What is the point of the "deliberate" rushed behind rule?

[Slippery Pete]

First of all, "deliberate rushed behind" is a tautology . A rushed behind, by definition, is deliberate.

Secondly, the rule has been paid how many times in two years? Less than half a dozen?? What is the point of this rule? Back to the tautology - The rules committee says it won't be paid if the defender "is under any pressure." When a defender rushes a behind, he is almost ALWAYS under pressure - why else has he rushed the behind, you ******s??

In the dying seconds of Saturday night's game, a Bulldogs defender knocked the ball 10 metres through for a point, without a Sydney player laying a glove on him. It wasn't paid, because, of course, the umpire deemed the defender to be "under pressure." In almost 100% of rushed behind cases, an umpire can justify that a defender was under some pressure.

This is just another useless rule to justify the existence of the rules committee. There is absolutely no need for this rule, and there is even less of a need to put this massive responsibilty on the umpires shoulders. Imagine if one of these decisions is paid to decide a final or a Grand Final? A rule that has been paid less than half a dozen times in two years??

 

[MF]

It's to stop teams simply walking it through numerous times like the Hawks did in the '08 GF (Not a dig at the hawks) and it's worked well IMO. You don't see it paid because players know not to do it any more.

One of the few rule changes that has been good for the game.

 

[QuietB]

I think it is to stop the really ugly ones like Mark Williams slotting one through the Cats goal from 25m out in the 08 GF or Joel Bowden playing on and then walking through the points 2 or 3 times in a row a couple of years back to just run the clock down.

They have now been eliminated entirely which is a good thing.

 

[Athomas]

Almost agree 100% however it does get rid of the Joel Bowden style rushed behind in that I've never seen a point rushed directly after a point (ie from a kick in) since that year.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Agreed, it's a stupid rule. It was a knee jerk reaction to the 08 Grand Final when the Hawks were rushing behinds. The tactic really only emerged after the AFL said teams can kick in straight away from a behind, rather then waiting for the goal umpire to stop waving his flag. It obviously meant teams could catch the opposition before they had a chance to setup.

If "rushing behinds" was such a serious issue (and I don't believe it was), the obvious choice was to rollback the old rule and make teams wait again, offering them less incentive to rush behinds in the first place. But that's the AFL's way. Why admit you were wrong and rollback a new rule, when you just can just try cover it up by adding another one?

 

[sgbn77]

It's to stop teams simply walking it through numerous times like the Hawks did in the '08 GF (Not a dig at the hawks) and it's worked well IMO. You don't see it paid because players know not to do it any more.

One of the few rule changes that has been good for the game.

They changed the rule after the Hawks GF performance, but I maintain that the rule was bought in (and in answer to the OP) in reference to the Joel Bowden "walk the ball back over the line at a kick in", which was cynical, and only meant to bleed the clock.

As the OP states, by the time anyone is rushing a behind, then they are under pressure (otherwise they'd just keep holding the ball)...but the rule has been designed to stop players who generate the pressure on themselves...by bringing it in after a point...holding it until someone moves to them, then walking it back over the line.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Agreed, it's a stupid rule. It was a knee jerk reaction to the 08 Grand Final when the Hawks were rushing behinds. The tactic really only emerged after the AFL said teams can kick in straight away from a behind, rather then waiting for the goal umpire to stop waving his flag. It obviously meant teams could catch the opposition before they had a chance to setup.

If "rushing behinds" was such a serious issue (and I don't believe it was), the obvious choice was to rollback the old rule and make teams wait again, offering them less incentive to rush behinds in the first place. But that's the AFL's way. Why admit you were wrong and rollback a new rule, when you just can just try cover it up by adding another one?

Quoted for truth.

Don't know how we survived for 100 years without a "deliberate rushed behind" rule.........

 

[MF]

They changed the rule after the Hawks GF performance, but I maintain that the rule was bought in (and in answer to the OP) in reference to the Joel Bowden "walk the ball back over the line at a kick in", which was cynical, and only meant to bleed the clock.

As the OP states, by the time anyone is rushing a behind, then they are under pressure (otherwise they'd just keep holding the ball)...but the rule has been designed to stop players who generate the pressure on themselves...by bringing it in after a point...holding it until someone moves to them, then walking it back over the line.

Yeah, I wasn't implying the change was due to the Hawks. It's just that was the only game that stood out in my mind to use as an example. As others have pointed out... Joel Bowden was a huge offender.

