Rushed behind

[Gazzajr is god]

I think its ridiculous how the AFL has brought the trialed rule into the proper season only a week out.

For me, they need to trial a couple of other ideas before bringing in in changes. I think a free kick is too harsh and after seeing the free that cost WC there 1st round NAB cup game, it may cost someone a game due to a poor umpiring mistake. Yes umpires make mistakes with holding the ball decisions etc, its rare where it happens in the goal square that gifts the opposition a goal like a mistake in a rushed behind could make.

The AFL have said its only where a player walks over the line with the ball or deliberately punches the ball through but it still allows for a mistake by the umpire.

I would of preferred to see the ball get bounced down at the 30m mark.
Or maybe a team is allowed to rush the ball through deliberately once per quarter. With a tally kept on the scoreboard somewhere.

Back men have it hard enough let alone this new rule.

 

[Turkey Tom]

I think the rule is good in theory, but someone will work out a way to get around it that will have unforseen consequences.

What if the defender just stands on the goal line holding the ball. A opposition player then comes in to tackle him, and in a split second the tackle forces the player (and ball) across the goal line. Can the umpire call holding the ball when in reality there wasn't enough time to judge whether the player would get out of the tackle, or hand pass it into play?

...or maybe just wait until the tackling player is approaching and then handpass it hard into his body so the ball bounces through the goal off his body.

So we could see defenders just standing there waiting for someone to tackle them.

As the OP said, maybe the punishment is too harsh and teams will have to try to work out ways to get around the rule that may stuff the game even further.

 

[LotsofCuddles9]

I think of all the clubs Geelong this rule change is not to bad. Over the last two years Geelong rarely rushes a behind and are able to clear the ball with skill and precision. On the flip side teams like Hawthorn used the rush behind as a tactic so they are going to have to develop new strategies. I think the cats in this area are already ahead of the pack.

On the other side if our forwards put enough pressure on the opposition backs i feel it is a greater scoring opportunity for us to score even more goals. I imagine Gazza, Chappy & Stokeys will be salivating on the opportunities that may arise from to ball been kept in play.

So overall I dont see this rule being bad for us.

Bring on round 1 and lets smash those hawks.

 

[CF]

Disagree with the OP. Thought it worked well in the preseason and kept the game flowing. The real blight on the game was teams using rushed behinds to stall the clock eg Joel Bowden last year, and choke a forward line eg as Hawthorn did against us in the GF. They were blights on the game really. But this rule will help keep the game flowing which is a good thing.

Good on the AFL for being proactive about it.

 

[JUBJUB]

Can someone tell me why there were complaints about it being paid against the Eagles player in the practice match against Freo 2 weeks ago ?
He was at the top of the goal square and clearly pushed it through the goals and got pinged.Correct decision I'd say.

 

[Tay29]

Can someone tell me why there were complaints about it being paid against the Eagles player in the practice match against Freo 2 weeks ago ?
He was at the top of the goal square and clearly pushed it through the goals and got pinged.Correct decision I'd say.

I think it was because he was under pressure and you can rush in those circumstances. If however you bring pressure onto yourself, such as standing still and waiting for the opponent to come at you, then a free kick will be paid for a deliberate rushed behind.

I listened to Adrian Anderson on SEN last night and he said that of 77 instances of when the rule was in play in the NAB, the umpires got it right 75 times. And there was only 1 deliberate rushed behind for the whole pre-season comp. I am not sure how much you can trust those figures though. It did come from the umpiring department and then Adrian Anderson.

I watched about a 1/3 of the games and thought the rule worked well. Yes the penalty is harsh which means that teams are less likely to take their chances clearing the ball. Watching the defenders weave and run while the forwards hunt was good football. I look forward to it in the season proper.

Oh, and Geelong was the side that was most rushed on last year (and I think the year before). This rule should really benefit us.

