The Bowden Rule

[skipper kelly]

You seem pretty certain that this rule change would lead to more players in defence.

I am certain. Less defensive options = more defenders required.

 

[Vader]

There is nothing controversial about the preseason Cup. Nobody cares about it, so using that as an example is just nonsense.

The MMC still manages to generate its fair share of controversies, though nobody cares a lot about them compared to the remainder of the season.

There was Hawthorn's 19th man on the field, which preceded the Swans' incident. Any number of Goals & Supergoals which could have or should have been the other way around (mainly goals which should have been supergoals). There was the whole interchange limit thing which happened this year. I could go on.

Things like that.

That's a fair few issues for a competition which nobody cares about and which only features 15 games (less than 2 rounds of H&A footy).

However, I don't recall any 3-point rushed behinds which were ever questioned.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

There was Hawthorn's 19th man on the field, which preceded the Swans' incident. Any number of Goals & Supergoals which could have or should have been the other way around (mainly goals which should have been supergoals). There was the whole interchange limit thing which happened this year. I could go on..

You could go on and on and on if you like, but you'd be talking alone.

Nobody gives a hoot about the preseason cup. The only "controversy" was about Paul Roos wanting to lose so badly that he instructed his forward not to score.

Some preseason cup rules are "testers" and others are just put there to add a bit of spice - give it a bit of 20/20 cricket flavour, if you like.

The three point rushed behind definitely falls into the latter category along with the nine point goal and the rebound off the goalpost rule. It will never be employed in the real game - hopefully. The limited interchange rule was a tester. Hopefully it failed the test.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The three point rushed behind definitely falls into the latter category along with the nine point goal. It will never be employed in the real game - hopefully.

once again, agree 100%

 

[Vader]

The three point rushed behind definitely falls into the latter category along with the nine point goal and the rebound off the goalpost rule. It will never be employed in the real game - hopefully. The limited interchange rule was a tester. Hopefully it failed the test.

And I have no problems agreeing with that. Frankly I wouldn't want the 3-point rule introduced to the real stuff either.

The relevance here is that the 3-point rule has shown that it is neither difficult nor controversial to adjudicate whether a rushed behind was deliberate or not. Such adjudications would be necessary if the rule suggested by Leigh Matthews were to be implemented.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

And I have no problems agreeing with that. Frankly I wouldn't want the 3-point rule introduced to the real stuff either.

The relevance here is that the 3-point rule has shown that it is neither difficult nor controversial to adjudicate whether a rushed behind was deliberate or not. Such adjudications would be necessary if the rule suggested by Leigh Matthews were to be implemented.

They do not adjudicate on the difference between Deliberate and not deliberate. ALL Rushed Behinds are 3 points. Including a spoil which incidentally goes through for a behind.

Are you now saying that ALL rushed behinds should result in a bounce at the top of the square?

Because quite frankly, that is rubbish.

I don't even know why I'm entering into the debate further. Yourself & Chewy need to start an entirely new thread entitled I BELIEVE ALL RUSHED BEHINDS ARE RUINING AFL AND WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT DRASTIC RULES CHANGES TO SAVE THE GAME.

Your arguments don't even belong in this thread.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The relevance here is that the 3-point rule has shown that it is neither difficult nor controversial to adjudicate whether a rushed behind was deliberate or not.

In the real stuff, where there is infinitely more intensity than Mickey Mouse Cup games, the adjudication of deliberate rushed behinds will become controversial EVERY week. You can never test this in a lower level competition because players dont really NEED to rush behinds when they dont even care if they lose.

It happens now - a player with no other option gets pinged for deliberate out of bounds. If that happens right in front of goal, it has a greater chance of affecting results of games - irrespective of whether its free or a ball-up. We dont want results of games decided by umpires mind reading abilities. Or at least I dont.

 

[mitchell12345]

if im sitting in row BB at the MCG am i sitting in the 2nd row or 28th row?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

if im sitting in row BB at the MCG am i sitting in the 2nd row or 28th row?

if you cant even find the right thread to post on you have no hope of finding your seat!!!

 

[mitchell12345]

im from nsw give me a break... do you no?

 

[Vader]

They do not adjudicate on the difference between Deliberate and not deliberate. ALL Rushed Behinds are 3 points. Including a spoil which incidentally goes through for a behind.

No, only deliberate rushed behinds are worth 3 points in the MMC.

Here's the page from the AFL website which outlines the experimental rules for the MMC:

http://www.afl.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=54624

NAB Cup trial rules target interchanges
6:47 PM Tue 15 January, 2008

THE AFL will trial new interchange rules during this year’s NAB Cup, capping the number of interchanges permitted and further expanding the interchange bench.

Under the experimental rules, each team will be allowed a maximum of 16 interchanges per quarter. The number of interchange players for each team will also rise from six to eight players.

The AFL announced late in 2007 that there will be no changes to the rules for the regular 2008 Toyota Premiership season.

AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said the NAB Cup was a testing ground for new rule changes, allowing the league to gauge their impact on the game.

