Over the past several years now, we have seen the AFL put a rule into effect which has been largely put in place to minimise the risk of broken legs in the league. Whenever we see a player go down with a broken leg, it often makes people gasp in disbelief or disgust due to the how bad the leg breaks. Which was why the AFL decided to introduce the 'contact below the knees rule' ahead of the 2013 AFL Season.
Round four in the 2012 AFL Premiership Season was the birthmark of this rule. Sydney were playing North Melbourne at the Sydney Cricket Ground on a Sunday afternoon. Just less than two minutes into this contest, we saw North Melbourne's Lindsay Thomas and Sydney's Gary Rohan contest for the ball on Sydney's half-forward flank. As Thomas opted to go to ground and was sliding towards the ball, his boot struck Rohan – who stayed on his feet – on his lower leg and caused it to break. It looked ugly as and it resulted in Rohan being stretchered off and missing the rest of the 2012 season.
Now don't get me wrong, I like and respect the intention that the AFL has here. Broken legs, knee injuries or any other form of lower body injury has historically, shortened careers or have made careers of extraordinary players change forever, and I get it, the league would like to see as little players with broken legs as possible. However, it's got to the point where it has overall confused people about what the rule actually means, so calls to have it abolished and barred have to be understood.
What I don't like about this rule is the fact that even if the contact is minimal and that players are starting to exploit the rule, trying to feel for any contact whatsoever. If there is contact, the umpires will not hesitate to pay the free kick to the opposition. It's moments like these which is damaging the game. Sure people would like to watch players score and roam down the centre of the Melbourne Cricket Ground or any other ground in Australia, but it's the toughness, the fight and desire to win the ball in congestion that also gets crowds excited.
Last Monday afternoon, I went to watch the Queen's Birthday game between Collingwood and Melbourne. It was a very entertaining contest all throughout, despite the Pies comfortably getting home by seven goals. There was one play I want to highlight – and I'm sure you all know what it is by this point – because it highlights how ridiculous the interpretation has become.
The ball was in dispute around the half-forward line for the Pies, and Taylor Adams and his Melbourne counterpart Joel Smith were running towards the ball. Whilst Smith opted to keep his feet, Adams slid down and punched the ball forward. As this happened, Adams' body made minimal contact with Smith's boots and he launched himself over the Collingwood on-baller, resulting in a Melbourne free-kick, which resulted in a goal up the other end.
Understandably, Collingwood fans were very unhappy about the call. I looked at my brother who was also at the game. He supports neither club, but even he said it was a pretty ordinary call. Whilst technically it's the right call, because it could've potentially been a whole lot worse for Joel Smith and his legs, it also verifies that long gone are the days of showing more appetite for the leather ball than your opposition, and perhaps maybe the fans are frustrated that players can no longer win the ball like that.
There was also an incident a while ago that has drawn controversy about this rule and its very existence. Round nine saw the Crows host the Western Bulldogs in appalling conditions at the Adelaide Oval. Adelaide key defender Daniel Talia and Bulldog Lukas Webb were contesting for the ball inside 50 midway through the second term. Running in the same direction, Talia opted to go to ground and slide for the ball, got to it before contact to Webb's knees was made. Some have even gone on to suggest that Webb initiated the contact before going to ground himself.
This resulted in a free kick to the Bulldogs and would eventually become the first of only two goals that they would kick that horrid night. But for most of that night, the AFL world was talking about that free kick. Was it the right call? Was it a ridiculous call. The faithful at the Adelaide Oval that night booed that decision for quite some time. Think it speaks volumes of how badly interpreted that rule has become
The proverbial straw that broke my back came this past Thursday night when the Bulldogs were back at Adelaide Oval to tackle Port Adelaide. It only took two seconds into the match before the umpire blew his whistle and awarded a free kick to Port Adelaide. Again this damn rule ruined what was a pretty intense battle for the football between Robbie Gray and Toby McLean.
Want to know what was the most ridiculous thing about this? Both men didn't go to ground, it was as fair of a contest as you could imagine. No malice, just tough contested football. Just how the people want to see it. This contest really hurt the shoulder of McLean, yet the umpire awarded the free kick to the Port player because McLean's shoulder hit the knees of Gray.
I know that there are more incidents out there, but these three are just the biggest and most recent examples of how poorly interpreted this rule has been. Pretty much since this rule has been brought in, it has damaged the AFL's hard-nosed approach to the game.
The Adelaide boys were jumping up and down screaming to the umpire about the Talia decision.
Former Essendon great Tim Watson called the decision against Taylor Adams on Queen's Birthday as something “Against The Spirit Of Our Game.”
And another champion of the game in Wayne Carey, labelled the decision against Toby McLean a really poor decision.
You could ask anyone out on the street about what they think about this particular rule, and nine times out of 10, they will tell you that it either needs to change, or they need to get rid of it altogether.
They must not get rid of this rule, but I can understand with the supporters' complaints and views that it should go. There's no consistency in this rule and for years, it has often left fans, players and coaches confused, frustrated and even consigning some to the point that the game is incredibly soft beyond salvaging.
But there is still hope for this rule to remain within the laws of the game. The fans demand something to happen with this rule. But the AFL must at least remain firm about keeping this rule in play. Broken legs are something we don't have to, nor see in the AFL – even seeing something like it makes me feel uneasy at best. I can't imagine the pain of having to go through something like that.
Sliding for the ball has to go. It's dangerous at the best of times and as we have seen time and time again, it has proven to cause not just season-ending injuries, but also career-altering ones too. However, I want to see this happen... If a player goes to ground and/or makes contact with the legs of an opposition player AFTER he has his hands on the ball – Play On.
Yes it may cause a problem and it might be a little tough to adjudicate, given the pace of the game nowadays, but a big part of the game is all about getting your hands to the ball first. Taylor Adams said after the Queen's Birthday that this rule was simply a 'knee-jerk' reaction to Gary Rohan's injury all those years ago. It sounds easy to get behind that statement, but it's got to the point where it's simply not just because of freak accidents.
Easton Wood dived for the ball in the 2016 Grand Final and took out Dan Hannebery's knee – surprisingly, no free kick was payed to the Swans, where in hindsight, it definitely should have. Another article which highlighted the importance of this rule showed a very ugly video of former West Coast Eagle Jaymie Graham breaking his leg, his knee and effectively destroying his career. He is now an assistant at the Eagles. All because his direct opponent chose to dive for the ball.
It's moments like that, where you have got to sit back and acknowledge the importance of this rule. Yes, you people may not like it, but at the end of the day, it's the injuries like these that can ruin a player's career, so the AFL have definitely done the right thing for standing by it. But the AFL can change their interpretations on the rule. It can be done.