The Bowden rushed behind?

[GVGjr]

What did everyone think about the Joel Bowden rushed behind?

Just part of the game or is it a blight on the spirit of the game?

[Go_Dogs]

What did everyone think about the Joel Bowden rushed behind?

Just part of the game or is it a blight on the spirit of the game?

I'm happy for it to happen. I wouldn't mind the 3 points for a rushed behind rule to come into effect though for season proper if it becomes a more common occurrence.

[LostDoggy]

I'd be frustrated if I were an Essendon supporter, but it's not against the rules and he did the safe thing. I think that if they introduce a 3 point rushed behind rule, it should only be if it's from a kick out...that way it's easy to adjudicate, as if they paid them for fisting it through or any other thing, it would be too hard.

[Happy Days]

If Essendon was smart about it they would've applyed more pressure or given away a 50m penalty...you can't say that it wasn't in the spirit of the game if Essendon blatantly refused to use common sense, especially when there was so much on the line for them

And there is also the issue of one J. Laycock...

[The Coon Dog]

I've been advocating that play for a number of years. When you bring the ball back into play you run the risk of a turnover, this takes it right out of the equation.

Not too sure there is a way to stop it either, I mean you can encroach over the mark & concede a 50 metre penalty, tho the defender can watch the opposition player marched 50 metres downfield by the umpire while he remains stationary, he's still behind the mark, albeit 50 metres behind. He can then just wait even longer until someone approaches & then concede another behind.

[LostDoggy]

Part of the game. Just Essendon crying. Had they have been in front and smart enough they would have done the same.
Why can't the league just let the game evolve instead advocating change every year? Better coaching fixes this not just rule changes.

3 points is ridiculous. Just another thing umpires will stuff up. Essendon were 6 points better off in the pre season against us because of incorrect decisions in this area.

[LostDoggy]

Pity we didn't do it in our game against West Coast a few years ago- they got their hands on the ball in the kick in and ended up with a goal.

[LostDoggy]

Pity we didn't do it in our game against West Coast a few years ago- they got their hands on the ball in the kick in and ended up with a goal.

Yes pity, it would have cost us one of Ray or Cooney I believe.

[The Coon Dog]

Yes pity, it would have cost us one of Ray or Cooney I believe.
It would have cost us Cooney ES. Carlton still retianed their priority pick which they used on Andrew Walker with pick 2, not sure they would have taken him with number 1 tho.

[Sedat]

Opposition clubs need to be smarter - next time someone like Bowden tries that trick, an opposition forward should just dump him to the ground (preferably hurting him in the process), concede the 50m penalty and then man up on all opponents. See if Bowden has the balls to run back 60m to concede a rushed point.

[LostDoggy]

Opposition clubs need to be smarter - next time someone like Bowden tries that trick, an opposition forward should just dump him to the ground (preferably hurting him in the process), concede the 50m penalty and then man up on all opponents. See if Bowden has the balls to run back 60m to concede a rushed point.



He wouldnt have to run back. He could remain in the goal square. OR he could go to the 50m line, then go slowly walk back 30m from the man on the mark, waste time and turn and slot the ball for a point from 20m.

Its funny how opposition teams all ways play man on man when they are down in the last few minutes. MAybe if they played man on man from the first siren they wouldnt be in a that predicament.

I hope the AFL doesnt bring in the 3pnts for a point rule. Then you will get forwards letting the backs pick up the ball metres from the line and waiting to pounce on them. A bit like the deliberate out of bounds.

[craigsahibee]

One caller on SEN had the right idea this morning. To avoid this happening, change the way the timing of the game is administered. Time is started again only when the ball has been touched by another player after the kick in and outside of the goal square or crosses the boundary line in the case where the kick is not touched by another player.

This will eliminate "icing" and force teams to man up.

If a 50m penalty is awarded from the kick out, time restatrts when the first disposal occurs.

[LostDoggy]

One caller on SEN had the right idea this morning. To avoid this happening, change the way the timing of the game is administered. Time is started again only when the ball has been touched by another player after the kick in and outside of the goal square or crosses the boundary line in the case where the kick is not touched by another player.

This will eliminate "icing" and force teams to man up.

If a 50m penalty is awarded from the kick out, time restatrts when the first disposal occurs.

Go one better than that. Time is restarted wen he brings the ball into play.

[LostDoggy]

Nothing wrong with what Bowden did. It happens all the time during the game. I can recall at least 4 or 5 times this year when Lake has done the same thing when he had no one to kick to.

The reason there is a big fuss is because it happened in the last minute of the game. There were at least 100 odd minutes played prior to that incident.

[westdog54]

I've been advocating that play for a number of years. When you bring the ball back into play you run the risk of a turnover, this takes it right out of the equation.

Not too sure there is a way to stop it either, I mean you can encroach over the mark & concede a 50 metre penalty, tho the defender can watch the opposition player marched 50 metres downfield by the umpire while he remains stationary, he's still behind the mark, albeit 50 metres behind. He can then just wait even longer until someone approaches & then concede another behind.

Encroach the mark, rip the ball out of his hands, run to the 50 metre line and place the ball down. Then see if he has the balls to kick it back 50 metres. Or, once you give away the 50 metre penalty, have a player stand directly behind the player kicking in. If he turns around and takes a step, its play on.

This piece of play by Joel Bowden has exposed just how much footy fans are influenced by the media. The same bunch of parrots screaming for a rule change over the weekend probably screamed to leave the rules alone when the hands in the back debate was at its peak.

[Twodogs]

This piece of play by Joel Bowden has exposed just how much footy fans are influenced by the media. The same bunch of parrots screaming for a rule change over the weekend probably screamed to leave the rules alone when the hands in the back debate was at its peak.



Well summed up. You either change the rules or you dont. You cant have it both ways.

[LostDoggy]

Once in 150 years hey. Bowden might be clever but he isn't that clever.

[hujsh]

Opposition clubs need to be smarter - next time someone like Bowden tries that trick, an opposition forward should just dump him to the ground (preferably hurting him in the process), concede the 50m penalty and then man up on all opponents. See if Bowden has the balls to run back 60m to concede a rushed point.

50m does nothing. he can stand 50m back if he wants as long as he's in line with the mark.

[bornadog]

Once in 150 years hey. Bowden might be clever but he isn't that clever.

Exactly, happens many times during the game, this one happen to be with a few minutes to go. Leave the rules alone.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Bowden kicked it to himself, stuffed around a bit and then handballed it through.

That saved him a grand total of 8 seconds.


Can this issue be awarded the 'what a lot of hand-wringing over bugger-all' award?

[1eyedog]

Exactly, happens many times during the game, this one happen to be with a few minutes to go. Leave the rules alone.

I agree, this rule should not be changed, but we need 4 boundary umpires!