Deliberate rushed behind.

Remove this Banner Ad

Was it Hodge that soccered a point last night? Loads of other options and not under too much pressure. In light of the free kicks paid the week before, it was a very poor call by the ump to call it a point. Pretty conclusive proof of the unintentional bias that permiates our game imo. Most other players/ other clubs and that's called deliberate in the current climate.
 
#1_pigeonracer said:
Was it Hodge that soccered a point last night? Loads of other options and not under too much pressure. In light of the free kicks paid the week before, it was a very poor call by the ump to call it a point. Pretty conclusive proof of the unintentional bias that permiates our game imo. Most other players/ other clubs and that's called deliberate in the current climate.
Click to expand...

Good bloke discount.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

#1_pigeonracer said:
Was it Hodge that soccered a point last night? Loads of other options and not under too much pressure. In light of the free kicks paid the week before, it was a very poor call by the ump to call it a point. Pretty conclusive proof of the unintentional bias that permiates our game imo. Most other players/ other clubs and that's called deliberate in the current climate.
Click to expand...
I've met field umpires who admit they find Hawthorn 'a very polite team'. Strictly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if nicer players got a better go. Not that it should be that way. But it seems to be the case.

Personally think Umpires should never use names and only numbers, but that'll never happen.
 
CniBffRUkAA2P7C.jpg


Now, I say this with genuine intent and not as a sooking Norf fan, but did the rule always account for whether you have prior/other options? I thought it was just whether or not you're under pressure?
 
Thewlis Dish said:
Now, I say this with genuine intent and not as a sooking Norf fan, but did the rule always account for whether you have prior/other options? I thought it was just whether or not you're under pressure?
Click to expand...

What "the rule" is is a little hard to say - the wording of the law bears very little relation to how its actually been enforced - but neither has anything to say about prior options. At a stretch, you could argue that the existence of other choices removes any doubt over the player's intent (since benefit of the doubt goes to the defender), but there's no obvious basis for justifying yesterday's decision by reference to what else Firrito could have done.

Having said that, I think it was the correct call. Not under the "pressure" interpretation, but that's never made much sense to me anyhow - and I think there's a fair gripe to be had about the sudden change in approach to calling these - but it makes sense in light of the basic idea of the rule, and accords fairly well with the rule as written.
 
I think from a footy point of view it was a good decision, as Firrito clearly waited for the tackle, thinking he could then rush a behind as he would be under pressure.

However, the rule has always been communicated that if you're under pressure you can rush a behind. For the AFL to come out and suggest it was correct because he had options prior to being tackled would suggest there is more to the rule than has been made public?
 
Thewlis Dish said:
I think from a footy point of view it was a good decision, as Firrito clearly waited for the tackle, thinking he could then rush a behind as he would be under pressure.

However, the rule has always been communicated that if you're under pressure you can rush a behind. For the AFL to come out and suggest it was correct because he had options prior to being tackled would suggest there is more to the rule than has been made public?
Click to expand...
The rule as written is wishy-washy at best. There has, however, been mention before about players who 'invite pressure' on themselves not being permitted to rush a behind. For example, if a player is near the goal line and in the clear, he can't simply wait for an opponent to come to tackle him and then rush the behind because he is 'under pressure'.

So going by this, the call was correct. Firrito had two players he could have passed it to on the line and he had other options before he was tackled. That this is almost a one-off decision suggests that most players understand the rule and try to play it out from the backline rather than heading straight over line every time.

That said, the penalty is too harsh, IMO. Should be a ball up at the top of the square so the penalty might be a goal to the opposition rather than an almost certain goal.
 
Why not just have every rushed behind, deliberate or not being a ball up at the top of the goal square. Takes out the umpire interpretation,

Anything that reduces the umpires ability to step in and influence the game the better
 
TBoyleSuperstar said:
I like the fact Firrito got pinged. Whilst being tackled, he could have hand balled to Thompson on the line but chose to go over his head and into the crowd. As such, he deserved to be pinged

Like any rule, this just needs to be adjudicated consistnatly
Click to expand...

Yeah as I said I think from a "feel" point of view it was a great call, but seems a bit blurry by the rules (which specifically state being tackled or about to be tackled constitutes being under pressure).
 
ive only seen the replay - but i didnt like the decision - if Hodge is able to put it through from further out than Spud, who was actually being tackled and could have conceivably been trying to get it to a team mate .....rubbish call
 
AstonSouffle said:
I've met field umpires who admit they find Hawthorn 'a very polite team'. Strictly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if nicer players got a better go. Not that it should be that way. But it seems to be the case.

Personally think Umpires should never use names and only numbers, but that'll never happen.
Click to expand...

Umpires should also be addressed as "sir" like in union as well (they only use numbers when talking to players iirc), maybe they might then bring the standard up to befit their title :drunk:
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The justification for the Firrito decision is crazy.

