Rushed behinds

[stevothedevo]

Not sure how many there were for the game but it was frustrating to see Fremantle doing it from 10-15 meters out. I hear the AFL might trial the rule where a rushed behind will result in a ball up somewhere within scoring range. I think this idea has some merit. They currently trial a 3 point rule for a rushed behind. Never really liked the idea. Scoring should be earned. With the 'ball up' rule at least the attacking team still has to work for a goal.

 

[cats2rise]

We had 8 rushed behinds.

 

[cats2rise]

With the 'ball up' rule at least the attacking team still has to work for a goal.

Yeh, but in the ball up, our opposition wll jsut put a 3rd man up to knock the ball through for a point...

 

[Shell]

Yeah it was frustrating to watch (but on the other hand quite funny too.. they actually kicked us a point at one stage. ), but leave the rules alone, imo. Especially when it comes to scoring. Super goals for instance are great for the pre-season, but not regular.

The other thing I remember seeing (may have been last week, maybe), was an opposition player trying to rush through a point, but hit the outer post instead. Straight away deliberate in my book, and it wasn't paid.

 

[jim boy]

I wouldn't like to see it changed. Apart from anythig else it brings in a subjective call for the umpire. Right now, things are black and white, if it goes through the big sticks after being kicked by the attacking team without being touched, its a goal, everything else is a point. Under the new proposal, the umpire has to decide what are the itentions of the oppposition, which will inevitably lead to inconsistency, something we have too much of already.

 

[stevothedevo]

Yeh, but in the ball up, our opposition wll jsut put a 3rd man up to knock the ball through for a point...

Yes but see. That would constitute being delibrate and result in another ball up. The opposition would be forced to make some sort of play out of it...
In saying that I do agree with the others. It does leave a bit to interpretation and maybe best left as it is. But yeah, 8 rushed behinds did get a bit frustrating.

 

[MrGFC]

Not sure how many there were for the game but it was frustrating to see Fremantle doing it from 10-15 meters out.

Sooo frustrating, I was amazed how, far out they were doing it and how frequently it happened.

It was pretty disappointing to see ...

 

[Shell]

Sooo frustrating, I was amazed how, far out they were doing it and how frequently it happened.

It was pretty disappointing to see ...

Look, it's their prerogative, in the end. Nothing much we can do about it.

On the flip side, it's good to see how much Geelong don't rush behinds through. Even when the ball is quite close in to the oppositions goal. The defence has the confidence to back emselves, to get the ball out.

 

[sarah.13]

I always find the rushing of behinds as an indication of that team cracking under the forward pressure.

 

[jess_555]

There are too many new rules being introduced in my opinion. While I hated seeing all those rushed behinds I think we should stop changing the rules so much.

Freo rushing 8 behind is a poor effort. Just shows how much pressure we had them under. I would like to see the stat of how many rushed behinds Geelong have done over the season compared to other teams. I think we have a fantastic backline who back each other up very well.

 

[And_ROOS]

Not sure how many there were for the game but it was frustrating to see Fremantle doing it from 10-15 meters out. I hear the AFL might trial the rule where a rushed behind will result in a ball up somewhere within scoring range. I think this idea has some merit. They currently trial a 3 point rule for a rushed behind. Never really liked the idea. Scoring should be earned. With the 'ball up' rule at least the attacking team still has to work for a goal.

See, this is why the AFL admin are F#**ing stupid. The reason teams rush behinds is because with the quick play on its like getting a free kick.

Simple solution, GO BACK TO THE OLD RULE. When teams rushed behinds under the old rule, it not only allowed everyone to catch their breath, but to also mean the attacking team had the chance to set up so they could keep the ball in attack. Was a little thing called strategy, something the AFL try to abolish. Teams used to avoid rushing behinds unless absolutely necessary because it made it harder to get the ball out of defence.

But as usual the AFL introduce a stupid rule, which always stuffs up and forces in even more useless rules to fix their first one. And the whole time the issue could be rectified by fixing that initial rule they introduce.

 

[MrGFC]

Look, it's their prerogative, in the end. Nothing much we can do about it.

On the flip side, it's good to see how much Geelong don't rush behinds through. Even when the ball is quite close in to the oppositions goal. The defence has the confidence to back emselves, to get the ball out.

Agreed on all points, but I'd say even Freo supporters would have been annoyed by it.

 

[hobart cat]

it just showed how much we cause other teams to crap their pants with our forward line pressure.

imagine how scared they would have been if Chappy and Varcoe were in there aswell.

 

[MmkMrMackie]

it just showed how much we cause other teams to crap their pants with our forward line pressure.

imagine how scared they would have been if Chappy and Varcoe were in there aswell.

Not much.

 

[hobart cat]

Not much.

Not much? I would think plenty...this is the guy leading the league in tackles inside the forward 50...

why have i seen a negative lean towards Trav in the last week or 2 on this board? the guy has done all asked of him in the 2's and was vital in getting our run started with his intensity, chasing and tackling.

