Rushed behind rule becomes permanent

[HFC082]

Just don't do it and it wont be payed

Or if you have to rush the ball...rush it out on the full as far as you can kick it.

 

[IbbosBFF]

I bet for the captians:

12 - Judd, Pav, Llyod, Harvey etc (more goals for us )
4 - Unsure. Harley(cost me primership but im a defender), Newman, Mitchell, Maxwell

 

[Brock Machine]

The timing may be off, but I think this is a good rule.

It keeps the game interesting, and just think how well it's going to work when we have a close game with 2mins left on the clock.

Out of all the rules changed in the last 5 years this has to be the best one.

Having said all that, the ruling needs to be concrete. Stevens blatant rush was not called vs Hawthorn

Bookmarked.

Let's see how you feel if an umpires interpretation costs Carlton a final......

 

[LeeARM]

this rule is worse than the 3 point rushed behind rule because it'll end up costing you 7 points. why do the afl always have over react to small problems? clash jumpers, too many people on the field(which happened ONCE!), push in the backs, head injuries(although its not a small issue they still over reacted)

teams may as well just not have defenders seeing as they're not allowed to do anything.

 

[D's Corner]

Congratulations AFL....thanks for ruining 150 years of history
they have no idea the mistake they have made 6 DAYS BEFORE ROUND 1!!
idiots...so pissed off!!

 

[LeeARM]

oh and i don't have a problem with discouraging rushed behind but the penalty is WAY too harsh. a ball up in the goal square would've been nicer.

 

[Artie Bucco]

Bookmarked.

Let's see how you feel if an umpires interpretation costs Carlton a final......

Yeah cool

How could it cost a team a game? If they rush it then it's fair. The only way it could 'cost' a game is if we're marginally behind and they don't pay it and as a result Carlton lose out. Which in any case I said the ruling for the blatant needs to be concrete now as Stevens was not paid in the Nab cup and that's as blatant as you will see.

But thanks for overreacting, if you had watched this rule in the NAB cup you would have seen that it stimulated play rather than defenders taking the easy way out.

 

[beatlesmith]

Not a surprise after I saw the poll yesterday.



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25213812-19742,00.html

Glass, Maxwell, Newman and Harley are all defenders?
Why the hell wouldn't they vote no????

 

[beatlesmith]

I bet for the captians:

12 - Judd, Pav, Llyod, Harvey etc (more goals for us )
4 - Unsure. Harley(cost me primership but im a defender), Newman, Mitchell, Maxwell

surely glass would have been in the unsure part. Why would a close-to goals FB with questionable disposal and minimal rebound vote yes to the rush behind rule?

 

[Hoops]

We all booo at the games when a player does it but when it's outlawed than we boo as well. It will work and do you know why because the penalty is harsh so players wont do it and the game will be better for it

If it happens more than once a round I'ld be very surprised

and I think we will see players more willing to bomb into the forward line knowing they might be able to tie it up and therefore more contested marks

 

[Speck]

Rushed Behind Rule - Will be in Season 2009

Just on Channel 10.

The free kick for a rushed behind rule will continue through to the regular season. The free and 50m free kick for players taken down after they give off possession will also continue.

I don't like the rushed behind rule at all TBH.

 

[Divado]

Mate, your the joke, you just posted anime.

 

[LeeARM]

It will work and do you know why because the penalty is harsh so players wont do it and the game will be better for it

if you balled it up you'd get basically the same result with a less harsh penalty and it leaves the option open to do it if it's absolutely necessary. but the afl hasn't gone through all the options, they've rushed into this after 4 rounds of practice matches

 

[deck]

I was initially against this rule. But after some consideration and watching it in affect I think it is a fantastic rule.

If you look at the other major Football codes you will see teams are penalized harshly for putting the ball through your own goal or goal line.

In Soccer it cost you a goal for crossing your own line.

Rugby League give the opposition the ball at the 20 yard line for being caught in your own goal area.

NFL penalize a team 2 points plus give the opposition the ball back for being caught inside your own goal line.

If your forwards apply enough pressure that you must take the ball over the goal line why should the opposition get the ball back. There has to be a penalty of some sort plus a reward for the team applying the pressure. The defending team has only taken the ball over the line due to the fact the fear that certain 6 points are coming unless otherwise. Why should poor play be reward with a free kick and only the loss of 1 point.

 

[Obeanie1]

Its a stupid rule and the AFL are kidding themselves if they think it will make the game better

I think it's a great innovation

I took a close interest in seeing how it went in the pre season games and 99% of the time the umpires called it correctly and the backmen instead of going the boring soft option actually used their skills and dare to clear the ball.