 

[hamG]

I think the rule is effective. I look at its goal which is to stop teams/players from exploiting the rushed behind rule at the detriment of the game and it achieves that perfectly. It is also a passive rule which will rarely have to be called which means no crazy hands in the back style frustration.

I believe they should have a uniform deliberate out of bounds rule for the entire ground including the goals, but I guess this is close to it.

 

[polly63]

Disagree with the OP. Thought it worked well in the preseason and kept the game flowing. The real blight on the game was teams using rushed behinds to stall the clock eg Joel Bowden last year, and choke a forward line eg as Hawthorn did against us in the GF. They were blights on the game really. But this rule will help keep the game flowing which is a good thing.

Good on the AFL for being proactive about it.

Totally agree, the best rule change in years. The penalty is harsh (arguably too harsh) but it's adjudication is consistent with deliberate OOB and the law will improve the game no end IMO. Will make both backs and forwards work harder - lazy backs will be penalised, lazy forwards will not reap the (possible) benefits.

Now if we can get umpires to stop awarding 'technical' free kicks we're almost there.

 

[witsend]

Totally agree, the best rule change in years. The penalty is harsh (arguably too harsh) but it's adjudication is consistent with deliberate OOB and the law will improve the game no end IMO. Will make both backs and forwards work harder - lazy backs will be penalised, lazy forwards will not reap the (possible) benefits.

Now if we can get umpires to stop awarding 'technical' free kicks we're almost there.

As I've said previously...you have to take action when there is a practice happening every week that crowds boo!!
Apparently the instances of rushed behinds have tripled in the past couple of seasons, and coaches agreed that it would only get worse.
The rule worked IMO in the pre-season because we saw frenzied contests in the last line of defence...exactly the kind of excitement and tension we want from our game.
The only latitude I think we should see is the defender punching it through in a marking contest. But all rules will be misinterpreted occasionally.

 

[year of the cat]

Both rule changes should benefit us enormously - both directly and indirectly.

As far as the rushed behind rule is concerned we have the most experienced, composed back 6 in the league. Scarlett, Milburn, Harley, Enright, Woja and Mackie should be better equiped than any other group to be able to avoid penalty. They know each others game well and practice flipping the ball to each other relentlessly at training. On the flip side our two toughest opponents in Hawthorn and Collingwood have inexperienced back halves who potentially could be found wanting with the increased pressure that will inevitably result from this rule change. Hawthorn in particular will now be required to fundamentally change the game plan that worked so well for them last year. Will they be able to?

With regard to our forward line we are renowned for providing about the best forward pressure in the league. I am thinking that players like Stokes, Chapman, Varcoe, Rooke and Ablett when they play forward will love this rule. Turnover city.

The other rule should also help us, perhaps even more than the first, though perhaps being not as obvious. With the rolling zone the hawks had made it an artform to knock off the opposing teams playmaker, rendering him useless in the next contest. He was effectively out of that current play after being tackled late. It made it very difficult to break the zone, particularly for a team like Geelong that employs numbers that run and share through the centre corridor. This rule change should make it easier for us to break the zone and have an effective last possession into our forwards.

Both are interesting rule changes that should make the game better to watch. They should also be of massive benefit to us.

 

[Catsace]

Both rule changes should benefit us enormously - both directly and indirectly.

As far as the rushed behind rule is concerned we have the most experienced, composed back 6 in the league. Scarlett, Milburn, Harley, Enright, Woja and Mackie should be better equiped than any other group to be able to avoid penalty. They know each others game well and practice flipping the ball to each other relentlessly at training. On the flip side our two toughest opponents in Hawthorn and Collingwood have inexperienced back halves who potentially could be found wanting with the increased pressure that will inevitably result from this rule change. Hawthorn in particular will now be required to fundamentally change the game plan that worked so well for them last year. Will they be able to?

With regard to our forward line we are renowned for providing about the best forward pressure in the league. I am thinking that players like Stokes, Chapman, Varcoe, Rooke and Ablett when they play forward will love this rule. Turnover city.

