pointless.

[Enrico_Misso]

I just think that the conventional interpretation of the rules only applies to 15 clubs.

For us it is a different set of rules.

It must be.

How else do explain Baker and now Clarke ?

Why doesn't our club stand up for itself and complain ?
Where is Ross Lyon ?
Where is Archie Fraser ?
Where is Westaway ?

Too busy sucking up to Demetrio I suspect

[meher baba]

Well he needs to tell his chairman of the Rules Committee because KB said this morning teh West hit on X was a disgrace for a number of reasons, including THE BALL WAS MORE THAN 5 METRES AWAY.

Anderson said that KB was entitled to his opinion but went on to say (for about the tenth time ) that the MRP were highly respected ex footballer blah blah blah....each case on its merits blah blah blah, X Clarke wasn't even injured blah blah blah...spin.....spin....spin.

The guy is a deadset tosspot.

Didn't you read MM, apparently and suddenly 5 metres means nothing?

Doesn't exist, each on its merit, highly respected members of....blah blah farkety blah.

We have had our differences lately, JB, but I am 100% with you on this one.

The AFL has got to get out of the business of trying to defend why they don't take action to protect players against unexpected violence. They did it last week after an incident in the Port-Brisbane game where a player had his head driven into the ground while his arms were pinned and they have done it again now.

Far better simply to say something like "the MRP examined the hit and determined it was legal within the rules, so we are in the process of reviewing the rules". All the likes of Anderson is doing with his dumb explanation is digging himself further and further into a hole.

There is no defence for a situation in which an unsuspecting player who is not participating in play can just about have head taken off by an opponent. If the West-Clarke incident is deemed not to be against the rules (and, from my reading of the rules, it was in breach), then the rules need to be changed.

Apart from a head clash, any contact to the head of another player which results from a deliberate contact with any part of the arm or shoulder - regardless of whether or not they were aiming at the head, had their feet on the ground, used their forearm or elbow or whatever - should be illegal and result in a suspension. It's dangerous and could kill someone or cripple them for life.

I think the AFL have opened up an enormous can of worms for themselves here. If I were in charge of the Sainters, this is the moment in which I would be getting my solicitor to put in for an injunction on Baker's suspension.

[bigred]

Anderson is a complete muppet.

nuff said.

I think the AFL have opened up an enormous can of worms for themselves here. If I were in charge of the Sainters, this is the moment in which I would be getting my solicitor to put in for an injunction on Baker's suspension.

Six months too late.

Should have happened last year.

[Mr Magic]

Anybody heear KB and Patrick Smith this morning.
I don't believe I have ever heard KB go 'off' at Anderson like he did this morning.
Hopefully this will not just die a natural death and something will be done about it.

Can you imagine if a similar incident occurs in a game this weekend and the player is charged? And then uses the 'West Precedent' as his defense.

All hell will break loose.

[bozza1980]

Can you imagine if a similar incident occurs in a game this weekend and the player is charged? And then uses the 'West Precedent' as his defense.

Anderson was quick to quash this last night, "all cases need to be judged on their own merits".

It was a complete waste of space interview with him last night, full of legal speak and double dutch.

My view and the view of many, is that if the law states that you can't be bumped outside of 5m from the ball, it is reasonable, if you are standing 20m away, that you will not receive heavy contact.

Not so according to Mr Anderson, who stated that Clarke should not only have expected contact but been more prepared for it.

[meher baba]

Anderson was quick to quash this last night, "all cases need to be judged on their own merits".

Surely that won't wash. I doubt that we've heard the end of this by a long chalk.

[yipper]

Anderson was quick to quash this last night, "all cases need to be judged on their own merits".

Surely that won't wash. I doubt that we've heard the end of this by a long chalk.

I hope you're right.

[Dis Believer]

Can you imagine if a similar incident occurs in a game this weekend and the player is charged? And then uses the 'West Precedent' as his defense.

Anderson was quick to quash this last night, "all cases need to be judged on their own merits".

It was a complete waste of space interview with him last night, full of legal speak and double dutch.

My view and the view of many, is that if the law states that you can't be bumped outside of 5m from the ball, it is reasonable, if you are standing 20m away, that you will not receive heavy contact.

Not so according to Mr Anderson, who stated that Clarke should not only have expected contact but been more prepared for it.

Lot of truths expressed on this. Someone rang SEN and the first statement the guy made was "Anderson is a lawyer isn't he?"

Summed up a lot for me. We allowed our system to be run by a lawyer, so we got what we deserved. They spend lots of time and others money arguing semantics and looking for loopholes. Anderson's reference to the WRITTEN rule of 5 metres as being " a guide" is indicative of a man who read law. Never mind what the rule says, I will spin an interpretation or wrangle a loophole.

When he was confronted with the fact that by choosing to use the black and white statement of 5 metres as only "a guide" they were reducing the process to arbritrary decisions, he denied it, somewhat unusually, by spinning on about how "the panel of esteemed former footballers, using their best judgement" ???

