When players of a professional sport claim not to understand the rules of a game they play, it is a damning blight on the AFL’s Rules of the Game committee.
On Channel Ten’s Before the Game, a program not exactly known to be a platform for asking ‘hard’ questions,, Essendon’s Brendan Goddard was asked about the contentious new sliding rule.
“Are you clear in your mind as to what you can and can’t do?” Andy Maher asked.
“No, we have no idea,” Goddard responded.
“I don’t know. Is it diving, or if you fall over is it the same?
“It’s been explained but we’re actually not sure.”
The sliding rule has been a new rule which came into the game at the beginning of the 2013 season in an attempt to protect player safety.
During the 2012 season, players sliding into contests and making contact with player’s legs resulting in sickening broken legs when players slid into contests and made knee contact from the side and front.
The following addition to the rules of the game was added for the 2013 season:
“A 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).
“Rule 15.4.5(a)(ii) already states a free kick can be awarded for contact below knees, and as such a rule change is not required, but rather a stricter interpretation of the current law.”
Goddard’s comments can be understood after Matthew Pavlich was awarded a free kick when an Essendon player attempted to smother his kick.
There has never been an AFL season where rule interpretation has not been a controversial issue but when players are claiming they do not know the rules, despite it being explained to them, the AFL has a problem.
While it may be easy enough for the AFL to blame the players for not understanding the rule, umpire interpretation does not align with common sense.
Factors such as impact of contact, point of contact, momentum and intention are all ambiguous and the opening three rounds have provided little, if any clarity.
For the past few years, the AFL has reiterated the notion of the head being sacrosanct and any contact will be considered high contact.
Interpretation of the ‘contact below the knees’ rule has resulted in both contact to the head, and contact below the knees.
One incident from Friday night was shown when Essendon’s Michael Hibberd and Fremantle’s Michael Barlow attacked a loose ball. Barlow kept his feet, while Hibberd slid into the contest and made contact with his head against Barlow’s knee.
The umpire awarded a free kick against Barlow for making high contact, despite being the player who stayed on his feet.
Barlow professed his confusion and a 50 metre penalty was awarded against him.
There was an identical occurrence yesterday when Hawthorn’s Luke Hodge slid head first into a contest, thus taking out the legs of Collingwood’s Harry O’Brien. A free kick was awarded to Hodge for O’Brien making head high contact.
In both Barlow and O’Brien’s cases, they kept their feet and did everything the AFL advised players to do, yet free kicks were awarded against them.
In other instances, players have been rewarded with a free kick for kneeing an opposition player in the head due to accidental contact.
Under the current interpretation of the rule, the head is deemed more important than the knees and players are encouraged to kamikaze dive head first into opposition player knees.
It is clear that confusion among players extends well beyond Goddard and the AFL needs to take note by either explaining the rule in more simple terms.
Players, umpires and fans obviously have a different understanding of the rule because confused players become dangerous players.
Whether it be the broken legs or the insurmountable concussions from sliding head first into contests, something about that doesn’t sound right.
Nathan of Perth
Guest
Mind you, some of our fellow fans aren't the brightest sparks to being with. At the Geelong-Carlton game I turned to my wife and exclaimed in frustration "I've got TEN THOUSAND people to the right of me who have no idea what the words 'prior opportunity' mean!" Got shushed for my troubles, too!
Nathan of Perth
Guest
That last is a valid point, saw the effect of players keeping their feet and thought it reduced congestion.
Floreat Pica
Guest
Macca- but they don't want a ball-up either as it again 'slows the game'. The issue for me was in the Coll-Haw game the umpires called an incident ten minutes before the opposite way, yet it was a 'softer' contact not so obviously caused by a dive at the ball- had they not made such contradictory decisions (rubbing it in with a report shows how ridiculously confused that umpire was) no one would be talking about it. For the record, I'm with you and those players like Hodge that play hard and fair putting their body on the line- there is no intention to damage another player, just beat them to the ball. But if they bring in a rule, they can't then penalise the player that abides by it and then report him, that was a shocker.
Floreat Pica
Guest
It's some of the players who pushed for it- Luke Ball discussed this at a members function. Some for (Pendlebury), some against (Ball).
Floreat Pica
Guest
Agree with you here- it's a new rule that lacks focus on its purpose. Needs review.
