Deliberate rushed behind.

Remove this Banner Ad

I think the two free kicks that were paid this weekend were definitely correct.
I think where to pay the free kick is what needs to be changed. Going through the points puts on an acute angle but conceding through the goals puts you right on the goal line straight in front.
Any free kick given for a deliberate rushed behind should be 30m straight in front. An easy shot for goal, but not an absolute given.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

New Rushed Behind Rule

Instead of tightening of the interpretation, change the consequence. Paying a free kick from a deliberate rush behind effectively hands a team a goal.

How about this:

If a player has any alternative option to keep the ball alive (e.g. rush a handball/kick) but elects to carry, knock a loose ball or pass the ball over the line, the point is awarded and the umpire restarts play at the top of the goal square or 25m mark directly in front of goal with a ball-up

If a player is in a position to use the football free of pressure but elects to rush a behind (2008 Grand Final style) the umpire can award a direct free kick to opposition (would be very rare).

If the ball is spoiled through in a contest a kick out takes place.

Pros

The defensive team is not rewarded with possession for conceding a behind

Relieves pressure on the umpire to adjudicate level of pressure as the consequence is far less severe

Mimics the restart of a goal but the attacking team maintains the advantage of field position

Removes grey area from interpretation, encouraging umpires to make stricter ruling
 
Moleman said:
New Rushed Behind Rule

Instead of tightening of the interpretation, change the consequence. Paying a free kick from a deliberate rush behind effectively hands a team a goal.

How about this:

If a player has any alternative option to keep the ball alive (e.g. rush a handball/kick) but elects to carry, knock a loose ball or pass the ball over the line, the point is awarded and the umpire restarts play at the top of the goal square or 25m mark directly in front of goal with a ball-up

If a player is in a position to use the football free of pressure but elects to rush a behind (2008 Grand Final style) the umpire can award a direct free kick to opposition (would be very rare).

If the ball is spoiled through in a contest a kick out takes place.

Pros

The defensive team is not rewarded with possession for conceding a behind

Relieves pressure on the umpire to adjudicate level of pressure as the consequence is far less severe

Mimics the restart of a goal but the attacking team maintains the advantage of field position

Removes grey area from interpretation, encouraging umpires to make stricter ruling
Click to expand...
 
Moleman said:
How about this:

If a player has any alternative option to keep the ball alive (e.g. rush a handball/kick) but elects to carry, knock a loose ball or pass the ball over the line, the point is awarded and the umpire restarts play at the top of the goal square or 25m mark directly in front of goal with a ball-up
Click to expand...

Makes sense to me.
 
Pablo_Jackson said:
I think the two free kicks that were paid this weekend were definitely correct.
I think where to pay the free kick is what needs to be changed. Going through the points puts on an acute angle but conceding through the goals puts you right on the goal line straight in front.
Any free kick given for a deliberate rushed behind should be 30m straight in front. An easy shot for goal, but not an absolute given.
Click to expand...
Surely the most obvious place to pay the free kick, if the ump decides it's deliberate, would be from where the player kicked/punched/handballed the ball.
Spurr 'deliberately' kicked it from 35m or so out on a slight angle, I would think that's where the free kick should be taken from.
I'm not sure why the game rewards players with such easy kicks on goals.

At least in soccer, the penalty kicker still has to beat the keeper. In basketball, the player still needs to make the free throw. Not the hardest skill in the game but not terribly easy either.
In our game, the player simply needs to get it over the guy on the mark. If you're gonna give soft free kicks, at least make the player kicking it work a little.
 
Dez! said:
The Hanley one was correct. He ran both ways and had plenty of room between him and Nathan Jones but decided after refusing to dispose of the footy to run over the line still having a lot of room between his nearest opponent.
Click to expand...
It was about as deliberate as it gets. Think the thing that people got annoyed about is they have been getting slacker and slacker on the rule then bang its now back to a stricter interpretation. All with this "there is no tanking" style of rule of the week.
 
KissKiss said:
It was about as deliberate as it gets. Think the thing that people got annoyed about is they have been getting slacker and slacker on the rule then bang its now back to a stricter interpretation. All with this "there is no tanking" style of rule of the week.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree they seem to pick and choose when they want to apply it and he was unlucky in that regard but going by the rule, it was deliberate.
 
It was wet. He was under pressure. Kicking it was the safest option. Umpire is a wally. Everyone he umpires a freo game I want to rip his head off. But I won't because it would be messy.
 
quotemokc said:
If he had dived forward and hit it through with his hands it would have been deemed ok
Click to expand...
And this is the problem. We are asking umpires to read minds and look for players holding/forcing/disguising/genuine attempt etc etc when in reality they struggle getting the easy ones like tripping correct. No wonder they are so confused.