Excuse me, but if someone is ignoring a written, clearly defined rule such as "5 metres" (note it is not Approximately 5 metres, but rather a categorical 5 metres), and using their best judgement (an opinion), then surely that is an arbitrary decision???

I normally don't have a lot of time for Ox, but he was superb. Did what so many in the media refuse to do and called a spade a spade. Told Anderson directly that he was spin doctoring and that the AFL were making it up as they go along and ignoring their own written rules.

[Grimfang]

I could have sworn that the AFL document that states how a game of football is to be played was called "Laws of the Game 2008". Not "Helpful Suggestions" or "It's a Rough Idea but Please Feel Free to Completely Toss the Suggestion Aside if it Doesn't Suit Your Current Agenda, 2008."

[Dan Warna]

our coaches in the past have been told to stfu (whispers in the sky) anything lyon says will be used against the club

our players have been told hip and shoulders are not on (baker)

our players have been told stopping and propping is not on (baker)

our players have been told 'attempted punching' is not on (milne)

our players have been told retaliation is not on (gehrig)

our players have been told all of teh above can be applied to our players.

[tweedaletomanning]

It's sad that each individual club is run democratically, yet the governing body (the AFL) is a complete dictatorship...Wouldn't it be great if we could vote on who runs the AFL...We need more accountability if the game is going to thrive..

[plugger66]

It's sad that each individual club is run democratically, yet the governing body (the AFL) is a complete dictatorship...Wouldn't it be great if we could vote on who runs the AFL...We need more accountability if the game is going to thrive..

We do. All clubs vote in commissioners and then they appoint the CEO so every club as its say or are you saying the public should vote. If that happened every CEO that has ever been in charge would have been voted out because they have to make decissions that are not necessary popular but in the long term vital for the game.

[Enrico_Misso]

It's sad that each individual club is run democratically, yet the governing body (the AFL) is a complete dictatorship...Wouldn't it be great if we could vote on who runs the AFL...We need more accountability if the game is going to thrive..

I'm still laughing at your username.

Doubt if they ever passed to each other !


Don't agree that our club is run democratically.

Do you feel that the StKFC represented your views when they supported (on YOUR behalf) to expand the teams to 18 ?
Do you recall them stating that in their election platform ?
Did they canvass your views ?
Did they debate it ?

It was an autocratic decision from a board too scared to take on the AFL for fear of retribution.

[Grimfang]

LAWS of the Game 2008

Part B: General and Definitions
1. Definitions and Interpretation
Unless the context requires otherwise, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
Charge or Charging: the conduct described in Law 15.4.4.

15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(a) A Charge means an act of colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football.

(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
(i) who is not within 5 metres of the football;
(ii) who, although within 5 metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact;
(iii) who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick;
(iv) after that Player has disposed of the football;
(v) who is Shepherding another Player on his or her Team; or
(vi) before the football is brought into play.


It is defined as Prohibited Contact under:-
15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:

(g) charges an opposition Player;


It is then defined as a reportable offence under:-
19.2.2 Specific Offences
Any of the following types of conduct is a Reportable Offence:

(g) intentionally, recklessly or negligently:

(v) Charging another person;


The Laws of the Game rather clearly state that the 5 metre rule applies to both the free kick and the report.

[The Sainter]

Anderson is the biggest idiot the AFL has ever had. He was the one who got Hall off his one week's suspension for hitting Goose allowing him to play in the grand final. Look at all the stupid new rules he has brought into the league over the past few years. Because of this fool, clubs this year are playing return matches against sides they have already played, before playing the other 15 teams once. What other top sporting competitions in the world do this?
He seems to have no clue when anyone asks him a question about rulings. how did he get the job??? Was his name pulled out of a hat? Perhaps Mick Malthouse might have recommended him. The only thing Mick never moans about each year is the draw Collingwood gets and we know who oversees that. Yes that's right Dopey Anderson. Get rid of him, he has stuffed up the competition.

[saintspremiers]

Anderson is totally incompetent, why Demetriou hasn't moved him on by now is anyone's guess.

Surely they could find someone decent to do such an important job, or perhaps Demetriou wants a lacky under him if he can only work with yes men.

[bozza1980]

LAWS of the Game 2008

Part B: General and Definitions

15.4.4 Charge or Charging
(b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player:
(i) who is not within 5 metres of the football;

The Laws of the Game rather clearly state that the 5 metre rule applies to both the free kick and the report.

Measly little things like facts don't mean anything when you are dealing with the AFL.

Anderson's argument in relation to this was that the the contact was neither unreasonable or unnecessary, thereby the 5m didn't matter.

My point is, that if you can't make contact with a player more than 5m from the ball how can it ever be reasonable or necessary to make heavy contact 20m off the ball??

[Dan Warna]

apparently you don't need to make contact to get reported as a st kilda player so the whole 'unreasonable contact' thing is a furphy