Contentious ... the sliding rule has caused plenty of debate. Source: Wayne Ludbey / Herald Sun
Three of the most courageous footballers in AFL history have savaged the "forceful contact below the knees" rule, saying it undermines the fabric of Australian football.
| P | W | D | L | % | Pts |
|---|
| 1 | Essendon | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 176.70 | 20 |
| 2 | Port Adelaide | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 148.45 | 20 |
| 3 | Geelong | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 114.20 | 20 |
| 4 | Hawthorn | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 131.57 | 16 |
| 5 | Sydney | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 124.53 | 16 |
| 6 | Richmond | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 112.13 | 12 |
| 7 | Fremantle | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 102.57 | 12 |
| 8 | Collingwood | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 93.61 | 12 |
| 9 | Carlton | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 103.67 | 8 |
| 10 | Adelaide | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 98.90 | 8 |
| 11 | Gold Coast | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 95.13 | 8 |
| 12 | Brisbane | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 77.53 | 8 |
| 13 | North Melbourne | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 100.20 | 4 |
| 14 | St Kilda | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 97.63 | 4 |
| 15 | West Coast | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 97.46 | 4 |
| 16 | Bulldogs | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 79.47 | 4 |
| 17 | Melbourne | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 57.16 | 4 |
| 18 | Greater Western Sydney | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 63.84 | 0 |
Glenn Archer, Paul Kelly and Gavin Brown, who between them were 12 times voted by peers as the AFL's Most Courageous Player, said the rule penalised desperate players who were first to the ball.
"It's a shocking rule," said Archer, a six-time winner of the AFLPA's Robert Rose Award. "It completely goes against the spirit of the game."
A year ago, the AFL introduced a rule to outlaw players from sliding legs first into a contest. In the pre-season, the league flagged a stricter interpretation of Law 15.4.5 a (ii), which prohibits "forceful contact below the knees of an opponent".
Archer said it was wrong to penalise players for taking possession, only for the upper half of their body to make contact with another player.
"Footballers at all levels are taught to keep their head over the ball, so this rule completely contradicts that," Archer said.
Former Sydney captain Paul Kelly said the AFL "wouldn't want to take away one ounce" of a player's desire to be first to the ball.
"I think the rule is probably a bit silly," Kelly said. "The idea of the game is to get the footy, isn't it?"
Collingwood champion Gavin Brown said the rule might prevent injuries.
"What that does do is take away ... seeing players with a real desperate attack on the footy," Brown said.
GLENN ARCHER
Archer said he found it difficult to comprehend why the AFL had applied a stricter interpretation of the "forceful contact below the knees" rule.
"From my point of view, I reckon it's a shocking rule. It goes against the spirit of the game.
"Footballers at all levels are taught to keep their head over the ball, so this completely contradicts that.
"Football's an instinctive game. For me it's see ball, get ball and if the ball's there and you have to dive at it then dive at it.
"This just seems like a knee-jerk reaction from the rules committee because someone got hurt last year.
"It's creating confusion because the players see the ball and they want to go get it, but for a split second they're thinking 'hang on, I don't want to get a free kick against me'.
"It's a rule that just doesn't need to be there."
Regarded as one of the game's most fearless footballers, Archer said he would have found the rule incredibly frustrating as a player and even found it hard to stomach as a spectator.
After seeing a free kick paid against North defender Jamie Macmillan in the Round 3 match against Sydney, "I had to get up and walk away for 10 minutes. I thought 'I can't watch this s---'.
"I can understand that the powers that be want the game to be safe for kids but, at the end of the day, you can't make it a totally safe game. People are going to get injured, that's just the way it is. If you don't want to get hurt, don't play it.
"You don't want to push your luck with supporters or you'll turn them off the game."
GAVIN BROWN
"I understand why the rule's come in and I like it from the point of view that it's going to save some potential injuries.
"I think what it means - and what I've seen so far - is that you've got to slow up a bit at the contest and players have got to keep their feet more.
"I guess what that does is take away what we used to have in a game, which is seeing players with a real desperate attack on the footy, and in one way I think that's a bit of a shame. There's no doubt it will take that element out of the game.
"We'll see players being a lot more cautious when there's a loose ball and they're 50-50. They'll obviously be conscious of the rule and not giving away free kicks. There's no doubt we're going to see less desperate attacks on the ball.
"It has been a great spectacle of the game, watching blokes like (Glenn) Archer and that, when he used to do it. Flying in when the ball was there and if there was anyone in the way, skittling them, but with that ability to take the ball and come out the other side. We're not going to see that any more, and there's no doubt that was a great spectacle.
"It's created confusion in the early stages of the season, but I think what happens is the players adapt. That's what will happen.
"And you've got to be even smarter about how you go in and attack the footy. It'll probably take a season before players and coaches work about the best way to go about it."
PAUL KELLY
Kelly said he did not believe there were enough instances of players getting hurt to warrant the stricter rule interpretation.
"The idea of the game is to get the footy, isn't it? For me I think the rule is probably a bit silly.
"There are enough rules as it is. The contact is getting less and less. If you're going for the footy you want to be able to go 100 per cent at it and most of the time you're going to make contact with someone.
"Why introduce that rule? I mean I can understand them trying to prevent blokes sliding in with their knees, but what are they trying to prevent with this other rule? Who's ever been hurt like this? I can't remember anyone.
"Society in general is getting a bit soft, and we try to bring in all these rules, but the bottom line is that accidents happen.
"The game's already not the game that I used to play, and I don't find it any better. If anything it's probably a bit more boring, footy.
"It's lost something, I don't know what it is, but these sort of rules don't help.
"It's one thing you don't want to take away from players, going for the footy. They should not be penalised for doing that.
"You wouldn't want to take one ounce of that away. If you're not 100 per cent focused on getting the footy, that's where blokes do get hurt. We've always known that if you go in half-hearted you'll get injured.
"I would hate to think that would be taken away. The whole game is based around getting the nut."
Kelly said he had reservations about recent rule changes, such as hands in the back and the arm chop, which had made life more difficult for defenders.
"Imagine Plugger (Tony Lockett), he would have kicked 2500 goals," Kelly said, before chuckling: "Mind you, I'm not sure how he would've gone pressing up."
