The Bowden Rule

['Bam!'bell Brown]

If we take away the incentive for teams to rush a behind, teams will do it less often. Right now, the rules encourage them to do so. Tweak the rules and they'll stop doing it. They'll play their way out from the last line of defence. Less interruption to the game.

I hate to use your argument against you, but your preferred rule change would bring MUCH more interruption to the game. Yes, I agree it would be a deterent to players to rush a behind and maybe it would stop them doing it when there may be another option, but points would still be adjudicated to be deliberately rushed and we would still have more interruptions than we do now.

Please tell me why you think this is good. Personally, I think it's a crap part of the game.

I'm not going to argue it's my favourite part of the game, but back to your point about less interruptions, the 'rushed behind direct to kick out to advantage' has become one of the quickest, most direct ways to keep play flowing.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

One problem that may arise is the interpretation of what is a deliberate rush behind. What if a defender gets caught on the goal line due to pressure from the forwards, and they force him over the line (eg by a bump, grabbing him etc) despite the defender legitimately trying to keep the ball in play?

Problems can arise from this aspect.

Thoughts?

If it is in general play, it is a rushed behind.

If it is after a player taking the kick-in has played-on to himself it is awarded a goal.

However, I cannot see a situation where a player would kick to himself, wait for an opponent to get close enough THEN decide to legitimately keep the ball in play only to be pushed over the line by opposition pressure. If a defender does this, it is awarded a goal, and deservedly so.

 

[turtle27]

Essendon only have themselves to blame from the rule. There are two easy ways to combat the rushed behing tactic.

1) give away a 50. Stand up on bowden so the upmire calls 50. Brings him from the goal line to the 50m arc. Forces him to play.

2) Down the ground free kick. Just drop someone around the 50 and force the upmire to bring the play up.

Its pretty simple. No rule changes needed.

Bowden would have been smart enough to know he didn't have to advance up the field with the ump, he could have just stood in the goal square, and waited until the Essendon players ran the 50m back to him, and then rush another behind.

 

[DeeHughMan]

Essendon only have themselves to blame from the rule. There are two easy ways to combat the rushed behing tactic.

1) give away a 50. Stand up on bowden so the upmire calls 50. Brings him from the goal line to the 50m arc. Forces him to play.

2) Down the ground free kick. Just drop someone around the 50 and force the upmire to bring the play up.

Its pretty simple. No rule changes needed.

exactly I dont know what all the fuss is about. Just do one of those two and force bowden to kick the ball to a contest by manning up

 

[One Eyed Roo]

What Bowden did was as ordinary as when Chappel bowled under arm. Not in the spirit of the game and should have been condemned by every one. Cricket didn't need to change any rules and neither should the AFL.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

What Bowden did was as ordinary as when Chappel bowled under arm. Not in the spirit of the game and should have been condemned by every one. Cricket didn't need to change any rules and neither should the AFL.

Easily the most ridiculous statement in this thread yet.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

What Bowden did was as ordinary as when Chappel bowled under arm. Not in the spirit of the game and should have been condemned by every one. Cricket didn't need to change any rules and neither should the AFL.

You are in the (vast) minority with this opinion.

The incident showed one thing:

Bowdens I.Q. >>>>>>>>>>>> entire Essendon forward lines I.Q.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

Any more ruling on the rushed behind will be as ambiguous as the deliberate rule.

Leave it alone and get over it. A rushed behind makes a game interesting.

 

[Chewy]

Deliberate rushed behind? How would this be adjudicated? The same way as Deliberate out of Bounds? The most frustratingly grey area of AFL rules?

Deliberates are easy to adjudicate. Nearly every time the ball gets taken out of play it's deliberate. The players are incredibly skilfull, yet somehow, magically, they turn into fumbling butter-fingers when they wish for the ball to go out of play.

Don't be fooled by all the booing. With one or two exceptions, there has never been a deliberate free kick paid that wasn't deliberate. It always cracks me up they way players shake their heads, fans boo and commentators complain, almost as a reflex action. Check it out, next time it's paid. Watch how deliberate it is, then watch the reflex, knee-jerk response from everyone.

Your frustration with the rule is that umpires are supposed to be 100% positive before they penalise players for deliberate. This lends itself to inconsistency where they mostly err on the side of caution. This is not such a bad thing. People need to get over it. It's better that umpires let some things go, than pay things which aren't there. The important thing is that the rule acts as a deterrent and stops players from "hitting the boundary" 150 times per quarter.

