The Bowden Rule

['Bam!'bell Brown]

Let me start by stating my opinion: Joel Bowden did exactly what he should have done and it is exactly what I would have wanted any Hawthorn player to do in his situation. It was smart, within the rules and it won Richmond the game (or was that Essendon’s kicking for goal? ).

Now kneejerk rule changes are not to my liking, but the AFL bigwigs would have seen Bowden’s actions as ugly and contrary to the image of the AFL that they are trying to project. A one-off is nothing to get upset about, but if it happens again the media uproar will snowball, if it happens in a final it’ll be an avalanche.

So here is a simple, no fuss solution which does not change or further complicate an already unique scoring system and will also prevent it from ever happening again:

If a player taking a kick-in plays on to himself and immediately rushes a behind the opposition team is awarded a goal and the ball is returned to the centre for a ball up.

*This rule can only be applied from a kick-in after a point is scored.

*A goal is only awarded if no other player on the field touches the ball.

*’Normal’ in-play rushed behinds are still only 1 point, even if the defending team concedes the point.

Please proceed to poke holes in my theory or chide me for starting yet another thread on Joel Bowden.

 

[Vader]

I preferred Leigh Matthews suggestion.

He proposed that a deliberate rushed behind should result in the ball being bounced at the top of the goalsquare, rather than being brought back into play by the team who just rushed it through. Simple fair and effective.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

I preferred Leigh Matthews suggestion.

He proposed that a deliberate rushed behind should result in the ball being bounced at the top of the goalsquare, rather than being brought back into play by the team who just rushed it through. Simple fair and effective.

ANY deliberate rushed behind? Even from general play? I think that is too much of an overreaction. The problem has really only reared it's head from the exact situation on the weekend.

Deliberate rushed behinds (not directly after a kick-in), like them or not, have become an accepted part of the game.

 

[Chewy]

I preferred Leigh Matthews suggestion.

He proposed that a deliberate rushed behind should result in the ball being bounced at the top of the goalsquare, rather than being brought back into play by the team who just rushed it through. Simple fair and effective.

As usual, Lethal is bang on the money. It's not the time-wasting which is the issue.

People need to look at the larger picture.

The issue is that defenders should not receive a "free kick" (the kick out) for deliberately taking the ball over the line

We already have a deliberate out of bounds rule which works, despite the people who think it doesn't and bitch about it

The same rules should apply for deliberately rushed behinds, except a free kick is way too harsh a penalty
Mike Sheahan proposed this on "On The Couch". This is after he campaigned for a "3 point" rule for rushed behinds
As usual, he proves himself to be a muppet, every time he opens his mouth

All we need to do is remove the incentive (unhindered possession) and the problem is solved

In my opinion, there are three workable "penalties" for the deliberate rushed behind:

• Ball up at the top of the goal square
• Ball up at a 25 metre hot spot in front of goal
• Boundary throw in from the goal line, next to the goal post

I favour the last one. Boundary throw ins are quicker, less time-consuming and they allow the field umpire to concentrate on adjudicating.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

As usual, Lethal is bang on the money. It's not the time-wasting which is the issue.

People need to look at the larger picture.

The issue is that defenders should not receive a "free kick" (the kick out) for deliberately taking the ball over the line

We already have a deliberate out of bounds rule which works, despite the people who think it doesn't and bitch about it

The same rules should apply for deliberately rushed behinds, except a free kick is way too harsh a penalty
Mike Sheahan proposed this on "On The Couch". This is after he campaigned for a "3 point" rule for rushed behinds
As usual, he proves himself to be a muppet, every time he opens his mouth

All we need to do is remove the incentive (unhindered possession) and the problem is solved


In my opinion, there are three workable "penalties" for the deliberate rushed behind:

• Ball up at the top of the goal square
• Ball up at a 25 metre hot spot in front of goal
• Boundary throw in from the goal line, next to the goal post

I favour the last one. Boundary throw ins are quicker, less time-consuming and they allow the field umpire to concentrate on adjudicating.

