Rushed behinds rule under review

[rod_rooster]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
NO MORE RULE CHANGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Couldn't agree more.

Agree with the 2 experts

If GE won by less than 9 points .... ???

11 rushed behinds wasn't it? Either way i don't care. Go you Mighty Fighting Hawks. Shane Crawford, Premiership Player. Damn that sounds good

[mal]

HW won the game easliy
However if teams wanna rush thru 11 points there WILL be times when it WILL cost them the game
Imagine if GE had a big last qtr and won by 11 points or less !

Quite simply if teams wanna rush behinds its thier perogative and lets not forget the penalty for rushed behinds is 1 point and thats ample

[Macca19]

Agreed, instead of a rule change coaches can just implement tactics/skills to avoid it happening.

But that's the point here .... what can you do if the defender just decides it's all too hard and takes 2 steps backwards?

Every other rule forces players to commit to making a contest and gives the opponent a reward for taking away all their opponent's options.

Except this one .... a free white flag whenever the defender wants out of a pickle. Not one coach gives a rats toss bag about the 1 point penalty.

If a team is up by enough that they can afford to give away behinds then more power to them. If the 3-point rule existed, would Geelong have won? No. Hawks would have had a different strategy. Sooner or later...like all things, a team will **** it up, lose a game and look foolish.

Honestly, who the hell would want to be a defender these days? The AFL keep implenting rules and think about implementing others that make it almost impossible to be a defender these days. You cant chop the arms, you cant touch the back of a player, you cant hit the boundary line for huge fear of deliberate, play-on with kicks backwards in the back half of the ground in pre seasons and now theres gonna be big pressure for a 3-point rushed rule.

The AFL and the general public are so reactionary to events that happen that its getting beyond a joke. A team **** up an interchange so they rush in a new rule mid season and look stupid...umpires make mistakes so a week later they re-change the rule. Ridiculous. Teams start playing kick to kick in the backline so the AFL want to bring in a no-mark rule in the back half of the ground. Ridiculous. Now a team wins a grand final whilst giving away 10 rushed behinds and everyone is in uproar and want that rule changed.

Do we have to change the rules of the game everytime someone comes up with a new strategy for winning? These reactionary changes make the game worse, not better.

[spell_check]

How about the AFL rescinding ones of its rules - the play-on before the flag is waved. A few rushed behinds have always been part-and -parcel of the game, but there has been a plethora of them since this rule was introduced, and it is a blight on the game.

Good idea. Instead of making rule changes, I do believe a lot of what has been implemented recently should just be scrapped. The centre circle with the two ruckmen probably wouldn't be one of those rules, simply because of the injuries. I would like to go back to the 25 minute time on rules; the hands in the back rule - so long as you're just stopping the player from going back and not pushing them forward; the taking the ball out of the ruck; hitting the ball out of bounds on the full from a ruck contest to name a few.

[rod_rooster]

Agreed, instead of a rule change coaches can just implement tactics/skills to avoid it happening.

But that's the point here .... what can you do if the defender just decides it's all too hard and takes 2 steps backwards?

Every other rule forces players to commit to making a contest and gives the opponent a reward for taking away all their opponent's options.

Except this one .... a free white flag whenever the defender wants out of a pickle. Not one coach gives a rats toss bag about the 1 point penalty.

If a team is up by enough that they can afford to give away behinds then more power to them. If the 3-point rule existed, would Geelong have won? No. Hawks would have had a different strategy. Sooner or later...like all things, a team will f*** it up, lose a game and look foolish.

Honestly, who the hell would want to be a defender these days? The AFL keep implenting rules and think about implementing others that make it almost impossible to be a defender these days. You cant chop the arms, you cant touch the back of a player, you cant hit the boundary line for huge fear of deliberate, play-on with kicks backwards in the back half of the ground in pre seasons and now theres gonna be big pressure for a 3-point rushed rule.

The AFL and the general public are so reactionary to events that happen that its getting beyond a joke. A team num num num num up an interchange so they rush in a new rule mid season and look stupid...umpires make mistakes so a week later they re-change the rule. Ridiculous. Teams start playing kick to kick in the backline so the AFL want to bring in a no-mark rule in the back half of the ground. Ridiculous. Now a team wins a grand final whilst giving away 10 rushed behinds and everyone is in uproar and want that rule changed.

