-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
rush behind rule
- Thread starter geelong_crazy26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Considering the umpires refuse to pay it, I can't see how anyone will be affected.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Posts
- 30,703
- Reaction score
- 25,554
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- geelong
- Thread starter
- #4
my vote went to hawthorn, after rushing 11 behinds in the grand final match, i feel it is part of their game plan to slow down the tempo when the ball is deep in their defence, instead of taking on opposition forward lines and running and carrying the ball out, they take the safe option and consede behinds, this is due to their lack of skills in defence.
Other teams i feel that will feel the effect of this rule are teams with aging and slow defenses such as Essendon and Melbourne.
Teams like Geelong and Bulldogs which have quick moving talented defenses rarely choose to concede points and usually take on opposition forward lines, creating plays from their defensive halfs, teams like Geelong and Bulldogs will thrive with these new rules, as it will means their defenses and how they opporate will rise a class above others who do not have the same movements and dash, as they will be exposed and crumble.
Other teams i feel that will feel the effect of this rule are teams with aging and slow defenses such as Essendon and Melbourne.
Teams like Geelong and Bulldogs which have quick moving talented defenses rarely choose to concede points and usually take on opposition forward lines, creating plays from their defensive halfs, teams like Geelong and Bulldogs will thrive with these new rules, as it will means their defenses and how they opporate will rise a class above others who do not have the same movements and dash, as they will be exposed and crumble.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Actually Melbourne and Essendon will probably have one of the younger defences in the AFL.
The only way we will get in trouble with the new rule is if our inexperienced players struggle under pressure.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2008
- Posts
- 2,422
- Reaction score
- 69
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Arsenal Philly
thats because teams are no longer walking the ball over the line and defenders are actually using there brains and finding ways to get rid of the ball in high pressure situations making for much more entertaining football. They have said there not going to pay it if there is a contest
No, has not been used yet.
Teams may not be walking the ball over the line, but they are still rushing behinds, and all this rule will do is create another complicated rule that the umpires won't be able to accurately police. On Friday, there were two clear rushed behinds, the umpires did not pay them, neither of them were from a marking contest, one was a blatant hand-ball over the line by Gilbee.
If they could have a clear set of rules that defined rushed i.e. "either walked over or put over the line by a disposal" then I think it would clear up the confusion. But I reckon I can do without another gray area of the rules that the umpires can butcher. We already have 'hands in the back', 'holding the ball' 'deliberate out of bounds' and of course the mystery ruck infringements. That is enough to get frustrated with as it is.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2006
- Posts
- 31,377
- Reaction score
- 21,701
- Location
- ???
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Miami Dolphins(NFL)
gc, i understand you hate the hawks, but you cant seriously believe that dribble can you?
The hawks exploit the fast kick in rule, so as the opponent (int he GF geelong) are clearing out, it allows for the player to get it out of 50 with ease. It was a good tactic, and you cannot deny it.
Geelong would have done the exact same thing if hawthorn were dropping the ball 5 m short. and dont give me this shit about geelong being superior, superior teams dont miss shots from 5 m out
Sir James
Senior List
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Posts
- 201
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Fitzroy stars F.C
So true
I think what the Bulldogs did the other night would have been a free last season, but the rule has been tweeked a little.
No team will suffer, only Joel Bowden will
The Hawks would have to be the most guilty of (ab)using this tactic hence the rule change.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Posts
- 30,703
- Reaction score
- 25,554
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- geelong
- Thread starter
- #12
i believe it is both, i am not saying your side is no good, you won the premiership, you have a tallented list, but it is obvious that you have a weakness in your defence, besides Croad you really lack any quality in your back half, and when these untallented defenders are put under pressure, they often lack the split second thinking, and skills to get themselves out of danger, i think what Hawthorn do, what you mentioned above, is a good tactic, but a reason it was put into practice by Clarkson was to make work easier for your weak defence, just like the Clarkson Cluster was invented, to protect your defence from having the ball moved down quickly into it, allowing midfielders time to dropp back and clogg it up.
hawkhanlumist
Senior List
poll should have a "will affect all teams equally" option...
