New below the knees rule

[sue 8,418]

I'd be interested to see people's view of this new rule. (Is it for the real season?)

This is what MR said in the Hun:

"It's early on both of those rules, but contact below the knees creates a safe environment and encourages players to stay on their feet," Gieschen said.

Clearly, the jury is out on front-on contact.

At the weekend several free kicks were paid against players whose sole intention was to attack the ball.

It's a natural instinct in players such as Joel Selwood, Steven Morris and Campbell Brown who want the ball so badly, they throw themselves at ground-ball contests.

The new rule dictates that endeavour will be considered reckless and a free kick paid against the player.

Edited February 26, 2013 by sue

[Robot Devil 1,895]

Doesn't matter what the "rule" is. The umpires will "interpret" it and it will be a shemozzle.

[DeeSpencer 23,113]

I know I saw Brandon Ellis from Richmond get pinged for it twice on the weekend. One seemed correct and one wrong. The rule itself seems practical to me. If someone is standing and about to pick up the ball it is reckless for a player to come sliding in and take their legs out. I definitely think players should attempt to keep their feet.

I expect the umps to take a while to figure out who is sliding in and who is simply bending over and first to the ball. That timing would be how id enforce it. If someone is first to the ball but slides due to the wet or to protect themselves then I don't think they are at blame, but if they slide in late then it should be a freekick.

[sue 8,418]

I agree that it is yet another rule for the umps to 'interpret'. But maybe this is a more necessary one than some of the others the 'interpret'.

I think it is wrong for players to launch their head at the feet of an opponent who may be about to pick up the ball and get a free.

It is worse than ducking for an over-the-shoulder free because there is really nothing the opponent can do to avoid it.

The previous post looks a sensible interpretation to me - certainly more sensible than the HUN article.

(I leave aside the danger that going in head-first will become compulsory to prove you are not a whimp, with the resultant dangers.)

[Chook 14,467]

It's one of those rules where even though in an ideal world no-one would do it, I still don't want to see anyone get a free kick against them for doing it; simply going for the ball should not be judiciated against.

[45HG 1,539]

International Rules has come into the AFL. Getting near to the point where players will be banned from getting the ball on the ground - less congestion etc.

Sick of talking new rules every year. Seems to take so much time away from good footy talk.

[Moonshadow 16,161]

I think I remember Silvia getting a free for forceful contact to his shins by opponent's head and shoulder. Could be wrong, i havent checked the replay. He seemed rather bemused as to whether the free was for him or paid against him for high contact.

[45HG 1,539]

I agree.

[Scipio 5,868]

Just leave it alone, the game is messed up enough as it is.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

Another rule where something will happen, the whistle is blown and everyone looks to te ump with no idea of which way the free is going.

[Gorgoroth 12,308]

If they slide like the injury to Rohan, but this rule is shite.

[Akum 2,660]

Thought I noticed a few times on the weekend a short midfielder, rather than bending to pick up the ball and then straightening up to deliver it, stayed in a crouched position and merely ran head-first at the nearest opponent, drawing the inevitable "high contact" free.<br /><br />On one occasion I think it was Dunn who tried to reach over their back and grab them around the waist in an attempt to avoid a high tackle, but still got pinged for high contact.<br /><br />I thought the original "head high tackle" rule was meant to not reward this sort of tactic. I guess the umpire's instinct is always to "protect the head" so it's a hard one to counter, except to get lower, which I thought was what they had been practising in the off-season.

[monoccular 16,042]

If it cuts out the slide to take out the legs, well and good. Too much risk of serious injury to the man tackled, and the 'culprit' may end up with a free for high contact, self induced.

Does a strict interpretation mean that going for a spoil and brushing the shin with the arms means a free? If so it will remove a manoeuvre that shows true determination and courage.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

This is one of the few rule changes I actually agree with. I would prefer them to just admit that they made a mistake with their "the head is sacrosanct at all times" rule which led to players diving headfirst at their opponents' legs and repealing it, but given that the AFL is never wrong and as such every single rule they introduce is good and right and proper and for the betterment of the game, I can accept this as a decent way to remedy the issues they created with the aforementioned rule.

Edited February 26, 2013 by RalphiusMaximus

[rpfc 27,436]

The knees rule is a good one, sliding into legs is just dangerous IMO.

Now as for the new addendum to the head over the ball rule - I am in favour of it.

Basically what we have is a few players bending over and not 'straightening up' because they know they are to be tackled as soon as they do. So they go head first into the next jumper with different colours.

It is so hard for the umpires to interpret this so they have my patience and empathy but it's a good rule.

Players have got to get out of the habit of leading with their heads - that isn't 'attack on the footy' it is a dangerous and cynical attempt to get a free and if they manage to punish 75% of the times it happens it will make a difference.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

The rule is good in theory - it's application will be rubbish.

The free kick that Sylvia got was an absolute joke. In all likelihood they will go hard on it for a few weeks then it will level out to where we hardly see any paid after media/fans crack it over some dubious ones.

Sliding in to take out the legs should be banned (similar to Hawks/Pies tactics over the last couple of years) but bending down to pick up the ball should not. It shouldn't be a free kick for too high either, just play on.

[rpfc 27,436]

The rule is good in theory - it's application will be rubbish.

The free kick that Sylvia got was an absolute joke. In all likelihood they will go hard on it for a few weeks then it will level out to where we hardly see any paid after media/fans crack it over some dubious ones.

Sliding in to take out the legs should be banned (similar to Hawks/Pies tactics over the last couple of years) but bending down to pick up the ball should not. It shouldn't be a free kick for too high either, just play on.

No, it's not enough.

Use your head as a device for free and you will be penalised.

It's for the betterment of the sport longterm. We have got to try and take as much head high contact out of the game as possible.

[mordja 187]

IMHO there is a massive difference between sliding in (similar to Rohan's injury and how Goodes has taken to going in knees first in the last few years) vs blokes throwing themselves at the ball.

Again purely IMO but only blokes who were otherwise out of the contest that come sliding in should be penalised, not blokes who are doing the hard stuff and putting their heads over the ball and diving after a bouncing pill.

As usual the umpires will stuff this up, over officiate it and we wont know one from the other until the finals where they might put the whistles away. God I wish they'd stop ruining our game, the last 10 years has been an absolute disaster as far as rule changes.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,610]

Another interpretation of head-high tackles I noticed last Fri. was the free given to players who dropped their shoulders to try to escape otherwise legitimate tackles. While this doesn't constitute dangerous play, I think it's a poor interpretation of the rule. If a player ducks to try to escape a tackle , leniency should be afforded to the tackler. If the tackle is escaped....play on! If not....."holding the ball!"