I would have him back in for Byrnes in a flash.

 

[The Cork Soaker]

I agree with roos, the quick kick out has made a mockery of rushing a behind, there too much incentive to do so for the defending team who get a huge advantage for the loss of only one point. It's true there is too much subjectivity in game now but this one I think would be the easiest to adjudicate on as the goal ump is right there, and there is big and obvious difference between a "surrender behind" and a "rushed behind".
The easy way to discourage this gutless and negative style of play is to make the call on surrender behinds, and to let the point stand and then award a free kick on the the edge of the goal square. I reckon its a blight on the game and Freo prooved how inadequate the rule is at the moment.
The interpretation would be simple.... Any defender who handballs, kicks, or deliberately taps the ball over the line is penalised in the same interpreation as deliberate out of bounds.

 

[Hood007]

I always find the rushing of behinds as an indication of that team cracking under the forward pressure.

I agree.
It's a compliment in a way...

 

[TheTimeCometh]

yeah, it's dodgy.


a reset 'free' kick that can either be taken to gather composure, or quickly get it out is obviously being chosen over battling to prevent any score.


kinda like sending someone to the free-throw line in order to gain possession and/or hope they miss one. giving up direct scores goes against most sports ideals (at least in bb the fouled player STILL has to convert).

 

[Geelong2007]

They just looked like a bunch of cowards on Saturday. i sat there laughing at each rushed behind then applauding Geelong every time they took the ball out of the defensive fifty from the goal line. shows Geelongs tenacity to not only win the ball but not let any free scoring occur.

 

[Rockford]

I was at the game in the pocket a few back from the boundary next to the Geelong cheer squad. Our pressure was great in our forward 50 the Freo defenders were panicked whenever they had the ball. Crowley when he dived to rush a behind looked petrified that he was about to get tackled and cough it up. On one of their kick outs they went to a player in the pocket in front of me who looked up and had nothing. I yelled out 'quick, rush a behind' much to the delight of the Cats supporters around me With the forward pressure the Cats are putting on the opposition's defenders I've got no issue with them rushing a behind, after they do they still need to try and find a way out of defense.

 

[Stripey PJs]

Freo rushing 8 behind is a poor effort. Just shows how much pressure we had them under. I would like to see the stat of how many rushed behinds Geelong have done over the season compared to other teams. I think we have a fantastic backline who back each other up very well.

Behinds rushed (Rd 17 - 1)
by Geelong: 1 5 0 5 3 0 3 2 0 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 = 38
by Oppost.: 8 4 3 4 0 3 6 1 2 4 2 3 5 4 4 0 4 = 57

That's a difference of +50%, which perhaps reflects the +58% points for/against. TBH, I was expecting a greater margin, especially if you treat Saturday's result as an aberration. Freo's 8 was extraordinarily high, even for them. A couple of fives, last week against the Dogs and against the Roos, were the most we've conceded in a match.

Noteworthy oddity: Carlton, Rd 2. We had zilch, despite scoring 18 behinds. A quick scan of Carlton's results reveals the most they've ever conceded is 3 (on multiple occasions) so Denis must've loathed his defence backing down.

Not exactly what you were looking for, Jess, but I hope it's useful.

 

[Geelong2007]

i would like to see the stat for ones that are hand balled or kicked through as opposed to punched through. Geelong seem to rush behinds when the ball comes down long to the square by punching it through whereas opposition seem to rush them due to forward line pressure and fear of a turn over.

 

[cat in sydney]

I'm actually beginning to wonder whether opposition coaches will begin to use this strategy against us.
I remember last year when we played the Doggies (the game we won by a point), almost every time they kicked a behind, we had a shot on goal as a result ( I remember Gary Lyon pointing it out). This may be a tactic they think they can use against us? Not sure how effective it will be however.

 

[jess_555]

Behinds rushed (Rd 17 - 1)
by Geelong: 1 5 0 5 3 0 3 2 0 3 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 = 38
by Oppost.: 8 4 3 4 0 3 6 1 2 4 2 3 5 4 4 0 4 = 57

Not exactly what you were looking for, Jess, but I hope it's useful.

Thats just as good Stripey. Thank you It's a very interesting stat and just goes to show how confident our backline is.

 

[The rabbi]

I wouldn't like to see it changed. Apart from anythig else it brings in a subjective call for the umpire. Right now, things are black and white, if it goes through the big sticks after being kicked by the attacking team without being touched, its a goal, everything else is a point. Under the new proposal, the umpire has to decide what are the itentions of the oppposition, which will inevitably lead to inconsistency, something we have too much of already.

Agreed. You only have to look at the deliberate out of bounds. I've have seen players penalised for this when they have kicked the ball forward from defence, the ball has bounced 20 meters inside the boundary before breaking and rolling out. The umpires don't apply this rule so strictly when teams do this in their forward line when under pressure. The game is alreading open far too much to an umpire's interpretation.