Sliding rule

[Viking3]

I wish people would stop referring to Gary Rohan when discussing the sliding rule. Thomas did not" slide" into Rohan.

[Devilhead]

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.

Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agenda

[Devilhead]

I dont why the AFL just dont ban diving on the ball full stop - clear cut, no controversy and it will probably happen in 5 years time anyway given their track record of changing rules

[plugger66]

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.

Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agenda

Devilhead you must have something better to do than follow my posts around. i love the fascination in me but surely you could do some gardening or even comment on footy. Myself and BC have a bit of fun and neither of us crack the s***s with each other. Im pretty sure he is big enough to look after himself but who knows he made need some help. Doubt it though.

[Devilhead]

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

Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agenda

Devilhead you must have something better to do than follow my posts around. i love the fascination in me but surely you could do some gardening or even comment on footy. Myself and BC have a bit of fun and neither of us crack the s***s with each other. Im pretty sure he is big enough to look after himself but who knows he made need some help. Doubt it though.

How the hell can I NOT follow your posts around when you are commenting on every farking thread

Just so happens I disagree with the majority of your tripe - not all but the majority and I cant help question your opinions - surely you understand this particular concept considering it's your stock standard contribution to this site

Its quite clear that only fascination in you seems to be with you - self conscious with a good dose of biting paranoia - seems you are quite happy to hand it out but when you get a good dose of your own medicine you fall apart and cry foul.

BTW I have made quite a few footy commets today and in the past but i guess you missed them whilst trying to catch your own reflection in your monitor.

Shame you could have been a good poster but unfortunately your transparent veneer of self importance lets you down.

[plugger66]

Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agenda

Devilhead you must have something better to do than follow my posts around. i love the fascination in me but surely you could do some gardening or even comment on footy. Myself and BC have a bit of fun and neither of us crack the s***s with each other. Im pretty sure he is big enough to look after himself but who knows he made need some help. Doubt it though.

How the hell can I NOT follow your posts around when you are commenting on every farking thread

Just so happens I disagree with the majority of your tripe - not all but the majority and I cant help question your opinions - surely you understand this particular concept considering it's your stock standard contribution to this site

Its quite clear that only fascination in you seems to be with you - self conscious with a good dose of biting paranoia - seems you are quite happy to hand it out but when you get a good dose of your own medicine you fall apart and cry foul.

BTW I have made quite a few footy commets today and in the past but i guess you missed them whilst trying to catch your own reflection in your monitor.

Shame you could have been a good poster but unfortunately your transparent veneer of self importance lets you down.

Yep thats right. I love it when people question my posts, or agree or hate them. Its great. Hook line and sinker. Cry foul. Yes of course I do. You have to be joking. I know one thing and that is you take yourself far to seriously but maybe thats because you live so far away and cant really understand the game like you would really like. Now keep going Devilhead. Its great fun thinking that people actually think I care what others think. You are far far to easy. Far to easy.

[Devilhead]

Yep thats right. I love it when people question my posts, or agree or hate them. Its great. Hook line and sinker. Cry foul. Yes of course I do. You have to be joking. I know one thing and that is you take yourself far to seriously but maybe thats because you live so far away and cant really understand the game like you would really like. Now keep going Devilhead. Its great fun thinking that people actually think I care what others think. You are far far to easy. Far to easy.

And to think I thought that we were only having a bit a of fun

You should seriously lighten up

[supersaints]

I dont why the AFL just dont ban diving on the ball full stop - clear cut, no controversy and it will probably happen in 5 years time anyway given their track record of changing rules

Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?

[Devilhead]

I dont why the AFL just dont ban diving on the ball full stop - clear cut, no controversy and it will probably happen in 5 years time anyway given their track record of changing rules

Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?

Then they will need to bring in a rule that you can only pick up the ball by bending at the knees keeping your back and neck straight and eyes forward

[|Andy|]

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.

Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.

[bigcarl]

Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.

Effectively you can sub out a winded or sore player, go through the motions of testing him for concussion, give him a nice breather ... then deactivate your sub and bring said winded player back on.

