The intent - sliding feet 1st.

Not good.

Sliding feet first isn't an indictable offence in this game. Thank god. Now the double footed tackle in soccer, that's a differnet stofy.

Sliding feet first isn't an indictable offence in this game. Thank god. Now the double footed tackle in soccer, that's a differnet stofy.

It's not always double footed in Soccer , Sloonie . What Thomas did is bookable in soccer . 3 game penalty and red carded .

Hawthorn started this trend of "feet first" a few years ago . The AFL should have knocked it on the head then .

Ducking into tackles is another worrying trend . Are the AFL going to wait for a horrible accident to occur before they do something about it ? Ping 'em for holding the ball , just like they used to do .

We don't see "kicking in danger" much anymore since it became a reportable offence . Hands in the back doesn't happen as much either .

Zero tolerance can often work .

By the way , I understand yours and others point of view . It is coming across as reactionary by the League though I do think the AFL sent a DVD to the clubs on these type of tackles .

I've just watched the footage on youtube over & over,,, after seeing the vision, I, at first, couldn't see much, but then I focused better & whamo, there it was.

the charge should stick!

A baseball like slide, but Thomas, he didn't get his top foot down on the ground. It hit Rohan at just on ankle height, snapping his leg in half. Reckless...

Sliding feet first isn't an indictable offence in this game. Thank god. Now the double footed tackle in soccer, that's a differnet stofy.

The action was ordinary, as was the intent.

He went in feet first, a conscious decision.

Cowardly.

I just heard he got cleared.

Open slather now for every player to slide in and cause as much damage as they can.

well...... thomas was cleared

the issue i have is that IMO Thomas is more worried about getting the ball than he is about garry rohan, let alone deliberatly taking out his leg. He sides in and uses his body to protect the ball / win the contest. If he gets weeks, then people will have to stop throwing themselves at the contest becasue if they hurt an opponant they'll get rubbed out. We will end up with Gaelic football, but without the soccer net and with the behind posts.

If this was friendly fire, like Barlow and Palmer people would be saying how corageous they both were. Becasue they play for different teams they say how reckless thomas is.

Well , he's lucky .

My counter argument was the act not the intent .

The next bloke who gets cited will get pinged . The AFL have just fired a shot over the starboard bow .

I wish our players went in and won the ball like thomas did in that incident.

Thomas went in low trying to protect / win the ball, his eyes never deviate away from the ball.

Rohan at no stage attempts to win the ball rather set his body for a bump which unfortunately for him doesn't eventuate.

the issue i have is that IMO Thomas is more worried about getting the ball than he is about garry rohan, let alone deliberatly taking out his leg. He sides in and uses his body to protect the ball / win the contest. If he gets weeks, then people will have to stop throwing themselves at the contest becasue if they hurt an opponant they'll get rubbed out. We will end up with Gaelic football, but without the soccer net and with the behind posts.

If this was friendly fire, like Barlow and Palmer people would be saying how corageous they both were. Becasue they play for different teams they say how reckless thomas is.

the issue i have is that IMO Thomas is more worried about getting the ball than he is about garry rohan, let alone deliberatly taking out his leg. He sides in and uses his body to protect the ball / win the contest. If he gets weeks, then people will have to stop throwing themselves at the contest becasue if they hurt an opponant they'll get rubbed out. We will end up with Gaelic football, but without the soccer net and with the behind posts.

If this was friendly fire, like Barlow and Palmer people would be saying how corageous they both were. Becasue they play for different teams they say how reckless thomas is.

They've got to stop these slides, deliberate attempts to take a player down off his feet... they must umpire this out of the game. Free kick.

Well , he's lucky .

My counter argument was the act not the intent .

The next bloke who gets cited will get pinged . The AFL have just fired a shot over the starboard bow .

No, I think IF the AFL are worried they will need to bring in a clear B&W law change (along with cute DVD footage)

Without that, Thomas getting off IS the precedent

No, I think IF the AFL are worried they will need to bring in a clear B&W law change (along with cute DVD footage)

Without that, Thomas getting off IS the precedent

They've got to pay a free kick if someone slides in feet first at an opponent, or Knees first like Goodes.

Jamar is quoted on the MFC website saying:

"With the way the rules are now, you are probably better off going in head-first because your opposing player will actually probably hold off a bit not wanting to give away a free or get suspended,"

naughty naughty - will probably be fined by the AFL for stating the truth.

No, I think IF the AFL are worried they will need to bring in a clear B&W law change (along with cute DVD footage)

Without that, Thomas getting off IS the precedent

'Spose we'll just have to wait on see on that one . They'll either bring in a rule change or ping the next bloke .

Let's hope Watts or Trengove don't have their legs broken just above the ankle by a similar act .

When I played footy nobody ever came into a contest "feet first" . It would have been viewed as a less than courageous act .

Funny how the AFL's MRP wants to punish for the injury now but apparently a few years back Stephen King kicking Jeff White in the head was A.OK!!

They've got to pay a free kick if someone slides in feet first at an opponent, or Knees first like Goodes.