Deliberate rushed behind? How would this be adjudicated? The same way as Deliberate out of Bounds? The most frustratingly grey area of AFL rules?

I don't mean to poke fun, but as a Hawthorn fan you should be more than familiar with the deliberate out of bounds rule being applied in exceptionally suspect circumstances. Mitchell at the Gabba some years ago may jog your memory.

Will the ball have to travel a certain distance to be considered deliberate? Does it have to be outside of a contested situation? Long bomb to the goal square, defender clearly punches it through for a behind, ball up?

adjudicating on a deliberate rushed behind from general play is a disaster waiting to happen. But this is the only real sticking point in your argument for me. Although I also hate excuses to 'ball it up' at any chance we get.

 

[#1 pies]

I think leave the bloody rule as it stands!

 

[Lance Uppercut]

omfg even I'm over this, bad.

Just let them do it. Who cares. I no longer give a shit. Hopefully we can use the tactic at some point to ream another team

 

[Chewy]

ANY deliberate rushed behind? Even from general play? I think that is too much of an overreaction. The problem has really only reared it's head from the exact situation on the weekend.

Deliberate rushed behinds (not directly after a kick-in), like them or not, have become an accepted part of the game.

Just because something is an accepted part of the game, it doesn't mean it is good, or it should stay.

Head high shirtfronts were once an accepted part of the game
Kicks that went out on the full were once an accepted part of the game
Deliberate out of bounds was once an accepted part of the game

The kick-in after a behind is an old rule that was designed for bringing the ball back into play after a missed shot at goal. The full back would kick the ball to a huge pack at half back. Kick ins always resulted in 50/50 contests. Nowadays, the skills and tactics are far superior. First possesion is almost guranteed from the kick in. It's not unusual for teams often go "coast to coast" and score goals from the kick in.

It was never intended that defenders would deliberately concede 1 point.
In the old days, teams would not have dreamed of conceding a score, any score. Nowadays, 1 point means nothing. How many games are decided by a solitary point? It's not an effective deterrent, which is why teams continue to do it.

Ask yourself: do you really enjoy watching defenders kill the play on the last line of defence, or would you prefer the excitement of watching them play their way out of trouble with their backs to the wall?

We can make the game better with this rule change.

Please tell me what the possible downside would be?

 

[Kaiser Powser]

I thought this was going to be about Bowden's ability to always pass to a team mate under pressure, who's only option is to pass back to Joel, thus building up masses of useless stats for the Dreamteam champ.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Just because something is an accepted part of the game, it doesn't mean it is good, or it should stay.

Head high shirtfronts were once an accepted part of the game
Kicks that went out on the full were once an accepted part of the game
Deliberate out of bounds was once an accepted part of the game

The kick-in after a behind is an old rule that was designed for bringing the ball back into play after a missed shot at goal. The full back would kick the ball to a huge pack at half back. Kick ins always resulted in 50/50 contests. Nowadays, the skills and tactics are far superior. First possesion is almost guranteed from the kick in. It's not unusual for teams often go "coast to coast" and score goals from the kick in.

It was never intended that defenders would deliberately concede 1 point.
In the old days, teams would not have dreamed of conceding a score, any score. Nowadays, 1 point means nothing. How many games are decided by a solitary point? It's not an effective deterrent, which is why teams continue to do it.

Ask yourself: do you really enjoy watching defenders kill the play on the last line of defence, or would you prefer the excitement of watching them play their way out of trouble with their backs to the wall?

We can make the game better with this rule change.

Please tell me what the possible downside would be?

because defenders are being put in an impossible position. They can't chop arms, they can't even touch the back in any way. Now you want to take away yet another tool for them.

In any case, you see it as only a defensive tactic. Think deeper. It's the first line of attack for any team, so it's not just defensive, it's offensive.

Would you rather the ball gets pushed over the line and we get interminable ball-ins, or a quick clean movement to the centre of the ground where the ball is fairly in dispute. Think deeper Chewy.

Stupid idea. The rushed behind should stay.