Floreat Pica
Guest
May be sour grapes, but at that stage of the game there wasn't much in it- the umpires have to be consistent on it and that free kick and the coast to coast Franklin goal were the end of Collingwood's momentum in the game. Anyone watching the free-kick awarded ten minutes before couldn't believe the exact opposite decision with Hodge clearly diving onto the ball being the initiator of the contact.
Floreat Pica
Guest
Which one do you know of?- I think there were a few last year- McCaffer and Pendlebury at collingwood for starters
David Lazzaro
Roar Pro
I agree with you Macca, I noticed that as well. I don't like the fact rules are changed under the pretence of protecting against injuries, when it is clearly there to change the game style. Fans might not always like changes, but they should be given honest explanations of why these rules are implemented. Don't forget that initially the idea to restrict the rotations was justified by the idea of reducing injuries. Unfortunately, the teams with the most rotations at the time also had the least injuries! Since then they have talked about this reduction as a means to manage the style of game, and have had far more success in selling the idea.
Alfred Chan
Expert
I agree with that last comment. The AFL match review panel has made no sense for the past five years and their explanation of the Lindsey Thomas bump has left coaches, players and fans confused. Hands in the back took about three seasons for players to understand and I would estimate only 50% of AFL players can recite what the bump rule is. It obviously comes down to split second decisions in games but it has to be remembered that AFL players have played 20 years of football under one set of rules and they would understandably be confused in the first one or two of a new rule being implemented.
Monocrete
Guest
Its all about players getting to stay on their feet and not have those ugly mauls around the ground. It seems to have worked so far and there are many less ball-ups. Once you go to ground you are asking for trouble - in one sense if you go to ground you limit your options...
Alfred Chan
Expert
I'm glad they admitted their mistake so quickly and I suppose they are lucky it wasn't a close game.
Alfred Chan
Expert
Hayes plays his best football at ground level so the rule change has hurt him quite a bit. He wins the ball a lot because he attacks it harder than anyone else. It's probably a bit too late in his career to ask him to change the way he plays.
Alfred Chan
Expert
I noticed that too Macca, but at least they were consiststant all night. The problem is, the longer they let the play flow, the more congested the pack becomes. When there's so many bodies around the ball, the only way to impact the contest is low and hard. Here, the AFL can only contradict themselves. If they ball it up, there's a ton of stoppages. If they don't, it will be 50-50 calls as to where a player has made forcefully contact or is trying to stop their momentum.
Macca
Guest
This is from the AFL Website - "THE AFL has admitted Harry O'Brien should have received a free kick rather than be reported when Luke Hodge slid into him during Sunday's game between Collingwood and Hawthorn. The Match Review Panel cleared O'Brien on Monday and AFL umpires manager Jeff Gieschen said the umpire had made a mistake. "When we've reviewed that, we can clearly see that Luke Hodge did elect to go to ground," Gieschen told AFL.com.au. "When he went to ground he had a bit of momentum, and he made contact to Harry O'Brien below the knees, causing Harry O'Brien to topple over. That's one of those ones, [a] mistake by the umpire. It should have been a free kick to Harry O'Brien."
Macca
Guest
DAvid - You are right but if you watched the Geelong - Carlton game Saturday night you would of seen the umpires letting the play go long after most people would of balled it up. Calling a ball up earlier would stop this better than changing the rules.
David Lazzaro
Roar Pro
Although the rule has been promoted by the AFL as a response to the apparent massive increase in broken legs, this is only half the story. The rule change also conveniently assists the league in reducing the "rolling maul" type scenario and encourages continuous play. This has been evidenced over the past few weeks by more players keeping their feet rather than diving for the ball. However, in the wet weather we saw at the MCG yesterday, players found themselves reverting to diving in again, as Hodge did. O'Brien did exactly what the AFL wanted him to do in this situation, and for his trouble was penalised and reported. Thankfully, the report was thrown out. I think most people would be happy for Hodge to receive a free for that as it encourages the player going for the ball, but as the rule stands, it should have been a free kick to Harry. This is not the only example of the new rule being misinterpreted by the umpires, and this needs to be tidied up ASAP.
Macca
Guest
Sounds great to me - unfortunately it is makes far to much sense for the AFL.
Hawker
Guest
play on
Macca
Guest
Can't argue with that - but what if the player first to the ball goes in side ways, ie protects his head?
Australian Rules
Guest
The rule should protect the player who is first to the ball. Contact with his head, even if incidental, should result in a penalty. However, if a player slides in feet first to get the ball, he should be penalised.