Jayden Short's Deliberate rushed behind

Remove this Banner Ad

Mr Lizard said:
I'd get him to try something other than deliberately rushing a behind.

So if this week Short is in exactly the same situation (with Hrovat replacing Green) and does the same thing again for the same result, you have no problems with it? Get angry at the rule, get angry at the umpire, bad luck Jayden, bad luck Dimma?
Click to expand...

So, are you saying Hardwick should tell Short to start slowing down 10 meters from the ball, pick it up and get tackled or risk a tow poke as he tries to sheppard the ball or tapping the ball to the side or behind him not knowing who or what players are behind him after he has pulled up about to get crunched...??

What do you do? Slow down the play and pause it and say he had other options? Lol

Tell you what, place a ball meter a meter from the goal line, sprint 50 meters with an opponent on your hammer, then try and make a play to defend a goal... guarantee under that pressure/circumstance you will see the ball over the line


So I as a coach would get the rule or interpretation changed...
If not you will get this happening time and time again
 
ARES said:
So I as a coach would get the rule or interpretation changed...
If not you will get this happening time and time again
Click to expand...
So I take it that's a yes to the hypothetical I posed, bad luck again Jayden, it's a s**t rule, I'm talking to the powers that be about getting it changed.

What about if it happened a third game running, Papley chasing this time? Deliberate rushed, free kick, goal to Sydney. Bad luck again Jayden, I'll talk to them again but it probably won't be changed til next season.

Time and time again.


I reckon Hardwick is possibly smarter than this, I reckon next time you'll perhaps see Short keep his feet and try to pick it up. The ball will probably still end up over the line, but this time there will be enough doubt in the umpire's mind as to his intent that he won't pay the free.
 
Mr Lizard said:
I reckon Hardwick is possibly smarter than this, I reckon next time you'll perhaps see Short keep his feet and try to pick it up. The ball will probably still end up over the line, but this time there will be enough doubt in the umpire's mind as to his intent that he won't pay the free.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, you mean disguise it a bit better, don't disagree with that. But not in this particular circumstance
It is the riskier play, the safer play in that particular play was to win the ball, unfortunately he didn't have the insight you seek... it's not as easy as you think

Only thing is in this play they were sprinting together only for Short to edge ahead, how far in front was he? if he slowed down that brief moment to be able to pick it up and the opposing player would have possibly poked it through...
Safest option in full flight about to be tackled was to put body between ball and attacker. Right decision every time

Rule needs changing not the act
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Add to that, if you pause when Short decides to dive on the ball, he is 1 1/2-2 meters ahead

Listen to the audio. Umpire says to Short, you had 5 meters on Greene. Wrong

Imo, umpire erred in perceived pressure. He rewarded the attacker that gave up and played a different hand rather than the defender who went all out to defend
 
ARES said:
Imo, umpire erred in perceived pressure. He rewarded the attacker that gave up and played a different hand rather than the defender who went all out to defend
Click to expand...
Meh, you aren't allowed to deliberately rush a behind.

Perceived pressure doesn't count, Worsfold said in his press conference that the AFL informed clubs of this.

Short needed a bit more composure and awareness, possibly better coaching (I can't really speak for that as I don't know what coaching Richmond has given regarding this). He had other options. He chose to slide over the line and knock a stationary ball into the fence, and was correctly penalised.
 
Mr Lizard said:
Meh, you aren't allowed to deliberately rush a behind.

Perceived pressure doesn't count, Worsfold said in his press conference that the AFL informed clubs of this.

Short needed a bit more composure and awareness, possibly better coaching (I can't really speak for that as I don't know what coaching Richmond has given regarding this). He had other options. He chose to slide over the line and knock a stationary ball into the fence, and was correctly penalised.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/cou...s/news-story/114a8dd9c682048a6bbbc73f666e45c7

“It comes back to the whole definition of clear prior opportunity,” Schwab told SEN.

“So if a player is perceived to have had clear prior opportunity to rid himself of the ball or dispose of the ball to someone else and elects not to take it and then just goes through the goal line, then they’re going to find you’ll be penalised....
Schwab added that players who rushed a behind under extreme pressure near the goalline would be given some leeway, but any player that deliberately handballed or kicked the footy through the opposition’s goals from nine metres out and beyond would be penalised."

So what's your interpretation on Schwabs explanation of the rule? Don't worry what Worsfold said, he didn't seem to know himself because the above does not say anything about a hand on a body... in fact coaches and players want clarification...
 
ARES said:
So what's your interpretation on Schwabs explanation of the rule? Don't worry what Worsfold said, he didn't seem to know himself because the above does not say anything about a hand on a body... in fact coaches and players want clarification...
Click to expand...
Don't worry about what Worsfold said? lol. I just heard Isaac Smith say something similar, if there is clear air behind you then don't rush it. It's pretty important, it's the AFL's directives to the clubs about how they're going to police the rules. Worsfold interpreted it to mean touch, Smith (presumably Clarkson) interpreted to mean touch. They both seemed pretty clear and not in need of clarification. Maybe Hardwick didn't get the memo?

Do you think Green tailing off his run from at least the top of the goalsquare (if not before) counts as extreme pressure? I reckon it doesn't.

You're having a bit both ways: you don't want to see Green rewarded for giving up the chase, but you're also saying Green was applying extreme pressure.

Perceived pressure doesn't count. Short shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt for panicking.
 
Also this pretence to pick it up and fumble it across the line takes away another vestige of instinctive behaviour on the field -Short did the instinctive thing for mine. So he played good football rather than taking that away and pandering to the leagues 'keep the ball in play' at any cost. And that desire for a fast game by afl is allowing throwing, fumbling balls over lines, people running along boundary line -ball is regularly out now but play on...am happy to have a fast game, but keep some perspective.
 
Last edited:
Hawthorn United said:
Here's the gif.

How is he meant to stop and pick it up? Green was right there with him the whole time, right until he slid in.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

I think it is a tough decision but probably correct as he could have picked it up. Probably would have been tackled over the line and would have been ok. A side note, as with most AFL players these days, number 37 just refuses to shepherd and wants the handball receive.
 
Mr Lizard said:
Don't worry about what Worsfold said? lol. I just heard Isaac Smith say something similar, if there is clear air behind you then don't rush it. It's pretty important, it's the AFL's directives to the clubs about how they're going to police the rules. Worsfold interpreted it to mean touch, Smith (presumably Clarkson) interpreted to mean touch. They both seemed pretty clear and not in need of clarification. Maybe Hardwick didn't get the memo?

Do you think Green tailing off his run from at least the top of the goalsquare (if not before) counts as extreme pressure? I reckon it doesn't.

You're having a bit both ways: you don't want to see Green rewarded for giving up the chase, but you're also saying Green was applying extreme pressure.

Perceived pressure doesn't count. Short shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt for panicking.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have seen the footage clearly. Greene was right on his tail to the last meter... his last few steps with his hands outstretched should not be seen as "giving uop the chase meters before the goal square"...

And for every Smith/Worsfold there are countless others who agree the other way. So do you discredit Paul Ross assumption or Hardwicks??

It is all about "the pressure" and no matter how many times teh above footage gets viewed, being chased to the goal line is pressure!!

Shwab head of the umpire department says "...that players who rushed a behind under extreme pressure near the goalline would be given some leeway, but any player that deliberately handballed or kicked the footy through the opposition’s goals from nine metres out and beyond would be penalised.""


He wasn't 9 plus meters out, he was 1 meter from the goal line running full sprint with an attacking player on his tail with the ball 1 meter out... If that is not pressure, what is?????

Have any of you guys played this game?? Under the circumstances, Short made the right decision... And don't give me prior opportunity or no pressure because that is utter BS

Let's just agree to disagree...
 
Don't agree with the decision. The deliberate rule should be for instances when there is a viable alternative and the player chooses to rush it through. No idea what he's meant to do in that situation, if he bends down to pick it up his momentum will carry him over the line anyway, and he can't pull up and allow his opponent to be first to the ball. The rule definitely needs adjusting.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Anyone arguing he could have picked it up and been the same distance from Green, I challenge you to sprint 50m and see how much distance you need to be able to pick up the ball. Even a 25m sprint will do.

He'll either run too quick and miss it, allow Green to come through and kick it off the ground, or he'll slow down too much allowing Green to overtake him and kick it off the ground.

His other option would have been to dive on it, without rushing it, then have Green jump on him and get penalised holding the ball.
 
Hawthorn United said:
Anyone arguing he could have picked it up and been the same distance from Green, I challenge you to sprint 50m and see how much distance you need to be able to pick up the ball. Even a 25m sprint will do.

He'll either run too quick and miss it, allow Green to come through and kick it off the ground, or he'll slow down too much allowing Green to overtake him and kick it off the ground.

His other option would have been to dive on it, without rushing it, then have Green jump on him and get penalised holding the ball.
Click to expand...

" or he'll slow down too much allowing Green to overtake him and kick it off the ground."

That was always going to be the risk...


That is why I state to those that believe that Short had time or prior opportunity, put yourself in that position and unless you can pull up and dodge an incoming player full charge, within a couple of meters behind you then you must be one of the most gifted human beings on this planet!!!
 
ARES said:
" or he'll slow down too much allowing Green to overtake him and kick it off the ground."

That was always going to be the risk...


That is why I state to those that believe that Short had time or prior opportunity, put yourself in that position and unless you can pull up and dodge an incoming player full charge, within a couple of meters behind you then you must be one of the most gifted human beings on this planet!!!
Click to expand...
Yeah he may as well given up on the sprint as it would've been a goal in any other scenario. Save his energy.
 
Hawthorn United said:
Yeah he may as well given up on the sprint as it would've been a goal in any other scenario. Save his energy.
Click to expand...

I've never minded the punch or tap through the goals. It has always been a part of our game. The blight on the game has been when in possession players take the easy/weak way out and rush it through

If it was me deciding the rules I would want the following.

I'd allow for the punch or tap through for a behind. But if the player is in possession of the ball then no rushed score allowed unless he is pushed or tackled over the line

Simplest way to umpire the rushed score

In my opinion AFL are ruining the game with their gung-ho approach to changing rules
 
ARES said:
I've never minded the punch or tap through the goals. It has always been a part of our game. The blight on the game has been when in possession players take the easy/weak way out and rush it through

If it was me deciding the rules I would want the following.

I'd allow for the punch or tap through for a behind. But if the player is in possession of the ball then no rushed score allowed unless he is pushed or tackled over the line

Simplest way to umpire the rushed score

In my opinion AFL are ruining the game with their gung-ho approach to changing rules
Click to expand...
I bring this up everywhere when discussing rules and the argument that umpires have to adjudicate it to the letter of the law. Well they don't and common sense should be applied.

If Short and Green were already in the square and in a standing/walking speed, then that is deliberate. The instance on the weekend, there just was no consideration of the speed they were running at to get to the ball.

Not all rules are applied to the letter. It's not 15 literal meters in between a bounce when a player goes for a run. Even that 15m is a lot longer than a kick to mark 15m.
 
Short comes to a complete stop about 2m after where he makes contact with the ball. At the time he dives, he has 3-4m on Green.

Given that, why didn't he slide 2m earlier and take possession?

I completely agree that a goal is too harsh a penalty, but this was consistent with how the rule is applied and has been since it came in. He had alternatives but only ever had eyes for the line.
 
El_Scorcho said:
Short comes to a complete stop about 2m after where he makes contact with the ball. At the time he dives, he has 3-4m on Green.

Given that, why didn't he slide 2m earlier and take possession?

I completely agree that a goal is too harsh a penalty, but this was consistent with how the rule is applied and has been since it came in. He had alternatives but only ever had eyes for the line.
Click to expand...
You obviously don't understand acceleration or in this case deceleration. To start sliding earlier would mean he'd be making that decision while the ball was still rolling towards the goal. Sliding would slow him down thus meaning when making the decision he would still be thinking it may actually roll over for a goal. Slowing down may mean he gets there too late. The ball only comes to a stop a split second before he gets there. By that time he is worried that Green may come through and toe poke it through the goals. His only alternative is to dive and push it through stopping any possibility of that happening. The guy has to think of too many things in only a second to be able to calculate if he can slow down and pick the ball up and then distribute it safely to a teammate.
Why doesn't anyone try it. Put a ball 1.5m out from a line run as fast as they can towards it thinking someone's on your hammer till you are almost onto the ball.....
 
Ancient Tiger said:
You obviously don't understand acceleration or in this case deceleration. To start sliding earlier would mean he'd be making that decision while the ball was still rolling towards the goal. Sliding would slow him down thus meaning when making the decision he would still be thinking it may actually roll over for a goal. Slowing down may mean he gets there too late. The ball only comes to a stop a split second before he gets there. By that time he is worried that Green may come through and toe poke it through the goals. His only alternative is to dive and push it through stopping any possibility of that happening. The guy has to think of too many things in only a second to be able to calculate if he can slow down and pick the ball up and then distribute it safely to a teammate.
Why doesn't anyone try it. Put a ball 1.5m out from a line run as fast as they can towards it thinking someone's on your hammer till you are almost onto the ball.....
Click to expand...

The ball is well and truly just bobbling on the spot and not going over the line well before he slid into it.

Making that decision with 3m of space between him and Green gave the umpire very little choice. Again, he managed to come to a complete stop about 2m from where the ball was. If he slides 2m earlier, he eliminates the Green toepoke risk by putting his body between Green's boot and the ball. Green either then bundles him over the line, tackles him with no prior at which point spilling the ball over the line is no issue.

There is absolutely nothing stopping him from putting a body on and making an effort to take possession.
 
Fadge said:
Maybe Short should have started running backwards from about 25 metres out so as he could notice if or when Green starts tailing off...
Click to expand...
Your suggestion is silly, tongue in cheek. But you are right in thinking he needed more awareness of what Green was doing.

Perhaps have a look over his shoulder, or even just assume that Green was going to do the arms out 'hey umpire' routine that is a pretty common sight nowadays.

What was he thinking (other than 'I will deliberately rush this over the line')?
 
Mr Lizard said:
Your suggestion is silly, tongue in cheek. But you are right in thinking he needed more awareness of what Green was doing.

Perhaps have a look over his shoulder, or even just assume that Green was going to do the arms out 'hey umpire' routine that is a pretty common sight nowadays.

What was he thinking (other than 'I will deliberately rush this over the line')?
Click to expand...
He was thinking he was under enough pressure by Green, he'd be allowed to rush it deliberately!!! It is within the rules you know....

The trouble with physical pressure here is that if Green was a little closer all he'd have to do is stick a foot out to goal. He wouldn't need to tackle and apply physical pressure. How is Short supposed to know where Green was exactly considering Green has a reputation of being quick and he actually gave Green a head start in the race. I bet you if it was Jobe behind him he would have not worried as much and probably not done what he did. His first worry is to stop the ball going through, his second was to stop Green from soccering it through. There's hardly time to sit and think about any other options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top