 

[Lehban]

Let me start by stating my opinion: Joel Bowden did exactly what he should have done and it is exactly what I would have wanted any Hawthorn player to do in his situation. It was smart, within the rules and it won Richmond the game (or was that Essendon’s kicking for goal? ).

Now kneejerk rule changes are not to my liking, but the AFL bigwigs would have seen Bowden’s actions as ugly and contrary to the image of the AFL that they are trying to project. A one-off is nothing to get upset about, but if it happens again the media uproar will snowball, if it happens in a final it’ll be an avalanche.

So here is a simple, no fuss solution which does not change or further complicate an already unique scoring system and will also prevent it from ever happening again:

If a player taking a kick-in plays on to himself and immediately rushes a behind the opposition team is awarded a goal and the ball is returned to the centre for a ball up.

*This rule can only be applied from a kick-in after a point is scored.

*A goal is only awarded if no other player on the field touches the ball.

*’Normal’ in-play rushed behinds are still only 1 point, even if the defending team concedes the point.

Please proceed to poke holes in my theory or chide me for starting yet another thread on Joel Bowden.

I like it your idea but the low risk loop hope to this idea is for the kicker to the the ball to himself hand ball it to a player behind himself who kicks the point( the defender who kicks the ball to himself can sheppard his team mate--)

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

Please tell me what the possible downside would be?

The downsides would be:

*lumping another 'grey area' decision onto the umps. Which is fine for all the ump haters out there.

*Giving strangers to the game another reason to shake their heads in confusion. Which is not an issue for traditionalists, but finally the real reason:

*The resulting throw in/ball up, 8 times out of ten would result in another rushed behind and another kick in. In fact it could happen over and over and over in the same passage of play. Teams would become adept at it.

If you want to move the ball up 25 metres out to a 'hot spot' it makes no difference.

Your are adding a new rule set / situation / function to an extremely complex game which does not need a new confusing situation.

Awarding a goal is 1 single rule, easy to apply directly after a kick-in and returning to the centre after a goal is not a new function or situation. And I genuinely believe it would NEVER happen again. Which is what I want...

And clearly what LANCE UPPERCUT wants...Not that I really care.

 

[Jobe 1 Kinobe]

Simple way of fixing this problem. I think Terry Wallace came up with it. Dont re-start the clock until the ball is touched by a second player. The only problem I can see with that is if by some chance the person kicking out can take a long run down the wing and the clock doesnt start for like 30 seconds. But in this day with zone defence's that sort of thing wouldnt happen often.

 

[rizzo]

Essendon only have themselves to blame from the rule. There are two easy ways to combat the rushed behing tactic.

1) give away a 50. Stand up on bowden so the upmire calls 50. Brings him from the goal line to the 50m arc. Forces him to play.

2) Down the ground free kick. Just drop someone around the 50 and force the upmire to bring the play up.

Its pretty simple. No rule changes needed.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

I like it your idea but the low risk loop hope to this idea is for the kicker to the the ball to himself hand ball it to a player behind himself who kicks the point( the defender who kicks the ball to himself can sheppard his team mate--)

Thank you for your support, but I don't think this would happen. The situation on the weekend arose because Essendon dutifully 'manned-up' which is what every team should do and would do if the situation repeated itself.

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Essendon only have themselves to blame from the rule. There are two easy ways to combat the rushed behing tactic.

1) give away a 50. Stand up on bowden so the upmire calls 50. Brings him from the goal line to the 50m arc. Forces him to play.

2) Down the ground free kick. Just drop someone around the 50 and force the upmire to bring the play up.

Its pretty simple. No rule changes needed.

Hindsights great. Pretty hard to blame Essendon in this, they weren't expecting Bowden to do this, by the time a runner got out there it would have been too late. And good luck to a player, smart enough to attempt this without instruction, trying to explain it to the coach. Kyle Reimers - "Sorry Knighta, I was just trying to stop him rushing behinds, i'm sure the MRP will be sympathetic".

 

[HBF]

What Bowden did was fine, and was well within the rules of AFL footy. It however, may not have been in the spirit of the game. Either way, i'm quite staggered it has received this much attention.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

I preferred Leigh Matthews suggestion.

