Coaches asked for stricter policing of rushed behind rules

[X_box_X]

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2016-11-30/tighten-rushed-behind-rule-afl-coaches-say

One way to combat this would be for a ball up to take place at the end of the goal square every time the opposition rushes a behind, whether intentional or not.

I once saw Adam Cooney walking back in preparation to kick the ball from deep in defence, when the footy was knocked out of his hand by him walking back into the goal post. Perfect example where a ball up from the end of the goal square would be sufficient. I have often wondered why players don't utilise this tactic on purpose (making it look like an accident) to give themselves more time to create a play. I have done this in local footy and it works well. The consequence of a ball up at the end of the goal square will quickly put an end to that if players begin to utilise that tactic.

The only time a ball up takes place on the end of the centre square is when the player kicking out from full back steps out of the goal square.

If a ball up from the end of the centre square works well for that rule, I don't see why it won't work for the better with rushed behinds.

 

[shintemaster]

I don't see this is a big issue in the game to be honest. Not sure why coaches are that worried about it, potentially a bit of sugar on the story (ie. coaches are worried that the interpretation and the rule don't seem to match each other - a big shock in the AFL...)

 

[rumply]

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2016-11-30/tighten-rushed-behind-rule-afl-coaches-say

One way to combat this would be for a ball up to take place at the end of the goal square every time the opposition rushes a behind, whether intentional or not.

I once saw Adam Cooney walking back in preparation to kick the ball from deep in defence, when the footy was knocked out of his hand by him walking back into the goal post. Perfect example where a ball up from the end of the goal square would be sufficient. I have often wondered why players don't utilise this tactic on purpose (making it look like an accident) to give themselves more time to create a play. I have done this in local footy and it works well. The consequence of a ball up at the end of the goal square will quickly put an end to that if players begin to utilise that tactic.

The only time a ball up takes place on the end of the centre square is when the player kicking out from full back steps out of the goal square.

If a ball up from the end of the centre square works well for that rule, I don't see why it won't work for the better with rushed behinds.

nah, the defensive team shouldn't be penalised due to a genuine rushed behind, it's a legitimate tactic if executed properly & if umps/rule of game committee are too blind or stupid to distinguish those that are blatant from those that are borderline, well that's on them.

 

[D-N-R]

One way to combat this would be for a ball up to take place at the end of the goal square every time the opposition rushes a behind, whether intentional or not.

Problem with this idea is that it would have to include balls touched on the line that go over. That is, by your definition, an unintentional rushed behind. It would include smothers on or near the line, spoiled marks when the ball goes over the line. In fact, the only time the defender would get a kick out would be if the attacking player missed or hit the post. Every other time the attacking team would have a ball up to their advantage.

Personally, I don't have a problem with rushed behinds, deliberate or otherwise.

The issue with the kicker rushing a point to wind down the clock could have been solved by only allowing a behind to be rushed after a kick-in only if an opponent has touched the ball. i.e. The player kicking in cannot kick it to himself and then rush a behind, nor can he kick it to a team mate and then rush a behind. The ball would have to be touched by an opponent, after which, the defender can stroll across the line under no pressure if he likes.

If this doesn't happen then there should be a ball up at the top of the square.

The only other thing I would keep in the existing rule is if you rush a behind by either carrying the ball across or remaining in control of it, then you must get a new all from the bag behind the goals. Running around the goal post with the ball and straight back into the goal-square to play on immediately is giving too much advantage to the team rushing the behind, IMO.

 

[The Passenger]

Problem with this idea is that it would have to include balls touched on the line that go over. That is, by your definition, an unintentional rushed behind. It would include smothers on or near the line, spoiled marks when the ball goes over the line. In fact, the only time the defender would get a kick out would be if the attacking player missed or hit the post. Every other time the attacking team would have a ball up to their advantage.

This was my first thought, but then when I thought more that's the same situation as if the defender spoils the ball and it goes over the boundary line adjacent to the behind post. When you think about it there really isn't any difference.

There is a difference though for touched on the line. If a bloke has a shot and it's going through for a behind or missing everything the defending team isn't going to touch it. But if it's going through for a goal they'll need to make a play at it, and even if successful in touching they still have to defend a ball up 10 metres out from the goal...

All in all though I'd probably just leave it as it is. The thing is even though the OP's rule is a little more black and white then the current rules (which is always a good thing IMO), there's still interpretation to be made on deliberate rushed behinds as deliberate rushed behind is a free kick from right in front, where as legitimate rushed behind would be a ball up. That's a big difference. We then have a s**t fight over which player touched the ball last to decide whether it's a ball up or a kick out. Most of the time it's obvious who touched it last but not always.

 

[Trip3101]

This is the only rule change in history I have seen where everybody loved it. The first 5 weeks or so after it was brought in and the umpires were strict on it, it was a huge success. It made for extremely exciting play, bigfooty was flooded with positive threads about it, the media loved it.

Then suddenly the umpires just went soft and stopped paying it