The potential certainly is there for this to be exploited by some unscrupulous club.

To me it's another unnecessary complication in a game that is already over-governed to buggery and is full of grey areas.

It also smells like more policy on the run and a knee-jerk reaction to the broader issue of long-term injures due to concussion.

Why not keep it simple?

The sub is there partly for just such a situation ... to replace an injured player. Once he is on, he should stay on. And a player suspected of concussion should stay off, just to prevent any funny business.

And while we are on the subject of rules being exploited, how about the self-reporting get out clause in the illicit drugs policy?

[plugger66]

Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.

Effectively you can sub out a winded or sore player, go through the motions of testing him for concussion, give him a nice breather ... then deactivate your sub and bring said winded player back on.

The potential certainly is there for this to be exploited by some unscrupulous club.

To me it's another unnecessary complication in a game that is already over-governed to buggery and is full of grey areas.

It also smells like more policy on the run and a knee-jerk reaction to the broader issue of long-term injures due to concussion.

Why not keep it simple?

The sub is there partly for just such a situation ... to replace an injured player. Once he is on, he should stay on. And a player suspected of concussion should stay off, just to prevent any funny business.

And while we are on the subject of rules being exploited, how about the self-reporting get out clause in the illicit drugs policy?

Yep because a doctor will do that. And even he did he would be off the ground for 20 minutes for a 2 minute injury. What happens if they then get an injury straight away. Down to 2 interchanges instead of 3 for another 18 minutes. Mightnt seem much but when you have 150 interchanges a game it is. Its a very good rule but there are some who say nearly every rule is bad and when asked to come up with ways they exploit things they go back 20 years.

[bigcarl]

And the priority pick rule ... of course no one's ever exploited that because Melbourne was found not guilty of tanking.

it might be more challenging to find a rule that hasn't been exploited.

[Moods]

The slide rule is 5 years overdue.

It's dangerous, destructive.

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

100% agree. First time I saw it paid in the NAB Cup I laughed out loud. Once you saw the impact it was having, with players not sliding in like suicide bombers, with reckless regard for their own safety or other players on the field, I realised what a great rule it was. The Alwyn Davey free was a classic example. Could easily have broken Davey's legs.

Players are still cracking in and getting the ball. There has never been anything tough or courageous about diving on the ball. Much more courageous to run at the ball upright, or on your feet, as you are more vulnerable of being hit whilst standing.

[kosifantutti]

Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.

Effectively you can sub out a winded or sore player, go through the motions of testing him for concussion, give him a nice breather ... then deactivate your sub and bring said winded player back on.

The potential certainly is there for this to be exploited by some unscrupulous club.

To me it's another unnecessary complication in a game that is already over-governed to buggery and is full of grey areas.

It also smells like more policy on the run and a knee-jerk reaction to the broader issue of long-term injures due to concussion.

Why not keep it simple?

The sub is there partly for just such a situation ... to replace an injured player. Once he is on, he should stay on. And a player suspected of concussion should stay off, just to prevent any funny business.

And while we are on the subject of rules being exploited, how about the self-reporting get out clause in the illicit drugs policy?

Yep because a doctor will do that. And even he did he would be off the ground for 20 minutes for a 2 minute injury. What happens if they then get an injury straight away. Down to 2 interchanges instead of 3 for another 18 minutes. Mightnt seem much but when you have 150 interchanges a game it is. Its a very good rule but there are some who say nearly every rule is bad and when asked to come up with ways they exploit things they go back 20 years.

I don't know if the 20 minutes applies to game time or actual time. If you test someone for concussion five minutes before half time are they eligible to come back on at the start of the 3rd quarter? If so, it will be abused.

By the way, I used to have a slide rule, but I replaced it with a calculator about 35 years ago.

[plugger66]

And the priority pick rule ... of course no one's ever exploited that because Melbourne was found not guilty of tanking.

it might be more challenging to find a rule that hasn't been exploited.