"The number of interchanges has risen substantially in recent years, jumping from 17 per team in 2000 to an average of 58 per team in 2007,” Anderson said.

“With players on the ground for less time and covering less distance, but travelling at significantly faster speeds, there is a concern about the potential increase in collision injuries and also the impact of player congestion caused by players being able to get to more contests.

"This will allow us to see how a limit on interchange works in practice."

A further change to the NAB Cup rules for 2008 will see a new no-go zone introduced at centre bounces.

A 2.5m x 6.5m area around the centre circle will be marked on the ground. Players may not stand within this area when the umpire is preparing to bounce, is bouncing the ball or is retreating from the stoppage. Offending players will concede a free kick.

This year’s NAB Cup will again feature a number of rules trialled in previous pre-seasons. These include:

* 20 metre kick for a mark
* kicking backwards for a mark only allowed in the forward half of the ground
* three points for a deliberate rushed behind
* nine points for a goal scored from outside 50m
* ball to be thrown up around the ground, and bounced down only at the start of quarters and after goals
* play on if the ball hits the goal or behind post and comes back into the field of play
* boundary throw-ins to be taken from 10 metres inside the boundary line.

Exclusive to AFL BigPond Network

Ordinary rushed behinds, such as attempted spoils, have always been and will always be worth 1 point only.

Are you now saying that ALL rushed behinds should result in a bounce at the top of the square?

Because quite frankly, that is rubbish.

I agree that would be rubbish. It's never been my contention, nor Chewy's contention that ALL rushed behinds should result in bounces at the top of the square.

Only DELIBERATE rushed behinds should suffer this penalty, with deliberate rushed behinds being adjudicated in the same way as 3-point rushed behinds are in the MMC.

 

[Tigersman]

Sorry if someone else already has said this but wouldn't it be simple to just rule that the clock starts ticking again when the ball touches any player other than the one kicking out?

This makes it impossible for the bloke kicking out to wind down the clock.

he can play on and runaround in circles but the time doesn't go down till he gets rid of the ball or gives away a free.
If he turns and puts it through he gives away a point without taking any time so he wouldn't do it.

No need to change any scoring set up and the actual game will not change at all.

 

[Skystyler]

Sorry if someone else already has said this but wouldn't it be simple to just rule that the clock starts ticking again when the ball touches any player other than the one kicking out?

This makes it impossible for the bloke kicking out to wind down the clock.

he can play on and runaround in circles but the time doesn't go down till he gets rid of the ball or gives away a free.
If he turns and puts it through he gives away a point without taking any time so he wouldn't do it.

No need to change any scoring set up and the actual game will not change at all.

so Bowden kicks in to Mcmahon and the clock starts. Mcmahon stands there until the ump calls play on then turns around and boots a point and we start all over again.

eh, at least we've made him kick it to someone. I think this idea is the least flawed.

 

[sante]

im from nsw give me a break... do you no?

LOL. What has NSW got to do with posting in the correct thread?

 

[sante]

so Bowden kicks in to Mcmahon and the clock starts. Mcmahon stands there until the ump calls play on then turns around and boots a point and we start all over again.

eh, at least we've made him kick it to someone. I think this idea is the least flawed.

Probably save more time that way.

Essendon should have conceded one kick, then manned up.

FWIW, I would hate to see a rule come in to prevent this.

 

[andypie]

Let me start by stating my opinion: Joel Bowden did exactly what he should have done and it is exactly what I would have wanted any Hawthorn player to do in his situation. It was smart, within the rules and it won Richmond the game (or was that Essendon’s kicking for goal? ).

Now kneejerk rule changes are not to my liking, but the AFL bigwigs would have seen Bowden’s actions as ugly and contrary to the image of the AFL that they are trying to project. A one-off is nothing to get upset about, but if it happens again the media uproar will snowball, if it happens in a final it’ll be an avalanche.

So here is a simple, no fuss solution which does not change or further complicate an already unique scoring system and will also prevent it from ever happening again:

If a player taking a kick-in plays on to himself and immediately rushes a behind the opposition team is awarded a goal and the ball is returned to the centre for a ball up.

*This rule can only be applied from a kick-in after a point is scored.

*A goal is only awarded if no other player on the field touches the ball.

*’Normal’ in-play rushed behinds are still only 1 point, even if the defending team concedes the point.

Please proceed to poke holes in my theory or chide me for starting yet another thread on Joel Bowden.

why not make it the same as the out of bounds rule when kicking in. If no one else touches it then its a free to the opposition.

 

[Tigersman]

so Bowden kicks in to Mcmahon and the clock starts. Mcmahon stands there until the ump calls play on then turns around and boots a point and we start all over again.

eh, at least we've made him kick it to someone. I think this idea is the least flawed.

At least the ball is in play and there is a potential contest if everyone is man on man.

You could get a couple of men to stand in closer to the kicker and force him to look for the longer option.

I would hate to see the scoring system change.