He proposed that a deliberate rushed behind should result in the ball being bounced at the top of the goalsquare, rather than being brought back into play by the team who just rushed it through. Simple fair and effective.

Obviously the Leigh Matthews solution gets a few votes of confidence but unfortunately Leigh Matthews is confusing the issue.

He clearly does not like deliberately rushed behinds. Bad luck for Leigh, because they are not an issue. No one writes article after article about rushed behinds, no one even really cared about them until last weekend. But it wasn't just a deliberately rushed behind.

It was a DELIBERATELY RUSHED BEHIND IMMEDIATELY AFTER A KICK IN TO WIND DOWN THE CLOCK AND ICE THE GAME and this is what got the media blood boiling. And this is what I'm providing a solution for. A simple, EASY TO ADJUDICATE solution that will stop anyone doing it again.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Essendon only have themselves to blame from the rule. There are two easy ways to combat the rushed behing tactic.

1) give away a 50. Stand up on bowden so the upmire calls 50. Brings him from the goal line to the 50m arc. Forces him to play.

2) Down the ground free kick. Just drop someone around the 50 and force the upmire to bring the play up.

Its pretty simple. No rule changes needed.

wtf should a team have to do that? It's the stupidest resolution of the lot imo

 

[SydneyDon]

What Bowden did was fine, and was well within the rules of AFL footy. It however, may not have been in the spirit of the game. Either way, i'm quite staggered it has received this much attention.

Better that it gets attention now. Imagine this happening at the end of a thrilling final. One team is 11 points up and uses up 2 minutes giving away point after point. I'm glad it has happened now, I have been waiting for someone to do it. I would hate to see this tactic used to ruin an exciting close final.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

What Bowden did was fine, and was well within the rules of AFL footy. It however, may not have been in the spirit of the game. Either way, i'm quite staggered it has received this much attention.

You're staggered that a situation that has NEVER happened in the AFL's history which lead to one team securing victory over another by less than a goal has received this much attention?

Surely you're from Sydney?

 

[Chewy]

because defenders are being put in an impossible position. They can't chop arms, they can't even touch the back in any way. Now you want to take away yet another tool for them.

This is a laughable argument that always gets trotted out. Defenders will use any illegal or unfair method they can to stop goals from being conceded.

Of course they shouldn't be allowed to rake their opponent's arms in marking contests, just as shouldn't be allowed to hold their jumpers, shepherd their opponents out of the contest or go the punch to the back of the head.

If a defender can't beat his opponent through fair means, then he deserves to conced the goal. If it means the end of his career, so be it. He is obviously a hack.

When defenders deliberately rush through a behind, they do so knowing they will a free kick from the kick-out. They are avoiding the contest, avoiding the pressure, killing the game briefly, so they can restart from an avantageous position.

Don't forget. No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to rush thorugh a behind. They will still be able to do so, if they're under the pump. They just won't be rewarded with possession. It will be a ball-up. Most likely we'll continue to see the occasional rushed behinds, just not all the time, like we see now.

Ron The Bear posted a stats in the other thread which show how the incidence of rushed behinds has been growing exponentially over the years, more so than ever with the new "possession" tactics.

Why do you want to see defenders kill the game?

I pay my money to watch the conests, not to see players avoiud contests

In any case, you see it as only a defensive tactic. Think deeper. It's the first line of attack for any team, so it's not just defensive, it's offensive.

I never claimed it was a purely defensive tactic. I just said it was a tactic used by defenders. It's also used by midfielders. Don't get stuck on semantics.

Yes, it's used as an offensive weapon. That's the whole point.
Even more so, now that they no longer have to wait for the goal umpires to finish waving their flags.

It is unfair that a defender can tap the ball over the line in a contested situation, or run the ball over the line if he has possession and he's about to be tackled, knowing that the attacking team must then back away 10-20m, while he can bring the ball back into play at his own speed via the kick out.

Our game needs more contests. Not less of them.