Do we have to change the rules of the game everytime someone comes up with a new strategy for winning? These reactionary changes make the game worse, not better.

Fantastic post

[Mr66]

I'll second that RR.
The game will evolve without the interference of it's idiot administrators.

[Hondo]

If the 3-point rule existed, would Geelong have won? No. Hawks would have had a different strategy.

....... Now a team wins a grand final whilst giving away 10 rushed behinds and everyone is in uproar and want that rule changed.

Do we have to change the rules of the game everytime someone comes up with a new strategy for winning? These reactionary changes make the game worse, not better.

To me, this is not about Saturday's game. This is not even a defence of Geelong's loss. They lost fair and square.

Coaches and players are now exploiting a rule of our game. Instead of working their way out of defence, defenders are now more and more taking the option of turning around and handballing over the line and starting again. I think a Hawthorn player even kicked it over on Saturday That's ridiculous. Even Clarko admitted he's exploiting a loop-hole.

If the defender has run out of options well, tough, it's a goal and it goes back to the centre to start again. That's footy. Footy isn't about giving up and being able to start again. Then give up again .... and so on.

It's an ugly blight on our great game and it's a tactic the rule-makers all those years ago never even contemplated.

We don't have to make it 3 points for a deliberate rushed behind. You could bounce it from 30m or you could even say the defenders can't do it twice in a row or it's a free kick. The latter idea barely changes the rules at all but could be an easy fix.

This issue is no different to the tactics that lead to the out-of-bounds on the full rule. A rule change none of us have an issue with now. I want is the coaches to come up with a way to crack the zone other than to handball it back over the line and start again .... and again ...

[gadj1976]

I can't believe this!!!

Before you could play on from a behind, there wasn't an issue with rushed behinds because it didn't favour the defending side. Now they use it to gain advantage. So I'm in favour of a rule change - change IT BACK so you are not allowed to play on from a point. That way, the advantage is gone and teams wont use it as an attacking ploy.

[Bag The Points]

How about the AFL rescinding ones of its rules - the play-on before the flag is waved. A few rushed behinds have always been part-and -parcel of the game, but there has been a plethora of them since this rule was introduced, and it is a blight on the game.

I've always intensely despised this rule. Why hand a side an advantage because the opposition has scored ?

[FlyingHigh]

How about the AFL rescinding ones of its rules - the play-on before the flag is waved. A few rushed behinds have always been part-and -parcel of the game, but there has been a plethora of them since this rule was introduced, and it is a blight on the game.

Good idea. Instead of making rule changes, I do believe a lot of what has been implemented recently should just be scrapped. The centre circle with the two ruckmen probably wouldn't be one of those rules, simply because of the injuries. I would like to go back to the 25 minute time on rules; the hands in the back rule - so long as you're just stopping the player from going back and not pushing them forward; the taking the ball out of the ruck; hitting the ball out of bounds on the full from a ruck contest to name a few.

Agree spelly. I have a bit of a theory that this chipping, keepings-off game we see now has its origins from changing from 25 mins (and time not stopping when out-of-bounds), to the currently the rule.

[AFLflyer]

I can't believe this!!!

Before you could play on from a behind, there wasn't an issue with rushed behinds because it didn't favour the defending side. Now they use it to gain advantage. So I'm in favour of a rule change - change IT BACK so you are not allowed to play on from a point. That way, the advantage is gone and teams wont use it as an attacking ploy.

Spot on and totally agree. the play on after a point rule has caused this.. ! CHANGE IT BACK!!! the game doesnt need to be any quicker, it's fast enough. Changing this rule will improve the game and bring back more true footy contests. The AFL has caused this problem, so they need to fix it. Otherwise next year 12 rushed points a game will be the norm - no one wants to see this!

[spell_check]

How about the AFL rescinding ones of its rules - the play-on before the flag is waved. A few rushed behinds have always been part-and -parcel of the game, but there has been a plethora of them since this rule was introduced, and it is a blight on the game.