We've given them a set of rules whereby two people/umpires can see the same incident and come up with 2 completely different answers. We need to stop asking umpires to get better, whilst all the time making their job impossible.

If it hits the bails - you're out. That's pretty clear. Footy needs these types of rules. e.g. - if you're legally tackled with the ball - free kick against. At the moment its; tackled with the ball - attempted to get rid of it, no prior, spilled free, deemed not in possession, deemed in possession, was over the ball but didn't control it, got arms free, no genuine attempt, player drove with the head, ducked, didn't duck, tackle slipped up, tackle slipped down but not down far enough to constitute a free, play on, two motions - was it a sling? etc etc etc

If the last person touching it before going through for a 'score' is an opposition player either make the rule a free kick, or a point. Take out the grey. The deliberate out of bounds is just a lotto. It's farcical. Make it 'last man touches it' or throw it in.

Lets stop assuming all umpires have Psychology Degrees.
 
Still mulling this one over in my head, but:

All rushed and touched behinds should be a bounce. Keep the point, but lose the advantage of an automatic free if you're the defence, and if you're attack then not being giving an unfair scoring opportunity...

There are several scenarios which lead to a ball going through off a player and not being a goal, including deliberate rushed, bouncing off hands in the square, and if you took away the free for the defence and bounced in the square you could conceivably imagine a forward doing the rushing somehow and giving his team a 50-50 chance of winning the ball dead in front...

So maybe the bounce could be done in an area further way - e.g a circle halfway to the fifty metre arc...far enough away to avoid repeat punches into goal, meaning the defence needs to do some honest work, but also far enough to make a goal sneak set play more difficult...

I'm thinking along the lines of not asking an umpire to read a player's mind, which is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs when you think about it, and also negating any advantage any player from either team can get in rushing the ball...
 
WilloTree said:
And this is the problem. We are asking umpires to read minds and look for players holding/forcing/disguising/genuine attempt etc etc when in reality they struggle getting the easy ones like tripping correct. No wonder they are so confused.

We've given them a set of rules whereby two people/umpires can see the same incident and come up with 2 completely different answers. We need to stop asking umpires to get better, whilst all the time making their job impossible.

If it hits the bails - you're out. That's pretty clear. Footy needs these types of rules. e.g. - if you're legally tackled with the ball - free kick against. At the moment its; tackled with the ball - attempted to get rid of it, no prior, spilled free, deemed not in possession, deemed in possession, was over the ball but didn't control it, got arms free, no genuine attempt, player drove with the head, ducked, didn't duck, tackle slipped up, tackle slipped down but not down far enough to constitute a free, play on, two motions - was it a sling? etc etc etc

If the last person touching it before going through for a 'score' is an opposition player either make the rule a free kick, or a point. Take out the grey. The deliberate out of bounds is just a lotto. It's farcical. Make it 'last man touches it' or throw it in.

Lets stop assuming all umpires have Psychology Degrees.
Click to expand...
I just wrote something in the out of bounds thread and here, which said the same thing in not forcing umpires to mind read. Yes, we do need umpires to be making decisions based upon physical actions, not intentions which you can't adequately measure...

Not quite agreeing with the holding the ball idea though...the game would turn into rugby union real quick...ain't noone got time for that...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gibbke said:
I just wrote something in the out of bounds thread and here, which said the same thing in not forcing umpires to mind read. Yes, we do need umpires to be making decisions based upon physical actions, not intentions which you can't adequately measure...

Not quite agreeing with the holding the ball idea though...the game would turn into rugby union real quick...ain't noone got time for that...
Click to expand...
I think it would do the opposite. Players wouldn't 'chance' that they could get away with taking on a tackler, or hold it long enough to get tackled. They would pretty quickly learn that once they're in possession, quickly get rid of it by hand or foot.. legally. Legal tackle = free kick. It would clear the area either way. Rolling mauls would be a thing of the past. Just my opinion of course.
 
Gibbke said:
Still mulling this one over in my head, but:

All rushed and touched behinds should be a bounce. Keep the point, but lose the advantage of an automatic free if you're the defence, and if you're attack then not being giving an unfair scoring opportunity...

There are several scenarios which lead to a ball going through off a player and not being a goal, including deliberate rushed, bouncing off hands in the square, and if you took away the free for the defence and bounced in the square you could conceivably imagine a forward doing the rushing somehow and giving his team a 50-50 chance of winning the ball dead in front...

