Daniel Pratt's deliberate rush through

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The one from about round 8. Couldnt find a relevant thread.

based on subsequent interpretations, shouldn't that have been allowed? He was certainly under pressure.

 

[Adam Selwood]

Been wondering the same thing myself

Doesn't make any sense at all???

 

[Strawbs]

Unless you walk it over, handball or kick it through under no pressure then it's not supposed to be a free. The most ridiculous rule ever introduced. You've got the ball - you ought to be able to do whatever you want to do with it. But no, let's penalise the bloke making the play AGAIN.

 

[Tortilla]

But no, let's penalise the bloke making the play AGAIN.

How is someone rushing a behind, making the play.

 

[jacko57]

Been wondering the same thing myself

Doesn't make any sense at all???

You could reasonably argue that he was under no pressure when he stood in the square with the ball, with his opponent 5 metres off the mark. The fact that he dithered & hesitated until his opponent was allowed to run at him, is his own fault.

 

[danielgb123]

This rule is quite stupid.

Say you have to kick out, you kick it to yourself, not sure where to go and so you hesitate. Your opponent runs at you, and you handball it through. Now if that rule made sense, that would be a free. However, the rule implies that the player was under some sort of pressure so it is a kick out again, correct?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Exactly. If the rule allows someone to rush it through when under pressure, then nothing much will change. Players werent rushing it through last year for the **** of it; they were under pressure.

I liked the impact of the rule so far because the players havent understood that they have a lot more leeway. Now they seem to be catching on, I fear things might go back to how they were

 

[danielgb123]

Exactly. If the rule allows someone to rush it through when under pressure, then nothing much will change. Players werent rushing it through last year for the **** of it; they were under pressure.

I liked the impact of the rule so far because the players havent understood that they have a lot more leeway. Now they seem to be catching on, I fear things might go back to how they were

It was actually decent before they had to clear it up, sure it brought about confusion but that made it interesting. I have to agree, I think it will go back to how it was and the rule will either be improved or ignored.

It could be made into something like the boundary line version. If your under pressure and you just walk out, umpires take a close look to see if you did it deliberately. At least that way it would add a bit more of an impact.

Not sure where they're heading with it.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

It was actually decent before they had to clear it up, sure it brought about confusion but that made it interesting. I have to agree, I think it will go back to how it was and the rule will either be improved or ignored.

It could be made into something like the boundary line version. If your under pressure and you just walk out, umpires take a close look to see if you did it deliberately. At least that way it would add a bit more of an impact.

I agree 100%. Just treat it as en extension of the boundary line.

 

[Karl Pilkington]

Just make it a free regardless, if you get caught on the last line of defence and have nowhere to go then bad luck - your coach should have come up with a better gameplan! Just make it a blanket rule, and players will adjust to not doing it at all.

 

[Last of the Roys]

I agree with most of the posts in this thread. While I initially thought the rule was too harsh, I think most football fans would generally agree that the rule / how it was applied earlier on in the year was a success.

Since then, some disputed on-field incidents / and the 'clarification' (that made things less clear) from the Umpiring department have led to more and more players going back to deliberately rushing behinds under pressure. This is exactly what the rule was designed to stop, and it worked so well for the first part of the season.

I can't stand how the umpiring department continually changes interpretations on rules from week to week and across the season. They got it right to start with, so why change to take things backwards???

 

[Bob_vic]

I agree with most of the posts in this thread. While I initially thought the rule was too harsh, I think most football fans would generally agree that the rule / how it was applied earlier on in the year was a success.

Since then, some disputed on-field incidents / and the 'clarification' (that made things less clear) from the Umpiring department have led to more and more players going back to deliberately rushing behinds under pressure. This is exactly what the rule was designed to stop, and it worked so well for the first part of the season.

I can't stand how the umpiring department continually changes interpretations on rules from week to week and across the season. They got it right to start with, so why change to take things backwards???

The AFL made it clear that the new rule was only for majorly blantant situations, e.g. rushing it back over the line on a kick-in. Defenders are still allowed to rush the ball as a defensive tactic, if there's any pressure whatsoever (unless the defender waited for "pressure" to come to him).

 

[Last of the Roys]

The AFL made it clear that the new rule was only for majorly blantant situations, e.g. rushing it back over the line on a kick-in. Defenders are still allowed to rush the ball as a defensive tactic, if there's any pressure whatsoever (unless the defender waited for "pressure" to come to him).