The other rule should also help us, perhaps even more than the first, though perhaps being not as obvious. With the rolling zone the hawks had made it an artform to knock off the opposing teams playmaker, rendering him useless in the next contest. He was effectively out of that current play after being tackled late. It made it very difficult to break the zone, particularly for a team like Geelong that employs numbers that run and share through the centre corridor. This rule change should make it easier for us to break the zone and have an effective last possession into our forwards.

Both are interesting rule changes that should make the game better to watch. They should also be of massive benefit to us.

Great post! I reckon these rule changes are definately aimed at protecting the spirit of the game, and encouraging the sort of play Geelong excels at. Our defensive pressure is great, and many times we have seen opposing sides retreat behind the score-line to give a behind away, and that was always a cheap and easy option against us. Now, as shown in the NAB cup, we have the ability to work a ball out of danger, but opposing sides will now have to try and be daring enough to break our forward zone. Many sides are not good at doing that, and removing the escape hatch of a rushed behind will possibly force turnovers or at the least a lot more 50/50 contests in our forward line coming out.

The other rule too will hopefully see those who drag Gary Jr/Selwood/Bartel down after a disposal also be penalised. Again, it is a rule that favours clean disposal and quick movement, Geelong's strengths. What i do admire about Bomber is that many football scribes often describe Geelong's style as attractive and a cure to the boring footy inflicted upon us by the Sydney/Adelaide style of the mid-00's. Any measure that promotes our ability to do this is a good thing. I am all for these rule changes.

 

[AM]

Disagree with the OP. Thought it worked well in the preseason and kept the game flowing. The real blight on the game was teams using rushed behinds to stall the clock eg Joel Bowden last year, and choke a forward line eg as Hawthorn did against us in the GF. They were blights on the game really. But this rule will help keep the game flowing which is a good thing.

Good on the AFL for being proactive about it.

Spot-on! Although I do agree that leaving the decision to about a week out from season start was poor timing.

 

[ashs35]

Its a good thing for Geelong because it means their forward pressure won't go to waste by resulting in a heap of rushed behinds, meaning more goals to the cats & probably most other teams as well.

 

[maryjames]

the game is about goals, and this will be good for the cats i believe, ,.. makes it more interesting doesnt it.. but i feel sum supporters wil lose it when the ump mucks up..

 

[SriLankanCat]

Another rule that is gonna cause more controversy. The last thing we need is more grey areas.

The main problem i have is the penatly is too harsh....a free kick from the goal square????? I reckon a throw in from the behind post or a bounce on top of the square is the best thing...

Agree that Geelong are the best team to be able to handle it

 

[fugsy]

Finally a decent rule change.

The way I see it, there really isn't much of a grey area at all.

For example, in a contest, a defender goes up and punches the ball through, however his first intention is to stop the forward taking the mark and kicking an easy goal. Getting the ball over the line is the secondary concern. No free kick.

The one decision I saw where they payed a free kick in the NAB cup, they got wrong anyway. An essendon player near the behind post went to handball to a player in the goalsquare, and got dragged off it just as he made contact, resulting in the ball to skew off for a behind.

As long as they keep the consistancy with aerial contests in the goal square, I think this change, for once, is good for the game.

 

[randyzany]

Finally a decent rule change.

The way I see it, there really isn't much of a grey area at all.

For example, in a contest, a defender goes up and punches the ball through, however his first intention is to stop the forward taking the mark and kicking an easy goal. Getting the ball over the line is the secondary concern. No free kick.

The one decision I saw where they payed a free kick in the NAB cup, they got wrong anyway. An essendon player near the behind post went to handball to a player in the goalsquare, and got dragged off it just as he made contact, resulting in the ball to skew off for a behind.

As long as they keep the consistancy with aerial contests in the goal square, I think this change, for once, is good for the game.

^^This.