Good idea. Instead of making rule changes, I do believe a lot of what has been implemented recently should just be scrapped. The centre circle with the two ruckmen probably wouldn't be one of those rules, simply because of the injuries. I would like to go back to the 25 minute time on rules; the hands in the back rule - so long as you're just stopping the player from going back and not pushing them forward; the taking the ball out of the ruck; hitting the ball out of bounds on the full from a ruck contest to name a few.

Agree spelly. I have a bit of a theory that this chipping, keepings-off game we see now has its origins from changing from 25 mins (and time not stopping when out-of-bounds), to the currently the rule.

Yeah, if a time wasting tactic was used back then, it would be through keeping the ball near the boundary lines and the time would tick by. I reakon if they brought that back, it would be probably only 23 minutes plus time on, because of the time on added automatically for a ball up - which only came about in 2006.

Funny though, because the SANFL has more ball ups than the AFL (and the nail in the coffin for that rule here was the 2nd quarter of the GF) it was changed back because of 35 minute quarters. That 2nd quarter went for 33 minutes with just three goals - but 35 ball ups!

[FlyingHigh]

And what would happen if the ball went out of bounds and wasted ten seconds maximum? There would be a fifty-fifty contest, and the game would come alive again, esp if a team was down by a few points deep into the last.

[FlyingHigh]

[quote
Funny though, because the SANFL has more ball ups than the AFL (and the nail in the coffin for that rule here was the 2nd quarter of the GF) it was changed back because of 35 minute quarters. That 2nd quarter went for 33 minutes with just three goals - but 35 ball ups![/quote]

DO you mean the 2006 GF when the Eagles shut the Dogs down going against the breeze?

[spell_check]

DO you mean the 2006 GF when the Eagles shut the Dogs down going against the breeze?

Yes. But if an AFL side was going to negate the breeze, they would just chip the ball around. I don't have a stat on it, but I'll bet there are more ball ups in the SANFL than the AFL per match.

[Hondo]

Looks like this issue isn't going away

http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=69071

To quote from the article:

"The AFL's general manager of football operations Adrian Anderson said the Laws Committee decided a change was necessary after general input from the clubs indicated that figure was set to increase further in 2009 "if left unchecked".

"What has really come through clearly in the recent feedback from the clubs and coaches is that they consider something should be done to discourage deliberately rushed behinds," he said. "The clubs are quite clearly saying as well that they will rush more behinds next year." "

Clear admission from the clubs that they are exploiting the existing rules. But there's no need for panic stations from some of you just yet - it's only to be trialled in the NAB cup and the 3-point system has been dropped as a potential solution. Note also that 1 of the 7 potential solutions is simply to prevent the automatic play-on option from deliberate rushed behinds .. which is a solution a few of you advocated.

[hearts on fire]

with this many rule changes, before we know it we will be using a round ball......

[devilsadvocate]

with this many rule changes, before we know it we will be using a round ball......

On a rectangular pitch and only 1 player can handle the ball?

Sounds familiar. I'll be happy to migrate

[Psyber]

I can't believe this!!!

Before you could play on from a behind, there wasn't an issue with rushed behinds because it didn't favour the defending side. Now they use it to gain advantage. So I'm in favour of a rule change - change IT BACK so you are not allowed to play on from a point. That way, the advantage is gone and teams wont use it as an attacking ploy.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Everything else raises other areas of contention where a player trying to spoil accidentally knocks the ball through and the umpire sees it as deliberate.

[FlyingHigh]

I can't believe this!!!

Before you could play on from a behind, there wasn't an issue with rushed behinds because it didn't favour the defending side. Now they use it to gain advantage. So I'm in favour of a rule change - change IT BACK so you are not allowed to play on from a point. That way, the advantage is gone and teams wont use it as an attacking ploy.

I'm inclined to agree with this. Everything else raises other areas of contention where a player trying to spoil accidentally knocks the ball through and the umpire sees it as deliberate.

Yep, agree Psyber, and we've seen how umpires love to get involved by paying deliberate out-of-bounds.