And that is why it is now turning into cr@p. The longer the rule goes on, the more and more players will just rush behinds like they use to as the umpires won't penalise them. Just like Luke Power did on Saturday night.

Stupidity rules the roost.

 

[Bob_vic]

And that is why it is now turning into cr@p. The longer the rule goes on, the more and more players will just rush behinds like they use to as the umpires won't penalise them. Just like Luke Power did on Saturday night.

Stupidity rules the roost.

Don't agree. The AFL got exactly what they wanted without noticably changing the game. Players and coaches always push rules to the limit. It will be the next silly act that gets penalised, not the defender hitting the ball away from an opponent over the line.

 

[Strawbs]

How is someone rushing a behind, making the play.

If you're getting the ball, you're making the play - as opposed to the player who just dwells on the playmaker and gets rewarded (eg: deliberate rule; holding the ball and, if some had their way, the rushed rule).

 

[Last of the Roys]

Don't agree. The AFL got exactly what they wanted without noticably changing the game. Players and coaches always push rules to the limit. It will be the next silly act that gets penalised, not the defender hitting the ball away from an opponent over the line.

The affect the AFL achieved will be continually eroded over time. No one knows where the line in the sand is between pressure and no pressure. I mean who in the AFL has ever rushed a behind under no pressure - you could argue that there are few and far between examples of that happening. Any example you can give basically is attached with a certain degree of pressure otherwise why did they rush the behind?

And it is not necessarily a good thing that the next free paid in relation to this rule will be a clear silly act; what about all of the clear deliberate acts that will be missed in the meantime?

The rule should be that a free kick is given if the opposition deliberately rushes a behind except for when the ball is in dispute in a marking contest (this is how most people originally interpreted the rule anyway).

 

[Bob_vic]

The affect the AFL achieved will be continually eroded over time. No one knows where the line in the sand is between pressure and no pressure. I mean who in the AFL has ever rushed a behind under no pressure - you could argue that there are few and far between examples of that happening. Any example you can give basically is attached with a certain degree of pressure otherwise why did they rush the behind?

And it is not necessarily a good thing that the next free paid in relation to this rule will be a clear silly act; what about all of the clear deliberate acts that will be missed in the meantime?

Mate, it means the same thing in practise.

Go and have a look at the laws DVD, streamable on the AFL website. They've got several examples of what is and isn't a free kick. There shouldn't be any grey area after watching it. The umps have got it exactly right in the season proper.

 

[Last of the Roys]

That's not you is it Giesch?

There is a big difference between 'deliberate' (as in deliberate out of bounds) and 'under no pressure'. The second one is a very small subset of the first.

I didn't say the umpires themselves have got it wrong, it is how they are directed that will increasingly be come to be seen as wrong. I mean in the Collingwood vs. Lions match a couple of Saturdays ago, Luke Power handballed the ball through the points under pressure. If that is OK then there is really not much point in having the rule. The only benefit it is bringing now is because players are still yet to really understand it.

 

[Bob_vic]

That's not you is it Giesch?

There is a big difference between 'deliberate' (as in deliberate out of bounds) and 'under no pressure'. The second one is a very small subset of the first.

I didn't say the umpires themselves have got it wrong, it is how they are directed that will increasingly be come to be seen as wrong. I mean in the Collingwood vs. Lions match a couple of Saturdays ago, Luke Power handballed the ball through the points under pressure. If that is OK then there is really not much point in having the rule. The only benefit it is bringing now is because players are still yet to really understand it.

The rule is only there for instances where there is no pressure, except for when the player waits for "pressure" to come to him. The rule clearly states that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defender. The defender is allowed to handball through for a score if he's under pressure. He's not allowed if he's not under pressure, or waits for an opponent to come to him.

It's only now that players have finally realised that they not obliged to keep the ball in play if they're under pressure (in a rushed behind situation) and can rush the ball over for a behind. If they'd watched the DVD properly, they should have realised that all along. The Geisch did make it perfectly clear in the media numerous times.

The rule wasn't designed to stop rushed behinds. It's there to stop unsavoury time-wasting, ie. Bowden-type tactics.

I'm unsure why that's so confusing...

OOB deliberate is different. There's not the same benefit of the doubt. As long as there was a sole intention to put the ball over the line, then it's a free kick. A player cannot put the ball OOB just because it's the easiest option, but with rushed behinds, you can do that as long as there is pressure applied.