Rushed Behinds - Trial Rule for NAB Cup

[Dirko]

Well the AFL have decided to a trial a new rule to stop rushed behinds.

The AFL has proposed a free kick from the goal line be paid against the side guilty of rushing the behind.
So rush a behind and it'll effectively be a 7 point goal....

Here's a LINK CLICK HERE

First of all the AFL wanted the game sped up, so they allow the instant kick in from behinds without waiting for the Umps to wave the flags, thus allowing the defending team a better chance to rebound. Now the defending team is playing within the rules, by rushing behinds to allow them another shot of rebounding, they change the rules, to penalise a team from doing such.

What say go back and make the team wait for the flags to be waved and thus allow the opposing team to man up like the "old" days. This would prevent a lot of teams from rushing behinds as they'll know the opposition will be able to get players back and man up where necessary.

Why do they keep screwing with the rules of game ? Thoughts people ?

[GWW]

I'm just glad they haven't announced that they're bringing it in to the season proper. Saying that they'll introduce it into the Mickey Mouse comp is nowhere near as bad. Hopefully they'll see sense and never bring this rule in although realistically something probably needs to be done eg. the team who receives the rushed behind gets a free kick in the centre square.

[Wedgie]

Any chance they can introduce this rule retrospectively starting at the beginning of Grand Final day last year?
Geelong would have won by 5 or 6 goals then!

[NFC]

Worst possible rule change EVER.

E
V
E
R

Another step closer to me mailing in this league.

[Psyber]

A 3 point penalty wasn't bad but 7 points is over the top.
Even 3 is a bit rough if the defender with the ball is pushed through by an opponent, rather than does it deliberately.

[gadj1976]

As every coach who's just read the stupidity of the new rule, they'll be plotting to counter it.

To contend with this stupidity I'd get my defenders when in a situation where they want to rush the ball to stand with the ball about 30cm from the goal line and get pushed or tackled over the line. Where the opposition stand off, then you could get other defenders to rally around and help get the ball out of defence.

There you go AFL, make a rule to stop that one.

The other problem I have with introducing this rule - apart from what SJABC stated - is that they've introduced another subjective rule open to umpiring interpretation, such as hands in the back.

[redandblack]

Sounds like a great rule.

Who's going to deliberately rush a behind with that penalty?

Worst rule ever is the ball hitting the post and play on. Totally illogical.

[MatteeG]

Absolute rubbish rule. Go back to waiting for the flags to be waved. Stop changing the game!

[rd]

I'd revert the rushed behind to be worth just one point.
The ball cannot be brought back in until the flags have been waved.
The player kicking the ball back in then has to do a drop kick/ stab pass etc...
We'd get to see a beautiful style of kick return to the game.

[Hondo]

Absolute rubbish rule. Go back to waiting for the flags to be waved. Stop changing the game!

The problem is that the massive increase in rushed behinds was not 100% caused by the play on rule. It was part of it but it was the 2 other causes of deliberate rushed behinds which alarmed everyone:
- time wasting at the end of a close match (Joel Bowden)
- trying to beat a defensive zone by repeated attempts (eg Hawthorn in the GF)

Neither negative tactic will go away by waiting for the umpires to wave the flags. That process is irrelevant to what the defenders were trying to achieve.

I am all for a change to stop these tactics but a 7 point penalty seems too much. I reckon the AFL could be just trying to see how the most onerous rule works in the NAB Cup and will then pick something milder. They also may feel that clubs might get out of some bad habits by the time the real season starts.

[Hondo]

To contend with this stupidity I'd get my defenders when in a situation where they want to rush the ball to stand with the ball about 30cm from the goal line and get pushed or tackled over the line. Where the opposition stand off, then you could get other defenders to rally around and help get the ball out of defence.

If you just stand there and get caught with the ball in your hand = holding the ball. The umpires will be very hard on a defender who's made no effort to move the ball on in the first place. I can't think of much else to counter it other than to say that's what happens every game these days - it's just usually not 30cm out from goal! It's a lot easier to play keepings off when you've got room behind you.

I guess the concept is that it's better to keep the ball live and keep the pressure on the defenders (who will feel completely under the pump in your scenario - one backwards step and they've given up a goal), than to let them just take 2 steps backwards and earn an easy free kick to get out of their pickle. Keeps the pressure up and keeps the contest alive which is what footy is all about.

[gadj1976]

To contend with this stupidity I'd get my defenders when in a situation where they want to rush the ball to stand with the ball about 30cm from the goal line and get pushed or tackled over the line. Where the opposition stand off, then you could get other defenders to rally around and help get the ball out of defence.

If you just stand there and get caught with the ball in your hand = holding the ball. The umpires will be very hard on a defender who's made no effort to move the ball on in the first place. I can't think of much else to counter it other than to say that's what happens every game these days - it's just usually not 30cm out from goal! It's a lot easier to play keepings off when you've got room behind you.

I guess the concept is that it's better to keep the ball live and keep the pressure on the defenders (who will feel completely under the pump in your scenario - one backwards step and they've given up a goal), than to let them just take 2 steps backwards and earn an easy free kick to get out of their pickle. Keeps the pressure up and keeps the contest alive which is what footy is all about.

Not if the force of the tackle takes you over the line. You have to remember the initial stupid rule of prior opportunity!

[Rik E Boy]

They should never have changed this rule. Ever since the tough Hawks retired this club has been known for rushing behinds......

