Below the knees rule

[The Pie Man]

Apologies if this isn't the right forum or if there is a thread buried somewhere relating to this.

The below knees rule has done my head in since its introduction - I find it staggeringly reactive that we fundamentally change the way an over 100 YO game is played based on one incident (Gary Rohan)

It was mercifully let go in the Grand Final - though the commentary on the Easton Wood / Dan Hannebery incident in the last quarter was interesting. I agree that this should've been a free kick based on the rule as it stands, and the commentary once Hannebery was injured was 'this was why the law was brought in'

I look at the incident and honestly believe the onus should be on Hannebery to get as low as Wood to the ball - it's unfortunate that he gets injured in contest, but to me that's not Wood's fault and nor should that ever be a free kick (let alone a reportable offence - it was reviewed)

I get the feeling I'll be out of touch on this one to some - thoughts?

[Bulldog Joe]

I am confused on this.

Everyone talks about below the knees, but then seem to be referring to sliding in and taking an opponent low.

I have seen a few frees paid where a player gets low and effectively trips his opponent.

In the Wood/Hannebery incident, Wood came in lower, but Hannebery put his leg across and contact from Wood was to the upper leg causing his knee to bend in because he had anchored his foot under Wood. It was not contact below the knee.

[EasternWest]

Apologies if this isn't the right forum or if there is a thread buried somewhere relating to this.

The below knees rule has done my head in since its introduction - I find it staggeringly reactive that we fundamentally change the way an over 100 YO game is played based on one incident (Gary Rohan)

It was mercifully let go in the Grand Final - though the commentary on the Easton Wood / Dan Hannebery incident in the last quarter was interesting. I agree that this should've been a free kick based on the rule as it stands, and the commentary once Hannebery was injured was 'this was why the law was brought in'

I look at the incident and honestly believe the onus should be on Hannebery to get as low as Wood to the ball - it's unfortunate that he gets injured in contest, but to me that's not Wood's fault and nor should that ever be a free kick (let alone a reportable offence - it was reviewed)

I get the feeling I'll be out of touch on this one to some - thoughts?

I agree with you on everything.

It's a stupid rule. Change it.

Hannebery is hard as nails, if the rule wasn't so stupid I'm sure he would've got in low like Wood did.

[ledge]

I watched it a few times and they hit each other at the hip the fact Hannebery had his leg caught was just bad luck. Wood was lower so it hit Hannebery low hip and wood high hip. . I'm confused why you would think a bloke who can't turn is better on the ground than 3 fit players on the interchange .

[chef]

They were suggesting Morriss drive on the ball should have been contact below the knee too which is ridiculous.

Worst rule in footy.

[bornadog]

Agree with all views here. Wood and Hannerbury virtually arrived at the ball at the same time. Wood was probably a fraction early.
Once more the AFL made a knee jerk reaction to something that was not a major problem in football.

[bornadog]

The Morris one is what footy is all about is a gutsy effort to get the ball.

[SlimPickens]

Agree with all views here. Wood and Hannerbury virtually arrived at the ball at the same time. Wood was probably a fraction early.
Once more the AFL made a knee jerk reaction to something that was not a major problem in football.

The Wood/Hannebery incident reminded me of the Smith/Griffen contact incident the week before. It just happened that Wood went lower and harder, both players turned their bodies to protect themselves and should be commended for how they approached the contest. The fact Hannebery got injured shouldn't even come into the discussion.

The one I felt the umps actually got the wrong way around was the too high free against Jack on Maclean. Just shows how much of a chook lotto it has become. Overall, i thought the game was actually reasonably well officiated.

[Axe Man]

Former AFL umpire Derek Humphery-Smith on the Wood/Hannebery incident:


The Hannebery non-free kick has certainly been the most heavily criticised and Humphery-Smith agreed that under the current rule, the Swan was hard-done-by but believed Wood have been stiff at the same time.

“I think it’s not quite as clear cut as some of the commentary has been today,” he said.

“My sense is that Easton Wood wanted the footy more. Hannebery goes down slower and Easton Wood goes down lower and harder.

“I suppose the challenge we’ve got certainly for the laws of the game committee, because they’ll review this year and that incident particularly. They’ll say ‘well, we’re really rewarding the guy that doesn’t go as hard for the footy.’

“Technically yes, it’s a free kick to Hannebery but I think he doesn’t go as hard at the footy as Easton Wood.”

[craigsahibee]

The Wood/Hannebery incident reminded me of the Smith/Griffen contact incident the week before. It just happened the Wood went lower and harder, both players turned their bodies to protect themselves and should be commended for how they approached the contest. The fact Hannebery got injured shouldn't even come into the discussion.

The one I felt the umps actually got the wrong way around was the too high free against Jack on Maclean. Just shows how much of a chook lotto it has become. Overall, i thought the game was actually reasonably well officiated.

That one should have just been play on. Toby didn't take out his legs and in effect just dropped on the ball. In fact, I don't think there was any contact at all.