Is the priorty pick rule a rule in a game of footy? Havent noticed it. Can you explain what they pay a free for.

[gringo]

The most ridiculous thing about the Dangerfield one was that you could see the Bombers player register the chance for a free and drop his knees to try to initiate contact. Players will exploit the rule they will deliberately knee players that are prone in the head. It is a stupid ill thought rule that will break someones neck instead of breaking a leg.

[plugger66]

The most ridiculous thing about the Dangerfield one was that you could see the Bombers player register the chance for a free and drop his knees to try to initiate contact. Players will exploit the rule they will deliberately knee players that are prone in the head. It is a stupid ill thought rule that will break someones neck instead of breaking a leg.

So you would just keep it how it is? Its a good rule. It should see more players stand up going for the ball which I reckon they did only about 10 or so years ago. I reckon Rugby a pretty tough game and they have to pick up the ball standing up and you dont see many necks broken in those incidents. You do when they have a ruck though.

[gringo]

The most ridiculous thing about the Dangerfield one was that you could see the Bombers player register the chance for a free and drop his knees to try to initiate contact. Players will exploit the rule they will deliberately knee players that are prone in the head. It is a stupid ill thought rule that will break someones neck instead of breaking a leg.

So you would just keep it how it is? Its a good rule. It should see more players stand up going for the ball which I reckon they did only about 10 or so years ago. I reckon Rugby a pretty tough game and they have to pick up the ball standing up and you dont see many necks broken in those incidents. You do when they have a ruck though.

They should keep it as it was where if a player was deemed to have slid with the intention of hurting someone the go to the tribunal. No need for a free kick and an over officiated rule.

How many broken legs were directly resulting from someone doing a deliberate slide into them. Joel Smith was a possibility but then Richard Cranium that did it to him maybe before that.

Gary Rohan looked more like an unfortunate accident.

[plugger66]

The most ridiculous thing about the Dangerfield one was that you could see the Bombers player register the chance for a free and drop his knees to try to initiate contact. Players will exploit the rule they will deliberately knee players that are prone in the head. It is a stupid ill thought rule that will break someones neck instead of breaking a leg.

So you would just keep it how it is? Its a good rule. It should see more players stand up going for the ball which I reckon they did only about 10 or so years ago. I reckon Rugby a pretty tough game and they have to pick up the ball standing up and you dont see many necks broken in those incidents. You do when they have a ruck though.

They should keep it as it was where if a player was deemed to have slid with the intention of hurting someone the go to the tribunal. No need for a free kick and an over officiated rule.

How many broken legs were directly resulting from someone doing a deliberate slide into them. Joel Smith was a possibility but then Richard Cranium that did it to him maybe before that.

Gary Rohan looked more like an unfortunate accident.

They did it for injury reasons but also and more importantly IMO tto stop more and more packs. The ball should be cleared more easily as it has more chance of being handled better if you are standing up. As I said no one really went at the ball like that 10 or so years ago.

[Devilhead]

Can anyone off the top of their head think of any serious injuries in the last ten years caused by players sliding/ diving in on or onto the ball??

Would be interested to know

[sunsaint]

I am sort of finding it amusing that people are having problems with this rule
it WILL lessen players sliding in and getting head clashes as well as protecting players legs.
where the bl dy hell is the problem?

[bergholt]

I am sort of finding it amusing that people are having problems with this rule
it WILL lessen players sliding in and getting head clashes as well as protecting players legs.
where the bl dy hell is the problem?

People are sooks.

[bigcarl]

Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?

Yes, that's an interesting point. It could actually mean more high speed collisions and head clash concussions. I think it's one of those rules we'll need to see in action over a period before its full ramifications become obvious.

[sunsaint]

Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?

Yes, that's an interesting point. It could actually mean more high speed collisions and head clash concussions. I think it's one of those rules we'll need to see in action over a period before its full ramifications become obvious.

jeesh, the rule does not stop players going in head over the ball, it stops players sliding in to take out the opposition...