Sliding rule

[bigcarl]

How is this going to affect players who go in head first for the ball, like Lenny for example?

Will it favour the outside type of mid more?

I don't like it as it penalises the guy at the coal face who is actually going for the ball.

What do people think of this rule and how can St Kilda exploit it? Should we hang back and wait for the opposition to slide into us?

[Bernard Shakey]

Stay on your feet and it doesn't affect you.

[bigcarl]

Stay on your feet and it doesn't affect you.

True, but that is not always possible in a congested midfield situation. I reckon it may penalize in and under players, particularly the "under" type

[Spinner]

The slide rule is 5 years overdue.

It's dangerous, destructive.

More courageous keeping your feet where your legs and knees are exposed.

[Solar]

stupid rule, should only be paid if the player comes in second to the ball

[whiskers3614]

stupid rule, should only be paid if the player comes in second to the ball

ever thought of updating signature?

[sunsaint]

I cant wait for the first time its awarded against us...
there was a perfect example on friday night against the crows, adelaide player choose to go to ground rolled over the ball and took out Davey
and I can remember quite a few complaining vigorously when Goodes would slide in boots first

[Solar]

stupid rule, should only be paid if the player comes in second to the ball

ever thought of updating signature?

no

[bigcarl]

I can remember quite a few complaining vigorously when Goodes would slide in boots first

It depends on the circumstances I guess. What about when a player has intent only for the ball and goes in low like I've seen Lenny do many times?

[plugger66]

I can remember quite a few complaining vigorously when Goodes would slide in boots first

It depends on the circumstances I guess. What about when a player has intent only for the ball and goes in low like I've seen Lenny do many times?

Well if he trips a player doing that its a trip. Lenny is good enough to stand on his feet and get the ball. It should stop congestion as well.

[bigcarl]

Well if he trips a player doing that its a trip. Lenny is good enough to stand on his feet and get the ball. It should stop congestion as well.

If someone's leg contacts his head under the previous rules ... which sought to protect the head ... wouldn't he be eligible for a free kick if he was just going for the ball? I think I've definitely seen it paid as a free kick.

But let's see how it goes.

A lot of these things are poorly thought through and the ramifications become obvious only when the rule is implemented.

[sunsaint]

I can remember quite a few complaining vigorously when Goodes would slide in boots first

It depends on the circumstances I guess. What about when a player has intent only for the ball and goes in low like I've seen Lenny do many times?

there is a HUGE difference between going in low
and going to ground..!!!

[St.Roly]

Taking the controversially subjective issue of "courage" out of it for the moment, my problem with the rule is that IMHO it will often run counter to the natural instinct to be the first to possess the ball. Sometimes getting to it first will mean diving towards it before your opponent can bend down and pick it up.

At the moment I am pretty apprehensive about no longer seeing some desperate efforts to get in and under and get the ball out in favour of a bunch of players bent over like chickens in a yard trying to pick it up.

[plugger66]

Well if he trips a player doing that its a trip. Lenny is good enough to stand on his feet and get the ball. It should stop congestion as well.

If someone's leg contacts his head under the previous rules ... which sought to protect the head ... wouldn't he be eligible for a free kick if he was just going for the ball? I think I've definitely seen it paid as a free kick.

But let's see how it goes.

A lot of these things are poorly thought through and the ramifications become obvious only when the rule is implemented.

Which ones?

[bigcarl]

Taking the controversially subjective issue of "courage" out of it for the moment, my problem with the rule is that IMHO it will often run counter to the natural instinct to be the first to possess the ball.

Yep, that is the big concern.

I am pretty apprehensive about no longer seeing some desperate efforts to get in and under and get the ball out in favour of a bunch of players bent over like chickens in a yard trying to pick it up.

haha.

[bigcarl]

Well if he trips a player doing that its a trip. Lenny is good enough to stand on his feet and get the ball. It should stop congestion as well.

If someone's leg contacts his head under the previous rules ... which sought to protect the head ... wouldn't he be eligible for a free kick if he was just going for the ball? I think I've definitely seen it paid as a free kick.

But let's see how it goes.

A lot of these things are poorly thought through and the ramifications become obvious only when the rule is implemented.

Which ones?

You didn't answer the first part of my question.

[plugger66]

If someone's leg contacts his head under the previous rules ... which sought to protect the head ... wouldn't he be eligible for a free kick if he was just going for the ball? I think I've definitely seen it paid as a free kick.

But let's see how it goes.

A lot of these things are poorly thought through and the ramifications become obvious only when the rule is implemented.

Which ones?

You didn't answer the first part of my question.

You are allowed to answer first but yes it would have been a free. It shows how important this rule is. It stop people getting knocked out like Selwood did against us and also the Rohan injury.

[bigcarl]

yes it would have been a free. It shows how important this rule is. It stop people getting knocked out like Selwood did against us and also the Rohan injury.

So how can we make it work for us, other than by telling players to keep their feet?

[plugger66]

yes it would have been a free. It shows how important this rule is. It stop people getting knocked out like Selwood did against us and also the Rohan injury.

So how can we make it work for us, other than by telling players to keep their feet?

No idea. What about the question I asked you.

[bigcarl]

No idea

I agree.

What about the question I asked you.

Where do you want me to start? There would be a lot of examples. Often a team or player finds a way to exploit a rule that wasn't the original intention of the rule.

Sheedy and the 15 metre penalties time-wasting tactic.

Guerra and the rushed behind rule.

That's without really thinking about it. As I said, often the full ramifications of a rule are not immediately obvious.

[plugger66]

No idea

I agree.

What about the question I asked you.

Where do you want me to start? There would be a lot of examples. Often a team or player finds a way to exploit a rule that wasn't the original intention of the rule.

Sheedy and the 15 metre penalties time-wasting tactic.

Guerra and the rushed behind rule.

That's without really thinking about it. As I said, often the full ramifications of a rule are not immediately obvious.

They are rules they changed to stop that. They werent new rules. Please give an example of a rule implemented that was exploited.

[Life Long Saint]

They are rules they changed to stop that. They werent new rules. Please give an example of a rule implemented that was exploited.

Sydney in our NAB cup game. They used more than 20 interchanges in the last quarter. In the last few minutes, they were able to gain an advantage having three fresher players on the field. Fortunately, it meant nothing and we won anyway.

I'm sure if I thought about it for more than 30 seconds, I'd come up with some more. But you only asked for one example.

[bigcarl]

They are rules they changed to stop that. They werent new rules. Please give an example of a rule implemented that was exploited.

The 15 metre penalty rule must have been a new rule once. People found a way to exploit it, so they had to change it. Like I said, often the full ramifications of a rule are not always immediately apparent.

[plugger66]

They are rules they changed to stop that. They werent new rules. Please give an example of a rule implemented that was exploited.

The 15 metre penalty rule must have been a new rule once. People found a way to exploit it, so they had to change it. Like I said, often the full ramifications of a rule are not always immediately apparent.

Yep it took 20 years to exploit it. You are struggling.

[bigcarl]

They are rules they changed to stop that. They werent new rules. Please give an example of a rule implemented that was exploited.

The 15 metre penalty rule must have been a new rule once. People found a way to exploit it, so they had to change it. Like I said, often the full ramifications of a rule are not always immediately apparent.

Yep it took 20 years to exploit it. You are struggling.

No I'm not. You asked for an example and I found one without giving it too much thought.