#AFL Round 12 Weekly Discussion Thread

[stevoswan]

That last sentence is a link to another article, and if you click through to the article, it refers to the Talia free kick decision from a few weeks ago, not this decision. Indeed, it follows a paragraph noting the Talia free. It pays to actually read an article in full.

The AFL may well have given this one its tick of approval (since it was correct under the rules they have written) but this article doesn't refer to any comment from the AFL.

What is the origin of the headline "Ump got it right, but Pie questions rule" then.....? Looks like someone approved Adams the decision.

[bloodspirit]

This (may) be my last post on this subject. The AFL have given us all their 'verdict' on the Taylor Adams 'sliding in' free kick and of course, like the biased dumb bastards they are, have given it the thumbs up!

Ump got it right, but Pie questions rule - AFL.com.au

I implore everybody to read Adams thoughts (I agree 100% with him), especially this bit, "Adams said the interpretation had shifted in recent years and had gone away from why it had been introduced in the first place."........this is exactly my point.

Also, listen carefully to the commentary. Now I know we don't rate the Ch 7 commentators but I think they actually reflect the thoughts of, well at least most, sensible footy fans and players on this one, a noble rule repeatedly judged incorrectly.....and I ask yet again, what is wrong with going to ground? Why are acts of desperation being discouraged? Why do the AFL think they can make a brutal contact sport 100% safe? If what you want is 'no injuries' in Australian Rules Football......you must ban the game. Yes, I agree, that is just stupid.....about as stupid as trying to make it 100% safe. Never going to happen.......

The problem with going to ground is that it is unduly dangerous to other players. Only some acts of desperation, not all, are being discouraged - the unduly dangerous ones. We still applaud great tackles, smothers, blocks etc etc. The point is not to make a brutal contact sport 100% safe, it is harm minimisation. The rule exists primarily for the benefit of the players, so their careers and lives are not adversely impacted when it is just not necessary. We can still have a hard, physical and entertaining game but seek to reduce the harm it causes.

Undoubtedly the reason the rule hasn't been altogether well received is that it is different to the way the game used to be played. However we are placing an increasing premium on player safety and wellbeing, much as in the situation with the increased protection being afforded to players' heads. I think the changing values are what Channel 7 commentators struggle with it. They know the rule has changed but they are used to applauding these acts of desperation as they were worthy of plaudits before the rules changed and at the time they played the game. Jimmy Bartel, who is much more freshly retired, seems to get it much better. He straddles the eras. He understands that there was no malice in the act and that it was an act that would have been considered brilliant effort and determination to compete until the rules changed. However he also understands that the rules have changed with the aim of changing player behaviour so that they keep their feet with the further aim of protecting players from injury.

A technical point: it seems to me that where the Melbourne player jumped over the Pie it's arguable whether to pay the free kick. While paying the free kick is in the spirit of the rule, there is no "contact" and arguably there has been no "attempt to make contact" - the attempt was to get the ball (albeit with indifference to whether there was contact). Whether this counts as an "attempt to make contact" really depends on whether you require a specific intention or whether recklessness as to the result will suffice. I suspect this has been adjudicated by the AFL tribunal in the past but I don't know what the rules/principles are.

I thought it would be useful to post a link to the rules because they keep changing and, although I think the link has probably been posted on RWO before it's always hard to find the relevant previous post: http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/f...n_Football.pdf.

I don't think the second, fuller posting of the rule resolves Scottee's points, which I think are both valid. First, the rule might capture a shoulder to shoulder bump resulting in an ankle injury - but for the fact I would argue that the ankle injury was not a "likely" outcome of the contact. More importantly, it does seem preferable that the rule stipulate that the contact (or attempted contact) has to be below the knee and then injury can be anywhere rather than the other way round (as the rule in fact appears to state) that the contact can be anywhere but the injury has to be below the knee. If the interpretation intended is the second one then the clause has been drafted poorly.

[Meg]

#AFL Round 12 Weekly Discussion Thread

I don't think the second, fuller posting of the rule resolves Scottee's points, which I think are both valid. First, the rule might capture a shoulder to shoulder bump resulting in an ankle injury - but for the fact I would argue that the ankle injury was not a "likely" outcome of the contact. More importantly, it does seem preferable that the rule stipulate that the contact (or attempted contact) has to be below the knee and then injury can be anywhere rather than the other way round (as the rule in fact appears to state) that the contact can be anywhere but the injury has to be below the knee. If the interpretation intended is the second one then the clause has been drafted poorly.

H?mmm I think this is a bit of a perverse way of reading the wording but I do agree that for absolute clarity it would be better to have the clause ?in a manner likely to cause injury? enclosed within commas.

Here is the 2018 version of the AFL Laws.

http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723

[liz]

What is the origin of the headline "Ump got it right, but Pie questions rule" then.....? Looks like someone approved Adams the decision.

It's taken from a direct quote from Adams in the fourth paragraph of the article. Adams is saying that it was a correct free kick under the rules but that he doesn't like the rule.

Adams doesn't like the rule. You don't like the rule. Lots of other don't like the rule. That's fine. There's no right or wrong, it's just a matter of opinion. Those who, like myself, support the rule, don't deny that there is a cost to the game in the sense of taking away the principle that anything goes if you are trying to win possession. It's just a matter of preference around whether what is lost is too high a cost in comparison to what is gained (a slightly reduced risk of a certain kind of significant injury).