This is a tactic which has evolved to the detriment of the game

Coaches will always find ways to exploit the rules and find loopholes for their own advantage. Other teams copy the successful tactics and soon, no one has an edge, but everyone's doing it and the game suffers. The fans are short-changed.

The rule makers and umpires must be constantly vigilant (without going overboard) and keep this in check

Would you rather the ball gets pushed over the line and we get interminable ball-ins, or a quick clean movement to the centre of the ground where the ball is fairly in dispute.

You need to think deeper, not me.

If they brought this rule in, the main side effect would not be "interminable ball-ins"

If we take away the incentive for teams to rush a behind, teams will do it less often. Right now, the rules encourage them to do so. Tweak the rules and they'll stop doing it. They'll play their way out from the last line of defence. Less interruption to the game.

It's like the deliberate out of bounds rule. Can you imagine what would happen if we removed this rule. Players would "hit the boundary" constantly. The game would suck.The harsher they are with the rule, the better it is for us spectators. Non stop action; players forced to make quick decisions and execute their skills, rather than taking the easy way out.

Quite often, for the most blatant of deliberate rushed behinds, the player involved had other options but chose to play safety first.

Please tell me why you think this is good. Personally, I think it's a crap part of the game.

 

[rizzo]

Hindsights great. Pretty hard to blame Essendon in this, they weren't expecting Bowden to do this, by the time a runner got out there it would have been too late. And good luck to a player, smart enough to attempt this without instruction, trying to explain it to the coach. Kyle Reimers - "Sorry Knighta, I was just trying to stop him rushing behinds, i'm sure the MRP will be sympathetic".

What does the MRP have to do with it? By drop i dont mean puch, throw the bloke to the ground.

Hindsight is great, but Essendon's coaches are at fault. They needed to be quicker in fixing the situation.

 

[Power King]

Let me start by stating my opinion: Joel Bowden did exactly what he should have done and it is exactly what I would have wanted any Hawthorn player to do in his situation. It was smart, within the rules and it won Richmond the game (or was that Essendon’s kicking for goal? ).

Now kneejerk rule changes are not to my liking, but the AFL bigwigs would have seen Bowden’s actions as ugly and contrary to the image of the AFL that they are trying to project. A one-off is nothing to get upset about, but if it happens again the media uproar will snowball, if it happens in a final it’ll be an avalanche.

So here is a simple, no fuss solution which does not change or further complicate an already unique scoring system and will also prevent it from ever happening again:

If a player taking a kick-in plays on to himself and immediately rushes a behind the opposition team is awarded a goal and the ball is returned to the centre for a ball up.

*This rule can only be applied from a kick-in after a point is scored.

*A goal is only awarded if no other player on the field touches the ball.

*’Normal’ in-play rushed behinds are still only 1 point, even if the defending team concedes the point.

Please proceed to poke holes in my theory or chide me for starting yet another thread on Joel Bowden.

One problem that may arise is the interpretation of what is a deliberate rush behind. What if a defender gets caught on the goal line due to pressure from the forwards, and they force him over the line (eg by a bump, grabbing him etc) despite the defender legitimately trying to keep the ball in play?

Problems can arise from this aspect. This is because he may legitimately may be trying to keep the ball in play but was forced over, or he may appear to be forced over despite really faking it (like people sometimes fake that they were pushed in the back into the ground to get a free)

Thoughts?

 

[PHX]

What does the MRP have to do with it? By drop i dont mean puch, throw the bloke to the ground.

Hindsight is great, but Essendon's coaches are at fault. They needed to be quicker in fixing the situation.

Impossible for a coaches box to think that quick and for it to be effective.

Bowden took the mark with 28 seconds left after Stanton missed a very gettable goal.

He then took his 10-ish seconds looking to find a man and then backed towards the line for the rushed behind, which was eventually done.

Then there was 10 seconds left.

Even if Reimers had have acted then and given away the 50 before the rushed behind from the kick-in then Bowden has another 10-ish seconds from when the umpire sets the mark at 50 to find a man. He can then kick it long down the wing if the siren hasnt quite gone and it's still game over.