Agree with others re Wood/Hannebery. Contact was made above the knee, however as The Pie Man pointed out in the opening post, it could have been paid a free kick to Hannebery. I wouldn't have liked it as it totally goes against the grain of everything you are taught as a junior footballer. I know they have softened the interpretation to only forceful contact below the knee, which places even more pressure on the umpires, but maybe they just need to re write it along the lines of "if you take possession of the ball whilst not on your feet and are tackled, you are deemed to have prior opportunity, and then free kicked for holding the ball". This may discourage players sliding in. Just a thought.

[bornadog]

I thought the game was actually reasonably well officiated.

I agree, there weren't many that influenced the game. Perhaps the free to Clay for high contact, but it happened so fast the umpire had no choice as it looked high.

Swans fans are just sooking because they weren't good enough to take out the premiership.

[AndrewP6]

Hate it with a passion. To me, it's punishing the guy who goes hard at the ball and gets there first.

[Ozza]

Problem I have with the Wood/Hanneberry incident and the commentary around it;

How is Wood to know how exactly Hanneberry will go for the ball? They get there at the same time, and Hanneberry turns his body to attack the ball pretty much side on. So if Wood hadn't have gotten lower - he would have run face first into Hanneberry's hip.

Extremely hard to adjudicate when two players arrive at the same time. And when in doubt - 'play on'....which is what happened.

[Topdog]

Problem I have with the Wood/Hanneberry incident and the commentary around it;


My problem with the mass commentary around it is that it made no difference at all to the game. Sydney score the next goal in what, 1 or 2 minutes?

[The Pie Man]

I agree, there weren't many that influenced the game. Perhaps the free to Clay for high contact, but it happened so fast the umpire had no choice as it looked high.

Swans fans are just sooking because they weren't good enough to take out the premiership.

The HTB that led to Smith's free/goal was also dubious, but they're two bad calls in 2 hours of football.

The Toby one was interesting - again, in the current climate it's probably a free against (and Toby goals not long after - very important) but I felt he got there first fairly comfortably and was then ran over. Seen them paid the other way though through the season.

Good to read you all share my views on this - I rant about this pretty much every week to those I watch with, so was wondering if was on my Moses.

[The Pie Man]

Former AFL umpire Derek Humphery-Smith on the Wood/Hannebery incident:

That is surprisingly well put by Derek - I hope they at least review this over the summer, seems to be continued confusion on where/when it applies

[Doc26]

Interesting discussion.
Players do need to show a duty of care when contesting a contest and to gain a position advantage. As the OP mentions, the incident that sparked this off back in 2012 was Lindsay Thomas on Gary Rohan which is quite different to Easton's on Hannebery's although no doubt with similar intent to win the football. Slowed up, Thomas actually raises his foot and unintentionally 'stomps' on Rohan's ankle, which with momentum forces the break of Rohan's ankle.

Thomas / Rohan Incident (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-9XssTeOa8)

With Easton on Hannebery, Hannebery is retreating slightly from the contest, no doubt expecting to be hit by Easton, with Easton getting his hands on the ball before Hannebery. I'm not even sure Hannebery touches the ball. For mine, this image helps clarify the issue of duty of care and 'intent.'

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxmhclh2jdtrs2g/EastonWood.jpg?raw=1

[LostDoggy]

Easton just wanted that pill a little bit more then Hannebry did.

[KT31]

Hate it with a passion. To me, it's punishing the guy who goes hard at the ball and gets there first.

Agree, its encouraging a player to stand back and hope the bloke who is attacking the ball collects him.

[jeemak]

Hate it with a passion. To me, it's punishing the guy who goes hard at the ball and gets there first.


Agree, its encouraging a player to stand back and hope the bloke who is attacking the ball collects him.

The AFL genuinely wants players to be second to the footy with this and the dragging the ball in rules. You can fall forwards whilst out of control, land on the footy, have someone hold it to your chest, and get pinged for holding the ball. It's amazing.

With deliberate out of bounds the AFL is encouraging players to kick to the opposition or be penalised. What a stupid concept. I love watching players set up and contest boundary throw ins, it's a great part of our game the AFL wants to remove.

[bornadog]

Agree, its encouraging a player to stand back and hope the bloke who is attacking the ball collects him.

There was a moment in the Prelim where that is what almost happened. Patton spilled the mark and then just waited for Wood to rush in to grab the ball. Patton was either gutless to put his head down, or just wanted to tackle and not attack the ball

[Ghost Dog]

Very difficult umpiring decision. To the letter of the law, I think it should have been paid. Apologies to Swans fans who I respect, and if they vent a little it's because they love their club, but as many themselves admitted after the game, it would not have affected the results.
Frankly, I thought the game was umpired well. If you want more frees, get first to the footy. To their credit, many Swans fans admitted this. I thought their venting was quite intelligent and respectful.

[boydogs]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pxmhclh2jdtrs2g/EastonWood.jpg?raw=1

Perfect freeze frame that shows Wood was still on his feet when he got hands to the ball. He then went forward onto his knees to protect the ball and brace for contact. Nothing like taking the legs of the player over the ball