Slide rule decision on Lenny
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18579
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1904 times
- Been thanked: 841 times
Slide rule decision on Lenny
Highlighted everything bad about this rule.
RUNS counter to the instincts of the best players in the game.
GOES against the spirit of the game.
PINGS the guy going in with head over the ball and eyes only for the ball.
What did others think?
RUNS counter to the instincts of the best players in the game.
GOES against the spirit of the game.
PINGS the guy going in with head over the ball and eyes only for the ball.
What did others think?
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
shite is what i thought
barely even touched the op player who kept his feet
no reward to get the pill
wonder if we'll see more kicking off the ground if players cant bend down to get the cherry
barely even touched the op player who kept his feet
no reward to get the pill
wonder if we'll see more kicking off the ground if players cant bend down to get the cherry
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2131
- Joined: Fri 22 Jul 2005 9:27am
- Location: Rockville
- Has thanked: 567 times
- Been thanked: 178 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
I think the rule was an unnecessary knee jerk reaction to Gary Rohan getting injured. It's a shame to see players like Lenny (and he's not the only one) get penalised because they're going for the ball and just happen to get in first.
Opinions are like arseholes, everybody's got one.
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Did you see Bakes sent a twitter. He doesn't like it at all. Said something like the rule makes him not want to watch football anymore.
- Junction Oval
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2867
- Joined: Tue 30 Nov 2010 11:16am
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
The Ump clearly made a "technical" decision. Everyone else could see that Lenny 'had the ball" and was "falling" (uncontrllable movement).
Commonsense often goes out of the game with Umps. They like to "control the game" by blowing their whistle and showing who is in charge!
Commonsense often goes out of the game with Umps. They like to "control the game" by blowing their whistle and showing who is in charge!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10120
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1299 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Umps made six bad mistakes or should I say ump all against us. Game changing mustakes.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4882
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Was possibly poorly interpreted, but I still like it. Zac Smith should have been pinged when he slid straight into saad who was good enough to avoid contact. The free should be paid regardless of whether contact is made. Smith could have seriously injured Saad and was the exact reason why the rule was brought in.
Did Lenny need to dive on the ball? Why couldn't he have kept his feet? Please don't reply with 'you clearly have never played the game' or 'you clearly don't understand the game.'
I've played, coached taught and watched footy for over 40 years.
The umpys will occasionally get some of these frees wrong, as they do with all free kick interpretations. It's the reasoning behind the frees that's important. Lenny's is the only contentious one I've seen this round and I'm not 100% convinced that the umpy's got it wrong.
Did Lenny need to dive on the ball? Why couldn't he have kept his feet? Please don't reply with 'you clearly have never played the game' or 'you clearly don't understand the game.'
I've played, coached taught and watched footy for over 40 years.
The umpys will occasionally get some of these frees wrong, as they do with all free kick interpretations. It's the reasoning behind the frees that's important. Lenny's is the only contentious one I've seen this round and I'm not 100% convinced that the umpy's got it wrong.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10120
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1299 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Moods wrote:Was possibly poorly interpreted, but I still like it. Zac Smith should have been pinged when he slid straight into saad who was good enough to avoid contact. The free should be paid regardless of whether contact is made. Smith could have seriously injured Saad and was the exact reason why the rule was brought in.
Did Lenny need to dive on the ball? Why couldn't he have kept his feet? Please don't reply with 'you clearly have never played the game' or 'you clearly don't understand the game.'
I've played, coached taught and watched footy for over 40 years.
The umpys will occasionally get some of these frees wrong, as they do with all free kick interpretations. It's the reasoning behind the frees that's important. Lenny's is the only contentious one I've seen this round and I'm not 100% convinced that the umpy's got it wrong.
Lenny lost his footing while attacking the ball. He actually had possesion.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Life Long Saint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5509
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:54pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 480 times
- Contact:
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Lenny didn't dive. He fell. Big Difference.
Also, you can't ping someone for failing to make contact.
It's like reporting someone for failing to strike...Oh. Wait a minute. That's right...Bakes got pinged for that.
Also, you can't ping someone for failing to make contact.
