Rushed Behind Rule

[LostDoggy]

I think that the Nab cup has proven that the rule is a farse and that it has been well documented that penalty isn't worth the crime Dunstall threw up an idea at a defender can rush one behind however if the team rushes a behind again without the opposition team touching it then the free kick is payable.

It got me thinking and I had this idea. If a team rushes a behind then the point counts and then insted of a kick in then the ball is taken to the penalty spot that is on every AFL ground for the interchange infringement for a bounce or throw up. This way it doesn't reward the defence for taking the easy option but doesn't crucify them at the same time.

[LostDoggy]

Don't change the rules, simple.

Never known a sport to tinker so much with the rules of the game.

[LostDoggy]

I think that they shouldn't mess with the rules it either but unfourtunatly I think they will. There would have to be a better option than the one currently in place at the moment all be it a trial.

[Happy Days]

They're making a mountain out of a molehill really.

Leave the rule alone.

If theiy're having doubts, think about it, then leave the rule alone.

If they're really unsure about it, ask someone, and then leave it alone.

[bornadog]

Tell me one reason why a rushed behind is a problem. So the Hawks rushed through 11 rushed behinds in the Grand Final, big deal, its all part of the game.

Simple fix, the ball can't be kicked back into play until the goal umpire has waved the flags............ now where have I seen that before???? Oh thats right, the previous 100 years of playing football.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Serious question.

Has the AFL ever admitted they got a rule change wrong and changed it back? Ever?

[LostDoggy]

Isn't called Aussie rules for nothing.
The rule is they need new rules to fix the old rules.

[ledge]

Change it to Demetriou rules.

[Go_Dogs]

Serious question.

Has the AFL ever admitted they got a rule change wrong and changed it back? Ever?

Post-it slips for the inter-change rule?

I don't think I've seen one paid, although a few pretty dubious ones got ignored in our game v Essendon.

[SonofScray]

They're making a mountain out of a molehill really.

Leave the rule alone.

If theiy're having doubts, think about it, then leave the rule alone.

If they're really unsure about it, ask someone, and then leave it alone.

Exactly.

Why are they so hellbent on changing the game? The adminstrators have got themselves caught in the reactionary process of trying to manufacture a style of fotball through rule changes, failing, and adding new rules to undo the previous ones. It is like there is an obligation to keep tinkering with it.

Let the coaches and players dictate how the game is played, i.e: leave the rules alone.

If they have to stuff around with rules, at least stick to the stuff that isn't actually the game itself, for instance: Interchange v substitution v Ltd interchange etc. Leave the scoring, skills and tactics alone.

[bulldogsman]

Tell me one reason why a rushed behind is a problem. So the Hawks rushed through 11 rushed behinds in the Grand Final, big deal, its all part of the game.

Simple fix, the ball can't be kicked back into play until the goal umpire has waved the flags............ now where have I seen that before???? Oh thats right, the previous 100 years of playing football.

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

I'm not really a big fan seeing the kicker's kick it to themselves, then just walk it over the line. I think this is sort of what there going on about. So why don't they just make a rule that whoever kicks in must pass it off to another player. So if the kicker rushes a behind without passing it off, then he is penalized.

Obviously this wouldn't eliminate it completely which i actually think is good. But it would at least stop guys like Bowden and a few Hawthorn players from rushing behind after behind.

Rush behinds were never a problem before the kickers started to do it. Now why do we need to eliminate it completely? Can't we just use a rule like this instead of removing it all together?

[Topdog]

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.


It shouldn't worry the AFL, all the opposition had to do was give away a 50m penalty and then he couldn't rush the behind, also stops the clock if I'm not mistaken.

[bornadog]

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

I'm not really a big fan seeing the kicker's kick it to themselves, then just walk it over the line. I think this is sort of what there going on about. So why don't they just make a rule that whoever kicks in must pass it off to another player. So if the kicker rushes a behind without passing it off, then he is penalized.

Obviously this wouldn't eliminate it completely which i actually think is good. But it would at least stop guys like Bowden and a few Hawthorn players from rushing behind after behind.

Rush behinds were never a problem before the kickers started to do it. Now why do we need to eliminate it completely? Can't we just use a rule like this instead of removing it all together?

Sorry, still can't see why we need a rushed behind rule. The current rule has been good enough for more than 100 years, then we have a knee jerk reaction to a couple of players rushing through a whole lot of behinds.

[westdog54]

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

I'm not really a big fan seeing the kicker's kick it to themselves, then just walk it over the line. I think this is sort of what there going on about. So why don't they just make a rule that whoever kicks in must pass it off to another player. So if the kicker rushes a behind without passing it off, then he is penalized.

Obviously this wouldn't eliminate it completely which i actually think is good. But it would at least stop guys like Bowden and a few Hawthorn players from rushing behind after behind.

