Slide rule decision on Lenny

[bigcarl]

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?

[matrix]

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

[remboy]

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.

[Cairnsman]

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]

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!

[CURLY]

Umps made six bad mistakes or should I say ump all against us. Game changing mustakes.

[Moods]

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.

[CURLY]

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.

[Life Long Saint]

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.

[Moods]

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.

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.

[plugger66]

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.

[chook23]

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.

where in the rule is there mention that it has to forceful contact

[matrix]

i thought it was the correct decision....according to the rule

i just dont like the rule

[plugger66]

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.

where in the rule is there mention that it has to forceful contact

No idea actually. just hear KB saying it every day. Anyway it was still wrong because he wasnt tripped.

[chook23]

Why mention forceful then?

[plugger66]

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).

[chook23]

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

[matrix]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-02-04/ ... s-for-2013

its up first on that vid

[plugger66]

i thought it was the correct decision....according to the rule

i just dont like the rule

Surely it wasnt forceful though?

[joffaboy]

i thought it was the correct decision....according to the rule

i just dont like the rule

Surely it wasnt forceful though?

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.

[matrix]

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

[older saint]

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.

[chook23]

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

[matrix]

errr
chook

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-02-04/ ... s-for-2013

clearly says forceful

[plugger66]

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.