It's like reporting someone for failing to strike...Oh. Wait a minute. That's right...Bakes got pinged for that.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4882
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 327 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
I reckon you can. You attack the ball illegally and players have to take evasive action to avoid injury as a result. Why not? I may be wrong but I thought you could be reported for attempting to strike someone. May not be called striking, but it's unduly rough play.Life Long Saint wrote:Lenny didn't dive. He fell. Big Difference.
Also, you can't ping someone for failing to make contact.
It's like reporting someone for failing to strike...Oh. Wait a minute. That's right...Bakes got pinged for that.
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
I think it was just a wrong decision. have no idea why thats makes it a bad rule. If it is a corrrect decision then they need to look at it. The reason i think it is a wrong decision is that there was no forceful contact. hardly any contact.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
where in the rule is there mention that it has to forceful contactplugger66 wrote:I think it was just a wrong decision. have no idea why thats makes it a bad rule. If it is a corrrect decision then they need to look at it. The reason i think it is a wrong decision is that there was no forceful contact. hardly any contact.
saint4life
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
chook23 wrote:where in the rule is there mention that it has to forceful contactplugger66 wrote:I think it was just a wrong decision. have no idea why thats makes it a bad rule. If it is a corrrect decision then they need to look at it. The reason i think it is a wrong decision is that there was no forceful contact. hardly any contact.
No idea actually. just hear KB saying it every day. Anyway it was still wrong because he wasnt tripped.
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
chook23 wrote:Why mention forceful then?
Because KB said that was the rule. I thought he may know seeing he is on the rules committee.
And this is also why.
free kick will now be awarded against any player under existing Law 15.4.5 a (ii) Prohibited Contact, who makes forceful contact below the knees of an opponent (this does not apply to smothers with the hands or arms).
Last edited by plugger66 on Sun 31 Mar 2013 1:24pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
I dont think he mentions forceful..........
my understanding it is PROHIBITED contact
that being below the knee is a prohibited area as per the rule
my understanding it is PROHIBITED contact
that being below the knee is a prohibited area as per the rule
saint4life
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
matrix wrote:i thought it was the correct decision....according to the rule
i just dont like the rule
Surely it wasnt forceful though?
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Open to the whims of the individual umpire. The umpire might be a gentle soul and his intrepretion is that a slight touch is forceful contact.plugger66 wrote:matrix wrote:i thought it was the correct decision....according to the rule
i just dont like the rule
Surely it wasnt forceful though?
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
actually good point plugger
but when i posted that i hadnt actually really looked at the wording of the rule
which is what led to the above screenshots
no
i dont think it was forceful
so in that regard the decision by the ump, i think now, was incorrect
barely touched him
i mean good lord if you leave some of the rules open to interpretation by the umpire its going to happen
shite rule imo
but when i posted that i hadnt actually really looked at the wording of the rule
which is what led to the above screenshots
no
i dont think it was forceful
so in that regard the decision by the ump, i think now, was incorrect
barely touched him
i mean good lord if you leave some of the rules open to interpretation by the umpire its going to happen
shite rule imo
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3353
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 516 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
It was a mistake as the ocntact was not forceful. It is a new rule and umpires are paranoid about not paying it. It is not their fault. Bartlett and his cronnies have changed the game from the one i grew up watching , and even have watched for the last 10 years. The guy getting the ball does not get looked after and the gib who stays on his feet and doesn't put body on the line gets a free. Body contact in a marking contest is now almost outlawed. While they like the free flowing nature it is a different game and not as good.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
Who made up those slides using forceful contact ...........no mention in official AFL
laws of the game book Umpire shall award
Straight from the book
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.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the player;
(a) makes contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head);or
(ii) below the knees
NO MENTION OF THE WORD FORCEFUL IN THE RULE
laws of the game book Umpire shall award
Straight from the book
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.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the player;
(a) makes contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head);or
(ii) below the knees
NO MENTION OF THE WORD FORCEFUL IN THE RULE
saint4life
Re: Slide rule decision on Lenny
chook23 wrote:Who made up those slides using forceful contact ...........no mention in official AFL
laws of the game book Umpire shall award
Straight from the book
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.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the player;
(a) makes contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player;
(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders or bump to the head);or
(ii) below the knees
NO MENTION OF THE WORD FORCEFUL IN THE RULE
Its an amendment to the rule. That is the original rule.