Rush behinds were never a problem before the kickers started to do it. Now why do we need to eliminate it completely? Can't we just use a rule like this instead of removing it all together?

The Bowden incident happened because the Essendon forwards were too dump to think on their feet and adapt. The second I saw that footage I thought 'if they give away a 50 it'll drag him down the ground'.

As for Hawthorn in the Grand final, I think we're entitled to ask how the Geelong forward line allowed the Hawks defence to rush so many behinds. Where was their forward pressure? Why weren't they more efficient in their forward line? And would we even be having this discussion if the Cats had've won by 10 points?

Griffen#16 made mention of a couple of dubious ones we gave away in our game. If memory serves me correctly, didn't we lose by a solitary point?

Lets look at the facts here:

Fact #1: This was a staggering over-reaction to a minor problem brought about by semi-questionable tactics combined with an opponent's inability to adapt to them.

Fact #2: The AFL was almost comically vague about how this new rule would be enforced, so that when, as G16 said, some questionable decisions were ruled on, no-one had the foggiest idea what the f^(& was going on.

Fact #3: The AFL's track record of drastic and unnecessary rule changes has gone on long enough, and its time for the game's powerbrokers to sit down with the AFL commission and make them look at what they've subjected the game to in the last couple of years

[hujsh]

The Bowden incident happened because the Essendon forwards were too dump to think on their feet and adapt. The second I saw that footage I thought 'if they give away a 50 it'll drag him down the ground'.

Wouldn't he just take his kick back on the goal line anyway if he was so content to rush it.

[westdog54]

Wouldn't he just take his kick back on the goal line anyway if he was so content to rush it.

Then you walk up to him, rip the ball out of his hands and run it to the 50m line. Failing that, when the 50m penalty is paid you stand behind him and the instand he turns around you tackle him.

[hujsh]

Then you walk up to him, rip the ball out of his hands and run it to the 50m line. Failing that, when the 50m penalty is paid you stand behind him and the instand he turns around you tackle him.

Aggressive, I like it.:D

[Rocco Jones]

A 50m penalty would/should not have made any difference. You aren't forced to accept the advantage of a 50m penalty. You can take take your kick/play on from anywhere behind the mark as long as you are in line with it. Bowden would/should just stay on the goal life in that scenario.

[LostDoggy]

I'm staggered that no one has suggested the obvious, tiny adjustment to the rule that would solve the entire issue:

In soccer, the rule for a goalkick is that it has to travel outside the penalty area and be touched by another player in order for it to be considered 'legitimate'. If it is touched before it leaves the penalty area it is to be retaken.

With a kick-in in AFL, why isn't the rule just reworded to say that play (and time) doesn't start until the ball leaves the goalsquare, and thus no time-wasting advantage is gained? So instead of marking play by the kicker kicking the ball to himself if they're not kicking it to another player, the kicker has to run OUT of the goalsquare (across the 'front' line of the goalsquare, not the side lines) to restart the game (which is supposed to be the whole idea of the kick to self anyway, right?). This is a minor adjustment, not open to interpretation and easy to adjudicate, that keeps the intent of the original rule and has no discernible impact on the flow of the game at all, which is what all rule adjustments (if any) should be trying to do instead of changing the entire fabric of the game.

If a player still runs out of the goalsquare then runs back or handballs back in to rush a behind, they're taking a higher risk of either being tackled in their own goalsquare or turning the ball over, but that's just the nature of the game and not 'externally imposed' by some rule change.

Simple, I would have thought. Or am I missing something?

[bornadog]

I'm staggered that no one has suggested the obvious, tiny adjustment to the rule that would solve the entire issue:

In soccer, the rule for a goalkick is that it has to travel outside the penalty area and be touched by another player in order for it to be considered 'legitimate'. If it is touched before it leaves the penalty area it is to be retaken.

With a kick-in in AFL, why isn't the rule just reworded to say that play (and time) doesn't start until the ball leaves the goalsquare, and thus no time-wasting advantage is gained? So instead of marking play by the kicker kicking the ball to himself if they're not kicking it to another player, the kicker has to run OUT of the goalsquare (across the 'front' line of the goalsquare, not the side lines) to restart the game (which is supposed to be the whole idea of the kick to self anyway, right?). This is a minor adjustment, not open to interpretation and easy to adjudicate, that keeps the intent of the original rule and has no discernible impact on the flow of the game at all, which is what all rule adjustments (if any) should be trying to do instead of changing the entire fabric of the game.

If a player still runs out of the goalsquare then runs back or handballs back in to rush a behind, they're taking a higher risk of either being tackled in their own goalsquare or turning the ball over, but that's just the nature of the game and not 'externally imposed' by some rule change.

Simple, I would have thought. Or am I missing something?

I hate rule changes, but this little adjustment would as you say, not change the fabric of the game.