The difference here is that Thomas got to the ball FIRST

In cases like this the umpires usually would pay a free to Thomas for "too high" or "in the back"

Now I don't agree with this, but the point I make is that they need a rule change and it needs to be a simple clear rule

Its also a problem with players diving head first at a players legs when the ball is between the two. This inevitably draws a free to the "diver"

I don't agree with players using their head to draw a free either, it is just fostering a very dangerous practice

The difference here is that Thomas got to the ball FIRST

In cases like this the umpires usually would pay a free to Thomas for "too high" or "in the back"

Now I don't agree with this, but the point I make is that they need a rule change and it needs to be a simple clear rule

Its also a problem with players diving head first at a players legs when the ball is between the two. This inevitably draws a free to the "diver"

I don't agree with players using their head to draw a free either, it is just fostering a very dangerous practice

If you look at the incident carefully , Thomas goes in feet first , studs up and snaps Gary Rohan's leg and at the same time takes possession of the ball . I can't see intent but it's reckless . But the consequences are huge for Gary Rohan .

The reason Soccer is so hot on this type of act is because so many players suffer broken legs from these incidents . In our game many might see that as incidental contact . I don't and never will .

Having said all that , the tribunal have let him off . It is a sobering reminder though on how your career can be cut short . The broken leg just above the ankle can end a sportspersons career .

I agree with you about your take on players using their head to draw a free . Another accident waiting to happen .

I agree with you about your take on players using their head to draw a free . Another accident waiting to happen .

Would both be reported/suspended if Thomas got a bad concussion and Thomas' 'recklessness' broke an ankle?

Me I thought it was just a freak accident, it looked like his eyes were only for the ball and put one foot out to slow his momentum, it's just really unlucky his foot land on Rohan's ankle.

For me the really dangerous one is when two people and running for the ball in wet conditions, and one player chooses to slide early. This puts the other player in a really tough position, either he jumps to avoid the contact or he gets collected and could break his leg. That's not intent for the ball, that's intent to use your body as a battering ram to protect the ball.

I was shocked that the tunneling incident from the WCvHawks game wasn't cited, those are the biggest concern for me because once the player is in the air he has no control and can land very awkwardly (like Clarke).

Would both be reported/suspended if Thomas got a bad concussion and Thomas' 'recklessness' broke an ankle?

My argument centre's on going in for the ball feet first / studs up .

Interesting that not many have a problem with Goodes being outed for coming in with his knees .

If you look at the incident carefully , Thomas goes in feet first , studs up and snaps Gary Rohan's leg and at the same time takes possession of the ball . I can't see intent but it's reckless . But the consequences are huge for Gary Rohan .

The reason Soccer is so hot on this type of act is because so many players suffer broken legs from these incidents . In our game many might see that as incidental contact . I don't and never will .

Having said all that , the tribunal have let him off . It is a sobering reminder though on how your career can be cut short . The broken leg just above the ankle can end a sportspersons career .

I agree with you about your take on players using their head to draw a free . Another accident waiting to happen .

Well macca i think we both agree that there is an element of danger (to both players actually) and it is something that doesn't add to the game and that a simple rule change could be implemented.

I don't agree with the soccer comparison as soccer is a non contact sport (basically) so it is obviously illegal. Not so obvious in AFL as rules currently stand. But I take your point re the danger

As for the feet first + studs up, I don't know why the emphasis on studs up. Feet first is feet first, the studs will always be pointing horizontally and fortunately football studs these days are not what they used to be. In my playing days they still allowed aluminium stops and leather stops with nails through them....ouch

There is two possible rule changes here

1] diving feet first at (or near) opponents legs. Relatively easy to define/police. Free kick. If consequences reported

2] headfirst diving. A bit harder to define but maybe, treat similar to player ducking head and don't reward with free. Should make it less attractive. Problem though is that opponent may see head dive and not take due care so this can be difficult. Rule would need to take consideration of both players actions i.e. due care exercised by both players. I need to think more on this.

I think they're trying to ascertain negligent intent - sliding in like that is thoughtless.....he was always going to do some damage.

Rohan's break is horrific - the same sort of break that finished that Geelong player's career (his name escapes me...against big Al Nicholson???)

There are other ways to be first to the ball. Duty of care.

Every now and then one exposes themselves as having a complete lack of feeling for the game. I'll consider your future contributions accordingly.

My argument centre's on going in for the ball feet first / studs up .

I know. However the only other method I can think of that would guarantee Thomas possession of the ball would be head first. What does he do? Is that a desirable option? Would the MRP tripple double back flip and cite them both in my hypothetical?

Interesting that not many have a problem with Goodes being outed for coming in with his knees .

Goodes clearly took the cheap opportunity to double corky (and/or bonus damge) and take out the opposition. He has done this (cheap opportunity) many times.

Looking at the video again in slo-mo Thomas came in from the side so the angle between them was about 90deg at contact point.

He then swung his body around 90deg more whilst hitting the turf so his legs faced Rohan with his body shielding the ball.

It was quite an athletic move and he didn't dive feet first from front on (although the end position of his feet was the same)

He put himself in some danger and I thought his intention was just for the ball and not malicious or reckless

He also didn't have a long slide and he got to the ball first (but only by going to ground)

I also think he had other options than going in head first as he was coming in from the side and could have tried to knock the ball forward whilst protecting his head by turning his shoulder

Given the current rules the tribunal made the correct decision and the result to rohan was accidental

But I wouldn't object to a rule change

I know. However the only other method I can think of that would guarantee Thomas possession of the ball would be head first. What does he do? Is that a desirable option? Would the MRP tripple double back flip and cite them both in my hypothetical?

Or you concede that the other bloke beats you to the ball . You then tackle him .

As I saw it, just now for the first time, he seemed totally nt ent on getting the ball: the Swans "victim" got in the way of Thomas' quest for the ball, and unfortunately, as happens in a contact sport, got a nasty injury.

And, further, the Swans guy got into Thomas' back!

The MRP has shown itself for the inconsistent reactionary integrity-free group I can remember.