Too far out for goal - yet in the goal square. The actual square that surrounds the goal line. I mean come on.

Had prior opportunity - never a factor before. He was under pressure when he picked the ball up. That he decided to step away from the tackle instead of firing off a quick handball doesn't change the pressure he was under.

Handballed it with 'real force 3 or 4 m over the line' - irrelevant. The goal line is a line. You either cross it or you don't. Why does it matter if you gently role the ball over or if you spike it 30m over. You don't get more than 6 points for kicking a goal on to the 3rd deck.

If we want a tougher rule I can understand that. But personally I'd prefer players concede a point and we get back to marking and kicking footy from a kickout and the ball moving in play. Scrappy pressure football that finishes in a hacked kick out of the backline isn't great to watch and gifted goals from free kicks isn't either. It's artificially inflating the score line.
 
master bate said:
Had prior opportunity - never a factor before. He was under pressure when he picked the ball up. That he decided to step away from the tackle instead of firing off a quick handball doesn't change the pressure he was under.
Click to expand...
While not formally part of the rules I'm 99% certain they have used prior as a factor before (maybe last year a few times?)
 
Roylion said:
A penalty for rushing a behind is a score to the other side. That's penalty enough. A free kick at the top of the goal square for a "deliberate" behind in the interpretation of the umpire on top of that is too much of a penalty.
Click to expand...

Whoever makes the rules has an obsession with implementing sheer nonsense that adds nothing to our game whilst leaving everyone (including the umpires) to split hairs on grey area decisions.

We need to wind a lot of these rules back, the first two being (i) deliberate out of bounds & (ii) deliberate rushed behind.

The consistency in the umpires interpretations is bordering on farcical right now.
 
kickazz said:
Get rid of the rule that says it is a free, but to compensate for it being too good an option, go back to having to wait for the flags to be waved. A caveat I'd be happy with is that the kick in must touch another player before you rush it again

Tactically, the rushed behind was always a last resort type of thing to stop a goal. With the free kick and the ability to play on without the forwards having time to set up a zone or man up; it is no longer a tactic of last resort but an attacking move.

Giving away a point, then having to wait to kick in, should make it a tactic of last resort again, and crucially, eliminate one of the interpretation type decisions we burden the umpires with.
Click to expand...

Good call !!

Why they did away with that rule is beyond me.
 
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...

How about, just don't have the rule, problem solved !!!
 
TBoyleSuperstar said:
I like the fact Firrito got pinged. Whilst being tackled, he could have hand balled to Thompson on the line but chose to go over his head and into the crowd. As such, he deserved to be pinged

Like any rule, this just needs to be adjudicated consistnatly
Click to expand...

There will be people living on Mars before that happens.
 
Make the deliberate rushed behind rule more strict. Relax the current deliberate out of bounds rule (ok, not to Deledio levels, but you get what I mean). Basically, apply the rule for the entire ground exactly the same.
 
Stopher said:
Make the deliberate rushed behind rule more strict. Relax the current deliberate out of bounds rule (ok, not to Deledio levels, but you get what I mean). Basically, apply the rule for the entire ground exactly the same.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with this. You rush a behind you cost your team a point and have kick the ball in. Aside from a few seconds break the game will keep moving.

You deliberately rush it over the line and you stall the game for a throw in.

Plus at the goal line you can be trapped with no where to go. Around the boundary you can always go forward or back assuming you can't get away from the line.

The penalties are also far different. If you concede a deliberate out of bounds it's usually at least away from goal and often on the wing or even forward. To concede a free there costs you little. In fact if you bomb it forward in to a pocket there's no damage done at all if you can set up quick enough. Comparing that to a rushed behind which will more often that not cost you a goal is unfair.

I'd rather the penalty for a rushed behind be a free kick 50m out on the boundary in effect like a soccer corner than a free kick on the line.
 
Agree that the penalty is too harsh.

Guaranteed goal to the other team. You get less reward from a free for a late hit that potentially takes a player out of the game.
 
The AFL explanation on the Firirto decision is complete bullshit and Mark Robinson is an idiot! You cannot make up a rule half way through. Firrito was being tackled, it doesn't matter if he punched it 20 rows into the grandstand, he was allowed to do that according to the rules, now they say distance and force is a factor? He punched it over the goal umpires head? Where in the rule book does it say that? Robinson also greased up to the umpires with the Kieran Jack 50 metre travesty and the 10 metre protected area. This game is unmanageable. Every rushed behind must result in a free kick from now on, but where is the rule? When did they omit the words "under pressure"? It's too harsh a penalty. Bounce it at the top of the square, but NO gimme goals please.
 
God Robbo has no bloody idea about this game.
Was just talking s**t just then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top