Whether one supports or doesn't support the rule is a different question to whether the rule was correctly applied in a given situation.

There are plenty of rules I don't like, some of which have nothing to do with injury prevention but are there for other reasons. The excluded zone penalty is one such, and part of my dislike is because it is inconsistently applied. But even if it were consistently applied, I don't especially see the need for it but the AFL disagrees, thinking it opens the game up.

[liz]

A technical point: it seems to me that where the Melbourne player jumped over the Pie it's arguable whether to pay the free kick. While paying the free kick is in the spirit of the rule, there is no "contact" and arguably there has been no "attempt to make contact" - the attempt was to get the ball (albeit with indifference to whether there was contact). Whether this counts as an "attempt to make contact" really depends on whether you require a specific intention or whether recklessness as to the result will suffice. I suspect this has been adjudicated by the AFL tribunal in the past but I don't know what the rules/principles are.

I don't agree with you on that point. In almost every instance where a player goes to ground to win the ball, they are not attempting to make contact with a player's legs. It's just got nothing to do with their intention at all. Their intention is to try and win possession.

But the rule is trying to change players' behaviour by encouraging them not to go to ground at all in those circumstances. It's the action of going to ground that is being penalised, not the outcome of whether forcible contact is actually made, or whether the opposition player is able to take evasive action. This is somewhat different to a player choosing to move towards someone already on the ground and causing the contact below the knees. I have seen instances of this and those are the ones that I think are incorrectly paid. It comes down to the time and space that the players have to adjust their movements. But in this case, the Demons player didn't have the choice of avoiding contact other than by jumping in the way he did. He didn't have time to stop.

[bloodspirit]

H?mmm I think this is a bit of a perverse way of reading the wording but I do agree that for absolute clarity it would be better to have the clause ?in a manner likely to cause injury? enclosed within commas.

Here is the 2018 version of the AFL Laws.

http://websites.sportstg.com/get_file.cgi?id=36381723

Thanks for posting the latest rules. I agree the interpretation is perverse in that it doesn't really achieve the goal you would think they are aiming for but that's why I think it is poorly drafted. Poor drafting makes more sense than daft rule. I can thank Occam and his razor for that conclusion. I do think the natural reading of the words as they are currently put down on paper leads to the daft version.

[bloodspirit]

I don't agree with you on that point. In almost every instance where a player goes to ground to win the ball, they are not attempting to make contact with a player's legs. It's just got nothing to do with their intention at all. Their intention is to try and win possession.

But the rule is trying to change players' behaviour by encouraging them not to go to ground at all in those circumstances. It's the action of going to ground that is being penalised, not the outcome of whether forcible contact is actually made, or whether the opposition player is able to take evasive action. This is somewhat different to a player choosing to move towards someone already on the ground and causing the contact below the knees. I have seen instances of this and those are the ones that I think are incorrectly paid. It comes down to the time and space that the players have to adjust their movements. But in this case, the Demons player didn't have the choice of avoiding contact other than by jumping in the way he did. He didn't have time to stop.

I agree with you again that this would appear to be the AFL's policy goal. However, once again they seem to have undermined it with poor drafting. What you wrote is not what the Laws say. The rule makes no reference to a player going to ground.

[dimelb]

A player going into a contest feet first is very dangerous and is a suspendable offence. It was long before the "forceful contact" rule was introduced.

Thomas didn't go into the Rohan contest feet first. He planted his feet in a position that unfortunately was the exact position where Rohan's feet were but he was attacking the ball with his body. Although the rule was probably introduced in response to Rohan's injury, there was an element of freakish misfortune in that incident.

Easton Wood didn't enter the contest that injured Hannebery's knee in the 2016 feet first. The forceable contact to Hannebery's leg was with Wood's body - the full force of his body at that. Furthermore, Wood didn't slide into that contest. He just went to ground but Hannebery paid the price (and, indirectly, is still paying the price). I think that contest is a better example of the kind of contest - and injury - that the rule is intended to discourage.

Hannebery hobbled by medial knee injury - AFL.com.au

Just because injury doesn't always occur - or in some instances, isn't likely to occur - from a player going to ground isn't the point. A split second difference and it well could. The behaviour that the rule is intended to discourage is the going to ground, and I don't see the benefit from complicating it by permitting players to go to ground if they are approaching the contest from some angles and not others.

Kieren Jack wasn't injured when the Dogs player went to ground late in the second quarter of the 2016 GF because he was able to take evasive action. However, had the umpires correctly called that as a free against the Dogs, a later contest when Papley was quite fortunate not to suffer injury when his legs were taken out from under him might not have occurred. And had the umpires correctly paid the free against the Dogs in that contest, maybe Easton Wood would have thought twice about going to ground and taking out Hanners' legs.

Liz, thanks for clarifying the details.

[Scottee]

Sorry Scottee, I collapsed the wording (for brevity) which has been misleading. The full wording does make clear the intent:

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 or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury;

(i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or
(ii) below the knees.

etc. (list goes on (b) to (m) of forms of ?prohibited contact?).

Thanks Meg. But my bad, I should have checked the source.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Scottee]

Another problem with AFL umpiring......so easy for an umpire to interpret a situation the way he wants to.....or interpret according to an AFL bias/prejudice.

That is THE problem!!!

You could probably also add corporate objectives or insider trading to the potential drivers.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk