A behind is a clanger

[CrowsB4hoes]

The AFL’s definition of a clanger kick is one where it results in a turnover to the opposition

This is what a behind is

Behinds should be recorded as clangers and players judged as such.

What’s worse is it’s a forward 50 clanger. An unforgivable clanger.

Instead it’s classified as a “nice try mate, better luck next time”.

 

[parano1a]

It's a score. Behinds can win you the game.

 

[Schauermann]

Really a strange anomalie. In generall play they are obviously always failed kicks. But like quite afew of failed kicks they can get you somewhere in the end. Not only the ones after the siren to win a game. Kicking 2.8 in a dominat quarter is still better then 3.1. All of us have seen failed kicks turn into something with a lucky bounce. So sometimes hard to press the game into strict statistics.

PS We all have also seen shocking kicks at goal. So I always find it hard when the deliberate rule is applied. Who know if it wasn't intented to go somewhere else? Most of those are not even set shots. That is why I like the previous rule better.

 

[MortlockWatcher]

It's a score. Behinds can win you the game.

Barry Breen can confirm that ...