So maybe the bounce could be done in an area further way - e.g a circle halfway to the fifty metre arc...far enough away to avoid repeat punches into goal, meaning the defence needs to do some honest work, but also far enough to make a goal sneak set play more difficult...

I'm thinking along the lines of not asking an umpire to read a player's mind, which is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs when you think about it, and also negating any advantage any player from either team can get in rushing the ball...
Click to expand...
In soccer if it goes in - goal. Comes off someone else? Goal. Head? Goal. Anyway you can get it in the net. Maybe theres something in this as well. Would save these ridiculous finder-nail reviews we keep having. Who cares if he got a finger-nail to it? He didn't stop it, so not good enough. Goal.
 
I don't have a problem with rushed behinds. More often than not, teams even under extreme pressure tend to play the ball out from the back line anyway. Teams don't like giving away points generally. You gift the opposition a point and that's the punishment.

If they want to avoid that situation from a few years ago, the rule should simply be that the team which takes the kick out cannot rush a behind until the ball has been touched by an opponent. The penalty would be a free kick from the top of the goal square as per the deliberate rule. This penalty would include being carried over the line by an opponent whilst in possession.

Thoughts?
 
That would be a really hard one to police, especially if several players from both sides are involved in a pack near the goal line...
 
WilloTree said:
In soccer if it goes in - goal. Comes off someone else? Goal. Head? Goal. Anyway you can get it in the net. Maybe theres something in this as well. Would save these ridiculous finder-nail reviews we keep having. Who cares if he got a finger-nail to it? He didn't stop it, so not good enough. Goal.
Click to expand...
No...we've been all about "below the knee" since it started...keep its integrity, I say...the real irony being that we're the only code who does the overwhelming bulk of its scoring by means which require actual feet, unlike the others which run the ball in or pompously call themselves "real football"...!
 
Gibbke said:
No...we've been all about "below the knee" since it started...keep its integrity, I say...the real irony being that we're the only code who does the overwhelming bulk of its scoring by means which require actual feet, unlike the others which run the ball in or pompously call themselves "real football"...!
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. I guess it's just irksome to have to wait for a review of something that has nothing to do with the spirit of football. The other one outside the spirit of the game is when it tips someone's shoe/heal an inch from the boundary line and goes over. Free kick for OOF. Footy should be about the game being played on it's merits - not pedantic law interpretations... which brings us full circle. lol
 
D-N-R said:
I don't have a problem with rushed behinds. More often than not, teams even under extreme pressure tend to play the ball out from the back line anyway. Teams don't like giving away points generally. You gift the opposition a point and that's the punishment.

If they want to avoid that situation from a few years ago, the rule should simply be that the team which takes the kick out cannot rush a behind until the ball has been touched by an opponent. The penalty would be a free kick from the top of the goal square as per the deliberate rule. This penalty would include being carried over the line by an opponent whilst in possession.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Excellent idea. At least worth trialing in the Pre-season I'd say.
 
Gibbke said:
That would be a really hard one to police, especially if several players from both sides are involved in a pack near the goal line...
Click to expand...
I presume this is a response to my post.

This rule would take effect from a kick-out after a point, so it is unlikely that there would be a pack of players near the goal-line. Even when teams kick backwards and across the field to open up the other side there is usually only a couple of players and more often than not the defender is alone or at most, one-on-one. Defenders don't often kick the ball back towards their own goal when there is a crowd of opponents there.

If the ball were loose in the forward line, having not yet been touched by an opponent, I couldn't see this being too much of a problem to tell when an opponent touches it. There is a goal umpire, and usually 2 boundary umpires in the vicinity (on the point posts) when the ball is near the goals, plus the field umpires. I'd be surprised if none of them could see a simple touch of the football.
 
In reference to the Montagna free against the Gold Coast. Should that have not been a ball up for handballing the ball rather than kicking it? Rather than the free for deliberate? The handball infringement precedes the act of it going through the points
 
Blueboys11 said:
In reference to the Montagna free against the Gold Coast. Should that have not been a ball up for handballing the ball rather than kicking it? Rather than the free for deliberate? The handball infringement precedes the act of it going through the points
Click to expand...

Jayden Hunt from Melbourne handballed put from the Goal square to Jones this year against the Tigers and was done for a ball up
 
Blueboys11 said:
In reference to the Montagna free against the Gold Coast. Should that have not been a ball up for handballing the ball rather than kicking it? Rather than the free for deliberate? The handball infringement precedes the act of it going through the points
Click to expand...

Montagna had not put the ball back into play, ie: cleared the goal square, when he handballed it through.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top