And to think Geelong's bad kicking has ended up in a victory for the metrosexuals.

regards,

REB

[MatteeG]

It was part of it but it was the 2 other causes of deliberate rushed behinds which alarmed everyone:
- time wasting at the end of a close match (Joel Bowden)
- trying to beat a defensive zone by repeated attempts (eg Hawthorn in the GF)

Neither negative tactic will go away by waiting for the umpires to wave the flags. That process is irrelevant to what the defenders were trying to achieve.

The "time wasting" by Bowden was a great ploy- The Essendon forwards should have pushed him in the back or something to stop the clock and/or give a 50 m which would have brought the ball back into play.

I am sure the clock stops when a point is scored (please correct me if this isnt true) so I dont see how much 'time' is wasted by rushing a point. If the player holds on to the ball for 40 secs without anyone tackling him surely thats the fault of the opposing forwards?

If time isnt stopped for a point maybe it should be.

1 point is still a penalty for your team- albeit a small one. I hate hearing that there is 'no penalty' for a rushed behind. If you are getting frustrated that your opposition is rushing points when your 5 goals down you should be worried why you are 5 goals down moreso than what the oppsition defenders are doing....

However, if we are throwing 'innovations' into the mix, what about a second 25 m line (like the WAFL had at one stage) where a kick out from a rushed point must clear that line?

[spell_check]

The time stops when the goal umpire indicates the behind - the hand signal. Time recommences when the ball is kicked off by the defender, or when the defender kicks to himself. So, Bowden was able to chew up time by baiting the defenders after he kicked to himself.

I am a bit at odds with the kick to yourself rule. That was altered recently too - you used to kick the ball from inside the goal square, then catch it outside the square only. Now all that is required is that the kick be made in the square. I saw a Sturt player in the Reserves GF virtually tap the ball onto his boot then play on - if not it was a few cms from his boot the kick traveled.

I think that you, MatteeG have made a good suggestion about the 25m line. I don't like a rule change to quell another rule change, but I believe that plus going back to wait for the flag to be waved is the way to go. I doubt that this has been noticed by many, but until 2002 I reakon, the goal umpire was required to wave the flags for either a goal or a behind at the centre of the goal line. Since that time, the behind flag can be waved anywhere along either goal or behind line but a metre away from the post. Also, at the same time, another flag was put on the right hand goal post so a behind could be waved on that side.

That was brought in to quicken up the process for kicking out from fullback, but of course that was not enough. With the 25m arc, while you think it would favour the team defending the kick-off, all it would mean is that if the zone is placed back in anticipation for a longer kick, the fullback would just make a short pass to a teammate not far away, but would be called to play on. Then, if a team anticipated the short kick, then the longer kick could be made to beat the zone. This rule would also eliminate that short kick in to the backpocket that rarely looks to have covered 15m.

[Hondo]

1 point is still a penalty for your team- albeit a small one. I hate hearing that there is 'no penalty' for a rushed behind. If you are getting frustrated that your opposition is rushing points when your 5 goals down you should be worried why you are 5 goals down moreso than what the oppsition defenders are doing....

If it saves you a goal you'd give up a point an infinite number of times. If it gives you a play-on chance to score a goal, then away you go again.

Even if it only saved you 1 goal every 5 times you do it, you are still in front (by one point).

I think my main issue with the tactic is that if you deliberately put the ball over the line 1cm from the point post, it's a free kick to the opposition. Do it 1cm inside the point post and you have an instant free kick to yourself It shouldn't be so different IMO.

As I said, I am not sure about the 7 point penalty but one thing's for sure ... it will stop the tactic dead in its tracks. Another thing's for sure .... any thread about rushed behinds is sure to trigger about 10 posts by yours truly (i've started 2 already before )

[rod_rooster]

Absolute rubbish rule. Go back to waiting for the flags to be waved. Stop changing the game!

The problem is that the massive increase in rushed behinds was not 100% caused by the play on rule. It was part of it but it was the 2 other causes of deliberate rushed behinds which alarmed everyone:
- time wasting at the end of a close match (Joel Bowden)
- trying to beat a defensive zone by repeated attempts (eg Hawthorn in the GF)

Neither negative tactic will go away by waiting for the umpires to wave the flags. That process is irrelevant to what the defenders were trying to achieve.

I am all for a change to stop these tactics but a 7 point penalty seems too much. I reckon the AFL could be just trying to see how the most onerous rule works in the NAB Cup and will then pick something milder. They also may feel that clubs might get out of some bad habits by the time the real season starts.

Firstly the "massive" increase in rushed behinds? Might want to check the stats on that one. I think the large number of behinds that Hawthorn rushed in the biggest game of the year has clouded people's minds on this issue.

Secondly it's not Bowden or Richmond's fault that Essendon wouldn't man up. Whilst the tactic is not one you would want to see very often there are tactics coaches could employ to prevent it so i don't seen the need for a rule change. I think the major problem that needs to be overcome is the trying to beat the defensive zone. Reverting to make the players wait till the flags are waved will have a major impact on this. Sides will have a much better chance to man up thus making it much more difficult for the team kicking in. The appeal of rushing the behind will not be a great then. The rules were never broken and i'm not sure why the AFL felt they needed to change them.

[Drop Bear]

Slowly but surely AFL is dying due to these pathetic rule changes EVERY ******* year!

[hearts on fire]

I am an AFL fan growing up in the modern era, but if this keeps on happening, i may have to follow the SANFL more closely.........

[Adelaide Hawk]

They should never have changed this rule. Ever since the tough Hawks retired this club has been known for rushing behinds......

And to think Geelong's bad kicking has ended up in a victory for the metrosexuals.

regards,

REB

Geez you write some crap at times. Months later and you're still sooking.