That's the way you need to look at the effects of a rule. Don't focus on solely on the free kicks. There are maybe 2 or 3 deliberates paid per game, tops. You might boo 1 or 2 of these. Meanwhile, the players know they must endeavour to keep the ball in play, so for two hours we see good footy, non-stop action, as opposed to players kicking for touch every time they get it.

I don't mean to poke fun, but as a Hawthorn fan you should be more than familiar with the deliberate out of bounds rule being applied in exceptionally suspect circumstances. Mitchell at the Gabba some years ago may jog your memory.

The Jordan Lewis one at the Gabba earlier this year was even worse. As much as Mitchell was unlucky to be penalised, it was 50/50 whether he was trying to kick the ball out of play or whether he was stiffed by the ball bouncing at right angles.

Jordan Lewis chased after a loose ball and did everything he could to keep the ball in play and tap the ball sideways to his teammate, while his Brisbane opponent did everything possible to crash in and knock the ball out and succeeded, Lewis' tap bouncing off his leg and over the line.

Worst. Deliberate. Ever.

Will the ball have to travel a certain distance to be considered deliberate? Does it have to be outside of a contested situation? Long bomb to the goal square, defender clearly punches it through for a behind, ball up?

adjudicating on a deliberate rushed behind from general play is a disaster waiting to happen. But this is the only real sticking point in your argument for me. Although I also hate excuses to 'ball it up' at any chance we get.

Nah, it won't be so bad. It would work just the same as the current deliberate out of bounds rule.

Just the obvious ones will be paid.

Players will be more wary of doing it. They'll try to disguise it better.

If they aren't under immediate pressure, but simply waiting for a teammate to lead, they'll probably decide it's better to simply kick it long, or kick to a contest, than to concede a deliberate behind and face a ball up or throw in from the goal line.

We'll see less deliberate rushed behinds, which means less breaks in the action, more continuous flow. There will probably be 3 or 4 instances per game where the umpire might whistle, if that. This is hardly a major intrusion of the current status quo.

In the meantime we'll see 10-12 instances per game where the defender will try to take on the tacklers on the last line, instead of handballing it through like a pussy.

Loose-ball contests down near the goal mouth are the most exciting, heart in mouth passages of play. Why are people so dead against seeing more of these and prefer to see more poxy rushed behind and unopposed kick-ins?

 

[skipper kelly]

Ive changed my mind. I believe Chewys idea is perfect and must be implemented next year.

 

[Soul_Pie]

Any more ruling on the rushed behind will be as ambiguous as the deliberate rule.

Leave it alone and get over it. A rushed behind makes a game interesting.

Of course. I've always been a big fan of the rushed behind as well. I like the idea of a last bastion of sorts for defenders when they're in trouble.

However, it's rushed behinds from a kick-in which are not good for the game. At least when the players are chipping around there is a chance for the other team to man up. There are a few rules that the AFL could bring in to make it fair which have been brought up a few times:

-Another player has to have touched the ball before a rushed behind is able to be scored. If the player kicking it in rushes the behind, the ball is bounced at the goal square.

-Either that, or we do away with the kick to yourself rule and make it so that you have to kick out to another player. The opposition must have a man on the mark, though.

Two simple possibilities which don't actually change the nature of the rushed behind, but mean that it can't be exploited in unfair ways.

 

[Chewy]

Any more ruling on the rushed behind will be as ambiguous as the deliberate rule.

Leave it alone and get over it. A rushed behind makes a game interesting.

A deliberate rushed behind makes the game less interesting. As I said in my previous post, the goal mouth scrambles for the loose ball are the most exciting passages of play. These are abruptly ended once the defender smahes the ball through for a point.

Why do we then reward his team with possession (kick out) for killing the play? Why not tweak the rules slightly so we remove their incentive? If a defender gets possession near his own goal, lets encourage him to look for a teammate and keep play alive.

 

[James_Best]

leave the bloody game and the bloody rules as they are.

all the muck for brains journos and 'experts' are the ones ruining game by wanting to change it all the time.

leave it as it is.

i mean really who would want to be a defender.

cant chop the arms
cant touch the back
cant rush a behind when under pressure or to save an important must win game

I have an idea lets axe 6 players from the field who needs defenders anyway they are the ones who bring the game into disrepute and give away match losing frees anyway.

no point taking into consideration that essendon had 2 shots at goal in the final minute didnt matter that they missed both. lets all blame bowden for his match winning tactic. wasting 15 seconds.
will never happen again anyway absolutely ridiculous.

shehan is a muppet of the highest order, does anyone take that fatass shirt lifting geek seriously. stuff aussie rules lets call it Shehan rules. bull it up 20 metres from goal every time a point is scored. what a clown.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

The Jordan Lewis one at the Gabba earlier this year was even worse. As much as Mitchell was unlucky to be penalised, it was 50/50 whether he was trying to kick the ball out of play or whether he was stiffed by the ball bouncing at right angles.