.
and it will, because the rule is going to be a nightmare to police and interpret for the umps. they are thus going to get some wrong, and every now and then, by luck or misfortune, a team will lose a game because of ambiguous or inconsistent umiring/interpretation of the rule. this could happen to any team.
.
and it will, because the rule is going to be a nightmare to police and interpret for the umps. they are thus going to get some wrong, and every now and then, by luck or misfortune, a team will lose a game because of ambiguous or inconsistent umiring/interpretation of the rule. this could happen to any team.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Posts
- 14,267
- Reaction score
- 7,498
- Location
- Dimmeys
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea SSC Napoli
Bah wrong answer, it wasn't Clarkson, he said so himself, it was the players that implemented the rush behinds on grand final day, thats the only time it has ever happened. The Hawthorn defence was switched on, showed initiative.
People seem to think it is a regular part of our gameplan when it isn't.Bah wrong answer, it wasn't Clarkson, he said so himself, it was the players that implemented the rush behinds on grand final day, thats the only time it has ever happened. The Hawthorn defence was switched on, showed initiative.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Posts
- 30,703
- Reaction score
- 25,554
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- geelong
- Thread starter
- #17
Bah wrong answer, it wasn't Clarkson, he said so himself, it was the players that implemented the rush behinds on grand final day, thats the only time it has ever happened. The Hawthorn defence was switched on, showed initiative.
or that the players didnt feel confident to take on the Geelong forward line when pressure was applied, it really doesnt matter who came up with it, clarkson or the players, in the end they did it because of the same reason, that they were not talented enough and didnt have the confidence to create and run the ball out from deep in defense like so many of the teams with quality defences do.
Perhaps Geelong should have looked at it, because when the pressure was applied to their defence it leaked goals so quickly they might as well have gone home.
43 inside 50s netted the Hawks 18 goals on Grand Final day, a truly abysmal performance by the inept Geelong defence. Meanwhile Hawthorn at the other end allowed only 11 goals from 62 inside 50s.
43 inside 50s netted the Hawks 18 goals on Grand Final day, a truly abysmal performance by the inept Geelong defence. Meanwhile Hawthorn at the other end allowed only 11 goals from 62 inside 50s.
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Posts
- 3,695
- Reaction score
- 11
- Location
- In a house
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Oakland Raiders
You really are the tool's tool, GC.
Presumably Geelong also lacked the talent and confidence to run out of defence. Massive drop-off in this area in the GF that's for sure, one would think that the applied and perceived pressure of the Hawk forward structure got to them.
Presumably Geelong also lacked the talent and confidence to run out of defence. Massive drop-off in this area in the GF that's for sure, one would think that the applied and perceived pressure of the Hawk forward structure got to them.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Posts
- 30,703
- Reaction score
- 25,554
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- geelong
- Thread starter
- #21
Scarlett took Franklin to the cleaners, roughhead was beaten by Harley aswell, the problem was not in our defence one bit, it was our delivery and movement into the forward line. Our defence was ranked number one in the AFL. it is not a problem one bit, as on the other hand it has been Hawthorns achilies heel for many matches, being the reason they have lost many matches, fast ball movement into their defence catching them one out causes all sorts of strife, it is undeniable that players such as Gilham are not good enough to hold down a full back position when the heat is on them.
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Posts
- 3,695
- Reaction score
- 11
- Location
- In a house
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Oakland Raiders
On GF day your defence was a problem.
It mattered not that Franklin & Roughead didn't fire, as other players rallied across the park to pick-up the slack.
It did matter to Geelong that they were unable to manufacture their usual run from defence because its defenders were rooted to their defensive 50 by a mixture of Buddy-consciousness and an inability to rise above the applied and perceived pressure of the Hawk forward structure.