It's basically the same as the deliberate out of bounds rule we currently have all over the ground. You can usually accurately tell 90% of the time when a player is trying to be sneaky. Don't see why rushed behinds can't be policed like deliberate out of bounds.

 

[Fluro Boots]

like a lot of people the main problem i have is the penalty. like others, I think a bounce at the top of the square or even a boundary throw in from the goal line would have been a better option.

This way the team conceding don't keep possession but do have an equal chance to win it back. imo giving away a certain goal is way to harsh.

And also just a side note for people when they say this will be good for their team due to their forward pressure etc etc, don't forget this rule is now part of our game forever it seems. when discussing rule changes it's not just about the current teams, it's the future of our sport, which is why im against changing rules in repsonse to one season or one game etc as the AFL love to do.

 

[fugsy]

like a lot of people the main problem i have is the penalty. like others, I think a bounce at the top of the square or even a boundary throw in from the goal line would have been a better option.

This way the team conceding don't keep possession but do have an equal chance to win it back. imo giving away a certain goal is way to harsh.

And also just a side note for people when they say this will be good for their team due to their forward pressure etc etc, don't forget this rule is now part of our game forever it seems. when discussing rule changes it's not just about the current teams, it's the future of our sport, which is why im against changing rules in repsonse to one season or one game etc as the AFL love to do.

From memory, the one I saw payed, the ball went through right next to the behind post, and it came in on an angle close to the boundry line.

The umpire then payed the kick on the angle the ball came through, so the recipient was a very tight angle. If they continue to pay them like that, not all of them will be certain goals.

 

[witsend]

like a lot of people the main problem i have is the penalty. like others, I think a bounce at the top of the square or even a boundary throw in from the goal line would have been a better option.

This way the team conceding don't keep possession but do have an equal chance to win it back. imo giving away a certain goal is way to harsh.

And also just a side note for people when they say this will be good for their team due to their forward pressure etc etc, don't forget this rule is now part of our game forever it seems. when discussing rule changes it's not just about the current teams, it's the future of our sport, which is why im against changing rules in repsonse to one season or one game etc as the AFL love to do.

I think the point of the rule change was to bring excitement into that area of the ground, and avoid teams taking the "easy" option.
Based on that, the change has been an overwhelming success.
Players now know, because of the harshness of the penalty, that they must find a way through the pressure. Surely that's what we want to see? Not.."Oh crap it's all too hard...here, have a bread-crumb and we'll set up our play"?
Footy is MUCH better for this...there WILL be mistakes and the press and Bay 13 will froth at the mouth, but our game and the players will improve.
As Garry Lyon pointed out last night..as it is the defenders usually outnumber the forwards anyway! They need to grow some 'nads IMO!

 

[Tay29]

I have seen a bunch of posts saying the penalty is too harsh which is probably true but in the end it will lead to better backline play. The harsher the penalty the more unlikely a defender will risk rushing a behind. If the rule was a ball up then teams would be more likely to rush and then flood the defensive 50 to make it harder for the offensive team to score. Flooding doesn't make for good football.

 

[FancyNancy]

I would have though a ball up in the forward line would attract as many defenders as a throw in or any other ball up in their area.

There is no doubt interpretation will change over the seasons as the director of umpiring changes and controversial calls are made by umpires and we continue to have a rules committee that meets on a regular basis looking for something to justify their existance.

 

[KardiniaPark]

Was it Rodant from port who kicked the goal the wrong way last year?. Imagine how you'd feel when you just thought youd kicked a goal but the other team ends up lining up cos its declared rushed hahaha! I dont mind the rule, they werent that harsh on it in the nab cup so i dont think anyone will notice it after a month.

 

[gabstar]

I think it is a great rule because it will really hurt Hawthorn

 

[Sean Sheep]

I like the blocking rule. This is another that will really help us this year. It was a tactic that Collingwood and Hawthorn used to great effect on us last year.