Jordan Lewis chased after a loose ball and did everything he could to keep the ball in play and tap the ball sideways to his teammate, while his Brisbane opponent did everything possible to crash in and knock the ball out and succeeded, Lewis' tap bouncing off his leg and over the line.

Worst. Deliberate. Ever.

Ha ha. Well I agree with you there. I must be a Hawks fan that has been a little more stung by those decisions!

We'll see less deliberate rushed behinds, which means less breaks in the action, more continuous flow. There will probably be 3 or 4 instances per game where the umpire might whistle, if that. This is hardly a major intrusion of the current status quo.

I don't entirely disagree with you, however I believe the status quo will remain perfectly intact with the change I'm suggesting. The game will remain exactly the same as it did before Round 16, 2008.

No one will ever again deliberately force a rushed behind DIRECTLY after a kick-in because it will cost a goal. It won't happen, no player in the league would do that. Problem solved.

No need to tinker or introduce Deliberately Rushed Behind being awarded even 2 or 3 times a match (even if it's awarded once it's too much). It will just be that no one will ever again attempt a 'Bowden'.

 

[Chewy]

Ive changed my mind. I believe Chewys idea is perfect and must be implemented next year.

It's not my idea

There are many football people who think it's a good idea.

Gerard Healy is in favour of the hot spot

Leigh Matthews is in favour of the ball-up at the top of the square.

People who are against it are mainly people who haven't thought it through entirely, or those conservative types who are dead against ANY rule change

But the AFL are looking long and hard at this and they will change the rule.
It's just a matter of when.

 

[ExTasDeeMan]

Of course. I've always been a big fan of the rushed behind as well. I like the idea of a last bastion of sorts for defenders when they're in trouble.

However, it's rushed behinds from a kick-in which are not good for the game. At least when the players are chipping around there is a chance for the other team to man up. There are a few rules that the AFL could bring in to make it fair which have been brought up a few times:

-Another player has to have touched the ball before a rushed behind is able to be scored. If the player kicking it in rushes the behind, the ball is bounced at the goal square.

-Either that, or we do away with the kick to yourself rule and make it so that you have to kick out to another player. The opposition must have a man on the mark, though.

Two simple possibilities which don't actually change the nature of the rushed behind, but mean that it can't be exploited in unfair ways.

I know what is proposed - but at the time of the rushed behind from Bowden, the umpire had blown the whistle to play on. Think that the dons player had successfully tackled Bowden, the handball through the sticks would be correct disposal.

Long story short, I went to the game with a Canadian and a Scotsman who have never seen the game. Trying to tell the rules and 'conditions' was hard work...

A deliberate rushed behind makes the game less interesting.

I never boo the rushed behind because it is a great strategy for defence, like used in the NFL. When it gets interesting is a rushed behind in the 1st quarter can set up a dynamic scoring margin late in the 4th.

In my humble op, there is not enough strategy in AFL. What we do have is great for the game.

 

[Chewy]

leave the bloody game and the bloody rules as they are.

all the muck for brains journos and 'experts' are the ones ruining game by wanting to change it all the time.

leave it as it is.

How is anyone "ruining" the game by discussing anomalies within the rules.

Get a grip!

People who talk about "ruining the game" need to have a deeper think about exactly what it is they love about the game. They also need to think about all the things they dislike within a game of football, that inspire them to bitch and moan.

i mean really who would want to be a defender?

cant chop the arms
cant touch the back
cant rush a behind when under pressure or to save an important must win game

Fallacy!

Read more closely. Think about it.

No one is saying that defenders won't ba able to rush through behinds
They will still be able to do so, if they're under the pump.

They just won't receive the ball for a kick out, It will be a bounce.

It means they will only rush through behinds as a last resort, rather than a first resort

no point taking into consideration that essendon had 2 shots at goal in the final minute didnt matter that they missed both. lets all blame bowden for his match winning tactic. wasting 15 seconds.
will never happen again anyway absolutely ridiculous.

There is the small picture and the big picture in this debate about rushed behinds.