As a spectator it's actually great to watch when a defender gets corned and then skillfully beats his opponent by running around them or links together two or three handballs to clear the goals line. If a forward lays a good tackle then they are rewarded as well, it's sure better than watching uncontested footy and thats what happens with rushed behinds.

In the past I too have said the AFL are changing the rules too much every year but the two changes made this week I fully agree with and will result in a better attacking game and one more exiting to both play and watch.

 

[Obeanie1]

Congratulations AFL....thanks for ruining 150 years of history they have no idea the mistake they have made 6 DAYS BEFORE ROUND 1!!
idiots...so pissed off!!

So much of an over reaction

So did the 12 AFL captains who supported the change also have no idea?

I'd suggest that these 12 captains discussed it with 12 coaches as well before supporting the change.

This will create more one on one contests and also encourage long kicks to packs 10-15 in front of goal, hey isn't that when we had heaps of those speci pack marks back in the 80's?

It will cut out soft defensive time wasting and another easy kick out of defence to a free man and with no one on one contest.

 

[T-Pain]

brian lake is standing on the goal line in last year's qualifying final wasting time

buddy frankling runs up and bumps him over the line

rushed or not rushed?

it's clear what the player's intent is, but rather than rush it himself we'll now see more of this...players inviting contact in order to be tackled over the line.

 

[LeeARM]

brian lake is standing on the goal line in last year's qualifying final wasting time

buddy frankling runs up and bumps him over the line

rushed or not rushed?

it's clear what the player's intent is, but rather than rush it himself we'll now see more of this...players inviting contact in order to be tackled over the line.

this is the reason why the penalty should be less harsh. although people are always going to try and get around these deliberate rules like when players handball onto the opposition players foot to get an out on the full, it's hard to stop.

 

[damochandler]

its because anderson could never play the game and thats why he has brought in the worst rules ever. they just want to ruin the game for everyone. it was just a total overreaction to 1 game. thats all it is. there will be an average of 5 stuff ups by the umpires every week through this rule

 

[BLUES82]

Great, another set of rules for the umpires to acknowledge...or ignore and yet another way they are able to shape a games result AFL = Corrupt

 

[BLUES82]

So much of an over reaction

So did the 12 AFL captains who supported the change also have no idea?

I'd suggest that these 12 captains discussed it with 12 coaches as well before supporting the change.

This will create more one on one contests and also encourage long kicks to packs 10-15 in front of goal, hey isn't that when we had heaps of those speci pack marks back in the 80's?

It will cut out soft defensive time wasting and another easy kick out of defence to a free man and with no one on one contest.

nah, the hands in the back rule has killed most of them

 

[ashs35]

No rushed behinds, means:

More scoring opportunities, more goals, longer contests, no running away from a contest, more head to head combat, & a true reflection of who is the better contested team.

If a team turns it over in their defense and it results in a goal, then thats the consequence of being beaten! and that's how it should be!
Defenders shouldn't have anywhere to run to, except through the contest!

Similarly, you wouldn't have a cage match with an exit door! It defeats the purpose of the contest!

This new rule can only improve the game and promote attacking football all over the ground.

 

[D's Corner]

So much of an over reaction

So did the 12 AFL captains who supported the change also have no idea?

I'd suggest that these 12 captains discussed it with 12 coaches as well before supporting the change.

This will create more one on one contests and also encourage long kicks to packs 10-15 in front of goal, hey isn't that when we had heaps of those speci pack marks back in the 80's?

It will cut out soft defensive time wasting and another easy kick out of defence to a free man and with no one on one contest.

just wait till darren glass subtlely tries to rush the behind but is penalised. west coast loses the game on the siren. Dont think you'd want the rule implemented anymore...why not a ball up rather then a free shot at goal...what are u meant to when ur under pressure put it out deliberately out of bounds....same out come still applies. i'm guessing round 3 as the controversial moment

 

[T-Pain]

and another quesiton - will it be enforced in metro and country footy???

hands at the back was, at the last minute...

 

[Carnthe]

And the Penalty to harsh doesn't sit with me. It's not as though defenders accidently deliberately rush a behind It's a conscious decision. Just don't do it and it wont be payed

Thats a complete load of dogs droppings Hoops. Players have been taught for 18-30 odd years (ie. their whole playing life) to rush a behind when they're under pressure, and now they have 6 days to completely rewire their way of thinking. Pigs arse.

Here's one to think about as well. This will lead to a less skillful game. Teams will be content bombing the ball deep into their forward 50, locking it in with a forward flood until they can pressure an error to get an easy free kick on goal. Can guarantee this will become a tactic. However, we can rest assured that the AFL will introduce another rule ontop of it to overcorrect and continue the trend of bullshit knee jerk ad hoc rule changing.

Stupid, thoughtless rule. And agree the penalty is way too harsh.