SA Footy

Rushed behind Ess v Haw free

Experts thought that umpires boss Geoff Geisham would come out and say the umpire was 100% correct and back him up over the decision...... instead they have dumped him this week and said he was 'grossly wrong'.

Bit harsh, the Essendon guy had room to run off into play but decided to step back over the line. good decision ump and way too harsh Geoff!

overloaded wrote:Rushed behind Ess v Haw free

Experts thought that umpires boss Geoff Geisham would come out and say the umpire was 100% correct and back him up over the decision...... instead they have dumped him this week and said he was 'grossly wrong'.

Bit harsh, the Essendon guy had room to run off into play but decided to step back over the line. good decision ump and way too harsh Geoff!

I think it has more to do with McLaren lining the players up in the middle of the goals rather than where it went over the line which it should have been.

very harsh.

This is what happens when you needlessly tamper with the rules.
Blame Dr Frankenstein (Demetriou) and Igor (Anderson) for this.

overloaded wrote:Rushed behind Ess v Haw free

Experts thought that umpires boss Geoff Geisham would come out and say the umpire was 100% correct and back him up over the decision...... instead they have dumped him this week and said he was 'grossly wrong'.

Bit harsh, the Essendon guy had room to run off into play but decided to step back over the line. good decision ump and way too harsh Geoff!

i reckon it was a free, but its a stupid rule and hopefully this sees it abolished

overloaded wrote:Rushed behind Ess v Haw free

Experts thought that umpires boss Geoff Geisham would come out and say the umpire was 100% correct and back him up over the decision...... instead they have dumped him this week and said he was 'grossly wrong'.

Bit harsh, the Essendon guy had room to run off into play but decided to step back over the line. good decision ump and way too harsh Geoff!

Crap dicision, the AFL needs to sort it's life out

Mr66 wrote:This is what happens when you needlessly tamper with the rules.
Blame Dr Frankenstein (Demetriou) and Igor (Anderson) for this.

Agree.
Farcical rule with an even more farcical penalty.

If they persist with the rule, i suggest that all deliberate rushed behinds by the defending team that play should re-start with a bounce (another stupid thing they persist with that should be abolished) at the top of the kick out square instead of gifting the oppentents a simple goal for nothing.

Worst decision I've seen for ages, until I watched Ray Chamberlain on the weekend handing out 50metre penalties like tic tacs.

If a player is under pressure, he can rush a behind. That's the rule. What's not to understand about that?

Turbo wrote:

overloaded wrote:Rushed behind Ess v Haw free

Experts thought that umpires boss Geoff Geisham would come out and say the umpire was 100% correct and back him up over the decision...... instead they have dumped him this week and said he was 'grossly wrong'.

Bit harsh, the Essendon guy had room to run off into play but decided to step back over the line. good decision ump and way too harsh Geoff!

i reckon it was a free, but its a stupid rule and hopefully this sees it abolished

Agree Turbo, bit harsh but was there. Stupid rule that has generally been well-umpired, but it makes the Carr non-decision the week before an absolute joke.
Goes to show how as soon as a rule is introduced players try to get around it, because Franklin sweated off Slattery inthe hope of getting a free, and this has happened many times.
Easy solution - if umpire deems it rushed, ball can't come back into play until the goal umpire has waved his flags. If it legitimate shot for goal or spoil over the line, then can play-on, but not have an official, trainer etc waiting behnd goals to throw a ball back.

Drop Bear wrote:Worst decision I've seen for ages, until I watched Ray Chamberlain on the weekend handing out 50metre penalties like tic tacs.

If a player is under pressure, he can rush a behind. That's the rule. What's not to understand about that?

If thats thats the rule, WHY would a player ever rush a behind if they WERN'T under pressure?

The point i'm getting at is that the only time a player ever rushes a behind is when they ARE under pressure so in theory, a free should never be paid.

jackpot jim wrote:

Drop Bear wrote:Worst decision I've seen for ages, until I watched Ray Chamberlain on the weekend handing out 50metre penalties like tic tacs.

If a player is under pressure, he can rush a behind. That's the rule. What's not to understand about that?

If thats thats the rule, WHY would a player ever rush a behind if they WERN'T under pressure?

The point i'm getting at is that the only time a player ever rushes a behind is when they ARE under pressure so in theory, a free should never be paid.

i think a big reason why this rule was introduced was because of what Joel Bowden done last year, when he most certainly wasnt under an ounce of pressure and rushed a behind (from a behind kickout) with richmond up by a few points very late into the last quater.

I don't mind the. It makes for some interesting footy when the ball is a few metres from the opposition goal line, and your defenders are trying to not rush a behind. Needs to be worked on i admit, and maybe the interpratation needs to be fixed, but it wouldnt bother me if the rule stayed.