Deliberate rushed against Talia

[mic59]

Ridiculous decision. Was clearly under immense pressure, what else can he do?

What immense pressure? Patton was not right on him, he had time to wind up his fist and bash the ball out to his right and then run off after it. Took the easy way out and paid the price.

 

[MYOB]

What immense pressure? Patton was not right on him, he had time to wind up his fist and bash the ball out to his right and then run off after it. Took the easy way out and paid the price.

If he is outside 9m the level of pressure is irrelevant, automatic free kick.

 

[Large 1]

It was easy for Talia, the goal square is 9m, he was clearly outside the square.

Yeah, nah!

A player is looking at the ball and their defender, not their feet. When running back at the goal is not necessarily easy to know the exact point that you cross into the goal square.

 

[Large 1]

If he is outside 9m the level of pressure is irrelevant, automatic free kick.

actually the rules says no such thing. The rule outlines 4 things that are too be taken into account, including the pressure the player is under and the distance from the goal.

The 9m "rule" is purely part of the "interpretation", which I'm sure will change throughout the year.

 

[MYOB]

actually the rules says no such thing. The rule outlines 4 things that are too be taken into account, including the pressure the player is under and the distance from the goal.

The 9m "rule" is purely part of the "interpretation", which I'm sure will change throughout the year.

You can quote whatever you want, I'm telling you the interpretation the umpires have been given is exactly how I have stated it.

 

[MrKK]

They tried it in the JLT, but went back to old rule with tougher interpretation for H&A.

The blue spot has been there for at least 5 years, it's where the forward is to stand when on the mark at a kick in.

I've never noticed it before (not saying you're wrong) and the Age article linked above says a spot will be painted as part of this rule change, implying it wasn't there before. Irrelevant anyway, since they decided not to adopt the change.

 

[MrKK]

You can quote whatever you want, I'm telling you the interpretation the umpires have been given is exactly how I have stated it.

That sums up how farcical the AFL's rule are. If it will always be a free if it is more than 9m from goal then that should be written into the rules as an objective measure, not part of an interpretation.

 

[NeutralFan]

If they're gonna keep deliberate, make it as strict as the boundary line. Reward pressure.

 

[NeutralFan]

The rule as it stands is incredibly vague, I believe it's you can rush if within 9m (the length of the goal square), but it's basically umpire preference it seems whether Talia was under enough pressure and how far from the goal line he was.

 

[radiojake]

if he tapped it to the middle of the goal square, and then hit it again across the line, would have that been fine?

well apparently this would have been ok - if Talia tapped it to the middle of the goal square, then knocked it through again, rushed behind...

 

[MYOB]

I've never noticed it before (not saying you're wrong) and the Age article linked above says a spot will be painted as part of this rule change, implying it wasn't there before. Irrelevant anyway, since they decided not to adopt the change.

It's hard to notice in the grass, which is why it's blue and not white, they don't won't it standing out.

 

[Vintage]

No problem with this rule - too far out to rush a behind, and the game is a lot more exciting if he's forced to keep it in play.

 

[D-N-R]

I've never noticed it before (not saying you're wrong) and the Age article linked above says a spot will be painted as part of this rule change, implying it wasn't there before. Irrelevant anyway, since they decided not to adopt the change.

MYOB and you are both correct. The dot has been there for years and is basically a guide for how close the defender can stand from a kick out. AFAIK it is 5m from the top of the goal square, so 14m out.

They obviously changed their minds about bouncing the ball rather than awarding a free kick. It's a certain goal and it's too harsh as a punishment.

 

[D-N-R]

I fail to understand why the AFL feels the need to crack down on rushed behinds.

They allowed players to take kick-outs more quickly years ago in an effort to 'speed up' the game, and also to appease the TV stations who were complaining about too many stoppages causing quarters to run over. (The AFL also made changes to goal kicking times, sped up players taking free kicks, cracked down on Deliberate OOB among others.) Not all the changes have been bad.

However, once they changed the rule for kick-ins - i.e. not having to wait for the goal umpire to wave their flags before taking a kick-in - players then started rushing behinds and then running straight into the goal-square for a quick kick-out. The AFL then made some rule where players need to change the ball and get a new one from the bag or something (I'm not fully up to date on the application of this particular rule). But they created a rule, which teams tried to exploit, then had to make a new rule to counteract it.

Then, of course, there was the issue with the defenders taking a short kick-out and then backing over the line as some kind of time-wasting tactic, which seemed to spark this war on rushed behinds. They could have sorted this out by simply making a rule that the defensive team cannot rush a behind until an opponent has touched the ball or something.

I don't have a problem with rushed behinds as the defensive team gives their opponent a point and then the ball is put back into play in the attacking team's 50.

If they are going to have this silly rule, then they need to bounce it as suggested in the Age article in the thread. The penalty is a certain goal which is too harsh.

Rant/

 

[MYOB]

They obviously changed their minds about bouncing the ball rather than awarding a free kick. It's a certain goal and it's too harsh as a punishment.

It's not a certain goal. If you rush the behind right next to the point post, the player is going to be on a very acute angle.

 

[MYOB]

However, once they changed the rule for kick-ins - i.e. not having to wait for the goal umpire to wave their flags before taking a kick-in - players then started rushing behinds and then running straight into the goal-square for a quick kick-out. The AFL then made some rule where players need to change the ball and get a new one from the bag or something (I'm not fully up to date on the application of this particular rule). But they created a rule, which teams tried to exploit, then had to make a new rule to counteract it.
/

The rule in relation to that is that a player can not take a ball from the bag until after the goal umpire has signaled a behind.
Some times a player can see off the boot that it's a behind and go straight to bag and grab a ball. If they do that before goal umpire signals a behind, the field umpire will make them go back to the bag and grab another ball.

 

[D-N-R]

It's not a certain goal. If you rush the behind right next to the point post, the player is going to be on a very acute angle.

So the free kick isn't at the top of the square? My mistake then.

 

[MYOB]

So the free kick isn't at the top of the square? My mistake then.

No, it's where the ball crosses the line. So if it's anywhere between the goals it will be straight in front as the free kick is in the goal square, but if it's between the points, it will be an an acute angel.

So if the players have to rush a behind, at least do it as close to the point post as possible.

 

[Cold Sober]

Its a bullshit media created rule yet now they whinge about the interpretations , its the same with the deliberate out of bounds.
FFS LEAVE THE GAME ALONE it use to be unique