1. Small picture. Joel Bowden icing the clock. A loophole within the current rules. All teams are going to use variations of this tactic to ice the clock in future tight games. We can apply band aids to the rules, or address the real issue head-on, the bigger picture.

2. Big picture. Deliberate rushed behinds. Teams deliberately taking the ball out of play, concede a paltry behind, then profit from this by receiving a free kick (the kick out)

 

[TigerCraig]

It's not my idea

There are many football people who think it's a good idea.

Gerard Healy is in favour of the hot spot

Leigh Matthews is in favour of the ball-up at the top of the square.

People who are against it are mainly people who haven't thought it through entirely, or those conservative types who are dead against ANY rule change

But the AFL are looking long and hard at this and they will change the rule.
It's just a matter of when.

I still say, whats wrong with enforcing a kick in - ie can't kick to yourself, must kick 15 metres after any behind? If you don't kick 15 metres, it is the same as stepping out of the square - a bounce on the goal square.

There is no reason for the kick to yourself to exist.

 

[skipper kelly]

It's not my idea

There are many football people who think it's a good idea.

Gerard Healy is in favour of the hot spot

Leigh Matthews is in favour of the ball-up at the top of the square.

People who are against it are mainly people who haven't thought it through entirely, or those conservative types who are dead against ANY rule change

But the AFL are looking long and hard at this and they will change the rule.
It's just a matter of when.

Im not going to make judgements on other people opinions. If we all thought the same then it would be one boring world. Fact is people watch football for different reasons and get enjoyment out of different aspects.. Some like the strategic stuff, some like the dour struggles, some like the free flowing high scoring, some just like to see their team win at all costs irrespective of the spectacle, some like the biff, some like the heavy hits, some like the dirty stuff. I dont believe there is a right or wrong when changing the rules. What a change of rule does is determine how the game will be played. This decision is obviously made by those in power, but just because they have the power doesnt mean they will be right by default. It also doesnt mean that a change will improve the game. It might improve the game in yours and my eyes but not for others.

Changing this rule might create more stoppages and more people around the ball. It will certainly make it harder for defenders, so a coach may look at it and say well we need to get more numbers back to help out. It might create the need to get more players loose in defence.

Like you I like to see contests. If the AFL power brokers agree and want to see more contests then they first need to go back and look at the rule where the player kicking in can play on almost immediately. This rule has created less contests.

 

[_Interpol_]

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 hang on a minute... why does everyone think that the tigers only won as a result of Bowden rushing points?

Most of you seem to be assuming that if he didnt, the tigers would have automatically coughed up the ball, and essendon would have converted. Fair assumption there. Tigers had the ball, he kept, GET OVER IT.

With Essendon's kicking late in the 4th, it is more likely that they would have missed any shot on goal, that is if they actually got the ball from Richmond.

 

['Bam!'bell Brown]

There is the small picture and the big picture in this debate about rushed behinds.

1. Small picture. Joel Bowden icing the clock. A loophole within the current rules. All teams are going to use variations of this tactic to ice the clock in future tight games. We can apply band aids to the rules, or address the real issue head-on, the bigger picture.

2. Big picture. Deliberate rushed behinds. Teams deliberately taking the ball out of play, concede a paltry behind, then profit from this by receiving a free kick (the kick out)

This is the point I most strongly disagree with...There is only one issue to arise from what Bowden did on the weekend - Number 1 above. It's the only reason we're even having this discussion. The ONLY picture, to steal your vernacular.

That's it. No other issue. No other reason to change the rules. No bigger picture.

Your personal opinion (and that of Leigh Matthew's) is of no consequence, you are both confusing the issue. Why have deliberately rushed behinds not stimulated this type of discussion before (both on BF and in the mainstream media)? Because it's a non-issue, sure some people may not like them, but just judging from this thread, some people do. THEY ARE NOT THE ISSUE.

Please take your personal opinion out of it and think about exactly what happened on the weekend, the one solitary incident that is at the heart of the discussion and what best way to stop it happening again.

 

[Chewy]

Long story short, I went to the game with a Canadian and a Scotsman who have never seen the game. Trying to tell the rules and 'conditions' was hard work...

the most difficult aspects of the rules for newcomers to get their heads around is permitted contact and prohibited contact. Brendan Goddard is penalised for holding the man after he inadvertently grabs his opponent's jumper with his thumb and index finger, but Maxy Hudghton is permitted to wrap his arms around his opponents and half-tackle them in the marking contest.

These are the sorts of infuriating grey areas in our game which are hard to explain to foreigners

"Deliberate" is easy.

People just have to remember that umpires should only pay it if they are 100% certain it was the player's sole intention.