The Hawthorn defence won on the day because (even after gifting your club 11 points) it was able to minimise Geelong scoring despite the Cats having maximum inside 50 ball. It also generated more run and counter attack on the day, despite this being the preferred modus operandi of the Geelong backline.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Posts
- 30,703
- Reaction score
- 25,554
- Location
- melbourne
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- geelong
- Thread starter
- #23
Lance Franklin has never posed as a problem to Geelong, the last 3 times Scarlett and Franklin went head to head, Franklin has kicked a total of 7 goals on him, just averaging more then 2 goals per game, Scarlett has the wood over Franklin so it was not a matter of Franklin firing or not, it was just a matter of whether Scarlett was on tune.
The Hawthorn Defense had it very easy on the day to generate run out of defensive 50 due to the fact that our quick smaller forwards who apply pressure the most were injured in chapman and stokes, that would be the equivelent of Hawthorn Having Rioli and Williams injured and slowed down.
Also the use of the Cluster is implemented for that very reason, because the coach has no faith in your defence to stand up on its own two feet, so he creates a barrier, slowing down teams and making it very tough to move the ball in.
Because Both god and Clarkson figured a long time ago that if teams had a clean pathway of delivery into the Hawthorn 50, that the results would be a catostrophic barrage of goals against the great Gilham and the Ex Fremantle delisted CHB in Croad.
i will quote the words of Robert Walls. " the Cluster is in use to protect the Hawthorn Defence from being exposed"
- Joined
- May 23, 2001
- Posts
- 3,695
- Reaction score
- 11
- Location
- In a house
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Oakland Raiders
^^^
Even a blind boxer will land a hit eventually, simply because weight of punches make it a statistical impossibility for him not to.
But here we are, some five months out from the GF, and for all your tortured ramblings you've failed to land a solitary blow. If it was a soccer match, you'd be 18-0 down largely on the back of own goals.
I worry for what precious little remains of your sanity.
You really should look on the bright side though.
Geelong were flattered by the GF margin, but that had nothing on how flattered they had been by the result the week before.
Hawthorn really should have been playing the Bulldogs on GF day, so - why not take a glass is half full approach - and accept the GF result as a happy bonus.
Even a blind boxer will land a hit eventually, simply because weight of punches make it a statistical impossibility for him not to.
But here we are, some five months out from the GF, and for all your tortured ramblings you've failed to land a solitary blow. If it was a soccer match, you'd be 18-0 down largely on the back of own goals.
I worry for what precious little remains of your sanity.
You really should look on the bright side though.
Geelong were flattered by the GF margin, but that had nothing on how flattered they had been by the result the week before.
Hawthorn really should have been playing the Bulldogs on GF day, so - why not take a glass is half full approach - and accept the GF result as a happy bonus.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2004
- Posts
- 14,267
- Reaction score
- 7,498
- Location
- Dimmeys
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea SSC Napoli
Oh dear, You've included a game last year in Tasmania when the wind was an absolute shocker, Not exactly a fine day for KPP for both sides, Scarlett didn't play on him either. It was Mackie that day. Round 17 he kicked 4 goals 5, if he kicked a little straighter poor Scarlett would have been responsible for the loss, Grandfinal day he had a bung shoulder and a broken thumb on the other hand, either way with those limitations he was still able kick 2 goals at 2 very important times of the match.
If you knew anything about the football club you support you would know that the Geelong football club employ a massive 12 to 14 man zone in the front half of the field, they used it on Grand final day and they have been using it all year for the purpose of making it dificult for teams to generate run from there backline and also to compensate for a lack of pace, agility and hardness in its back line, this zone locks the ball up in the opposition forward line limits the ball use and limits the inside 50's entries into the Geelong backhalf, where the club can and has been exposed on the fast break in its defence. The Bulldogs did it and so did the Hawks on grand final day.
Its quite interesting that you state the Geelong defence is quite sound when being 1 on 1........when Hawthorn entered the Geelong forward line it managed to score 58% of the time and on occasions the Hawthorn forward line was still able to score eventhough they were outnumbered by the Geelong defenders. its quite a high amount for such little entries. In contrast the Geelong side only managed to score 37% of the time when it entered the the Hawthorn forward line.
Both teams used a defensive zone all be it indifferent parts of the ground to counter its small weakness in the back half, Clarkson gameplan was just a hell of a lot smarter and was executed to perfection. Hence Hawthorn 2008 premiers