Sliding rule
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Mon 04 Sep 2006 10:21am
- Location: McKinnon
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Sliding rule
I wish people would stop referring to Gary Rohan when discussing the sliding rule. Thomas did not" slide" into Rohan.
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Sliding rule
Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agendabigcarl wrote:No I'm not. You asked for an example and I found one without giving it too much thought.plugger66 wrote:bigcarl wrote:
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.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Sliding rule
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
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: Sliding rule
Devilhead wrote:Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agendabigcarl wrote:No I'm not. You asked for an example and I found one without giving it too much thought.plugger66 wrote:
Yep it took 20 years to exploit it. You are struggling.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Sliding rule
How the hell can I NOT follow your posts around when you are commenting on every farking threadplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Ahhh changing the ground rules to suit his own agendabigcarl wrote: No I'm not. You asked for an example and I found one without giving it too much thought.
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.
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.
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: Sliding rule
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 wrote:How the hell can I NOT follow your posts around when you are commenting on every farking threadplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:
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.
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.
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Sliding rule
And to think I thought that we were only having a bit a of funplugger66 wrote: 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.
You should seriously lighten up
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1701
- Joined: Fri 18 May 2007 11:13am
- Been thanked: 7 times
Re: Sliding rule
Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?Devilhead wrote: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
And the president said " I did not have sex with that woman"
And our former president said " Football is like golf"
Go Sainters !!!!!
And our former president said " Football is like golf"
Go Sainters !!!!!
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Sliding rule
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 forwardsupersaints wrote:Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?Devilhead wrote: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
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
Re: Sliding rule
Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.plugger66 wrote:bigcarl wrote:I agree.plugger66 wrote:No idea
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.plugger66 wrote:What about the question I asked you.
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
Re: Sliding rule
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.|Andy| wrote:Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.
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?
Re: Sliding rule
bigcarl wrote: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.|Andy| wrote:Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.
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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
Re: Sliding rule
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.
it might be more challenging to find a rule that hasn't been exploited.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4940
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 343 times
- Been thanked: 491 times
Re: Sliding rule
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.Spinner wrote:The slide rule is 5 years overdue.
It's dangerous, destructive.
More courageous keeping your feet where your legs and knees are exposed.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8583
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 527 times
- Been thanked: 1532 times
Re: Sliding rule
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.plugger66 wrote:bigcarl wrote: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.|Andy| wrote:Shouldn't take long for the AFL's new concussion rule to be exploited.
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.
By the way, I used to have a slide rule, but I replaced it with a calculator about 35 years ago.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Sliding rule
bigcarl wrote: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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Sliding rule
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.
Re: Sliding rule
gringo wrote: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.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Sliding rule
plugger66 wrote:gringo wrote: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.
Re: Sliding rule
gringo wrote:plugger66 wrote:gringo wrote: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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8393
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
Re: Sliding rule
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
Would be interested to know
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
- Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 318 times
Re: Sliding rule
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?
it WILL lessen players sliding in and getting head clashes as well as protecting players legs.
where the bl dy hell is the problem?
Seeya
*************
*************
Re: Sliding rule
People are sooks.sunsaint wrote: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?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18635
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1979 times
- Been thanked: 865 times
Re: Sliding rule
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.supersaints wrote:Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5212
- Joined: Mon 07 Aug 2006 9:50pm
- Location: Queensland - Beautiful one day ... you know the rest
- Has thanked: 65 times
- Been thanked: 318 times
Re: Sliding rule
jeesh, the rule does not stop players going in head over the ball, it stops players sliding in to take out the opposition...bigcarl wrote: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.supersaints wrote:Possibly a lot more head clashes if the only thing players can do is bend over to pick up the ball?
Seeya
*************
*************