I never boo the rushed behind because it is a great strategy for defence, like used in the NFL. When it gets interesting is a rushed behind in the 1st quarter can set up a dynamic scoring margin late in the 4th.

In my humble op, there is not enough strategy in AFL. What we do have is great for the game.

Deliberate rushed behinds are not stategy. They are an expedient, reflex, safety-first tactic used by defenders to bail themselves out of a sticky situation. The coach doesn't gather his troops around him before the game and say, "Listen up, boys! We're going concede plenty of behinds today." All teams use this tactic as a matter of course, because they all know it works to their advantage to do so.

You'd be lucky to find half a dozen games per year, where the difference in deliberately rushed behinds actually affected the final winning margin.

Not enough strategy in AFL? Jesus, mate. There is more strategy in games today than there has ever been.
Most footy fans (myself included) would struggle to get their heads around the various srategies employed by coaches.

It doesn't help that the "experts" who are paid to enlighten us have no idea either.
If only us AFL fans were as well-served in this area as NFL fans were in America.

 

[TigerCraig]

Deliberate rushed behinds are not stategy. They are an expedient, reflex, safety-first tactic used by defenders to bail themselves out of a sticky situation.

But what is wrong with that?

Most sports have an option like this. In soccer and rugby you can boot the ball into touch, in gridiron you can take a knee or run out of bounds.

I'm a bit biased as I've always been a defender, but why take away another one of the defenders few options? Persoanlly I think you should also still be allowed to hit the boundary, so long as you kick it a reasonable distance (say 15m)

 

[Sportaus]

Has the AFL world gone mad?

What Joel Bowden did last Saturday was fair and within the rules & spirit of the game. No need for any change to this method of scoring no matter what Leigh Matthews or anyone else thinks anout it.

Just because it stopped Essendon from winning in the last minute when they had kicked 2.5 before thoses two rushed behinds were added.

Wouldn't have been mentioned had it happened in any of the three previous quarters either.

 

[Chewy]

Im not going to make judgements on other people opinions. If we all thought the same then it would be one boring world... [snip]It might improve the game in yours and my eyes but not for others.

That's what discussion and debate is all about; throwing ideas out there, turning them over, examining the whys, hows, whos, what fors. Of course we need to judge other people's opinions. That's not to say we judge those people for expressing their opinion. If we didn't judge other people's opinions, what would be left? Imagine how boring a world it would be if everyone simply expressed their opinion, yay or nay, and left it at that.

I'm not trying to browbeat people and force them to agree with me. If someone replies to me and it appears to me as if they haven't fully understood something I wrote, then I'll try to enlighten them, or explain myself better. What's wrong with doing this? You've criticised me for doing this, but in my opinion, it's a good thing.

In the end, we can all take or leave the things that other people say. We're all entitled to our opinions. But it's not a crime for anyone on here to call people into account for what they've written. If I attack someone's point of view, I do so to provoke further debate, not because I want squash them and put them down. I can be abrasive at times, but f**k it, rise above it. Read for the meaning and don't get precious about the name-calling.

Changing this rule might create more stoppages and more people around the ball. It will certainly make it harder for defenders, so a coach may look at it and say well we need to get more numbers back to help out. It might create the need to get more players loose in defence.

Right now, teams know that more or less, they get one shot at scoring a goal. If the forward fails to mark and the ball spills loose near the goal line, guaranteed the defenders will whack it over the line if they the slightest chance.

Maybe this forces players to be more precise and more cautious with their delivery into the forward line. Perhaps if the rules were changed, they'd be more likely to throw caution to the wind and kick long to full forward, knowing that if the ball spilled, they'd be in a 50/50 contest with the opposition, rather than a 25/75 contest with the oppositon and boundary line.

We might actually see more speckies, more big packs flying for the mark and more one on one marking contests between the FF and FB.

The percentages will have been evened out. Not in their favour, just closer to a 50/50 contest (as it always should be)
We've removed the massive unfair advantage that defenders currently enjoy.

Like you I like to see contests. If the AFL power brokers agree and want to see more contests then they first need to go back and look at the rule where the player kicking in can play on almost immediately. This rule has created less contests.

The AFL are not going to repeal that law change. The quick kick-in has been a success. It's put an end to those delays from kick outs where teams took ages to beat the offensive zone. You prefer the old way, but the AFL did not, which is why they introduced the rule. The rule has worked as it was intended. But it's also encouraged teams to concede deliberately rushed behinds in unprecedented, record numbers.