 

[MF]

The reason I view this change as a success is that it eliminates a negative part of the game WITHOUT making additional problems or confusing interpretations as so many of the other rule changes have.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Agreed, it's a stupid rule. It was a knee jerk reaction to the 08 Grand Final when the Hawks were rushing behinds. The tactic really only emerged after the AFL said teams can kick in straight away from a behind, rather then waiting for the goal umpire to stop waving his flag. It obviously meant teams could catch the opposition before they had a chance to setup.

If "rushing behinds" was such a serious issue (and I don't believe it was), the obvious choice was to rollback the old rule and make teams wait again, offering them less incentive to rush behinds in the first place. But that's the AFL's way. Why admit you were wrong and rollback a new rule, when you just can just try cover it up by adding another one?

The other rule that was changed at the same time as the flag waving, was if the kicker held the ball too long, the umpire was instructed to call "play on" instead of taking the ball off him. In the Joel Bowden case, the umpire would call play on, and he walk the ball back over. Under the old system, the ball would have been taken off him.

Out of interest, how many of the Hawks rushed behinds in the 08 GF would have been paid as free kicks under the current system?

 

[skipper kelly]

Agreed, it's a stupid rule. It was a knee jerk reaction to the 08 Grand Final when the Hawks were rushing behinds. The tactic really only emerged after the AFL said teams can kick in straight away from a behind, rather then waiting for the goal umpire to stop waving his flag. It obviously meant teams could catch the opposition before they had a chance to setup.

If "rushing behinds" was such a serious issue (and I don't believe it was), the obvious choice was to rollback the old rule and make teams wait again, offering them less incentive to rush behinds in the first place. But that's the AFL's way. Why admit you were wrong and rollback a new rule, when you just can just try cover it up by adding another one?

This is exactly the reason.

 

[Slippery Pete]

The reason I view this change as a success is that it eliminates a negative part of the game WITHOUT making additional problems or confusing interpretations as so many of the other rule changes have.

The problem with having a rule that is a)paid literally once in a blue moon and b) so open to interpretation (see Slattery incident earlier this year) is that when one finally IS paid, there will be all sorts of debate on its legitamcy.

Add to that the fact that blowing the whistle on this gives a CERTAIN goal to the opposition, and you've got a recipe for absolute disaster. Only a matter of time before it decides a match and an umpire's career.

 

[Thommo 42]

it hasn't worked out how many people thought, but it has eliminated the problem that caused it, so its one of the few rule changes that has been a success.

 

[Duskfire]

I dont like it; the idea of it is fine, but its open to too much interpretation. And all free kicks are to some extent, but the rushed behind rule seems to be even more so.

Besides, the Bowden situation has happened once, and at the time it was a pretty damn fine idea. I know I laughed when I saw it

 

[scottydeewah]

It was originally intended to stop the player kicking in from immediately rushing through the kick for a point. i.e. you are 6 points up in the GF with 1:30 minutes left and you would immediately ice the game. Richmond did this a couple of times in 2008, I think it may have been Adelaide (not 100% on who, but there was a second team) who also gave it a go and then in the GF it appeared the Hawks were using similar tactics.

But as with most rule changes:

• Deliberate out of bounds.
• Chopping of the arms.
• Hands in the back.
• Ruckman taking it out of the ruck.

The rule change was made to ensure that there were more goals kicked, more advertisements shown and thus more money made by the AFL.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It has eliminated the time-wasting tactics employed by Hawthorn and Richmond designed to hold on to possession by stepping into "sanctuary" of the goal-line at the last possible moment. It is a rule that been implemented extremely well because it is being intepreted in the right spirit. A player is still entitled to "rush" the ball over if he is under pressure of being tackled.

Personally I'd have been happy simply not to restart the clock until the ball had touched another players hands after the kick-in - or cleared the 50. This would have had the same effect of eliminating the tactic of running down the clock - but I do admit the rule as it stands works far better than I had anticipated, because the umpire is tending to give the defender the benefit of the doubt. I still worry that one day at a most inappropriate time, the umpire will ping a bloke unfairly under this rule, but to be fair it hasnt happened yet.

 

[Slippery Pete]

It was originally intended to stop the player kicking in from immediately rushing through the kick for a point. i.e. you are 6 points up in the GF with 1:30 minutes left and you would immediately ice the game. Richmond did this a couple of times in 2008, I think it may have been Adelaide (not 100% on who, but there was a second team) who also gave it a go and then in the GF it appeared the Hawks were using similar tactics.


But as with most rule changes:

• Deliberate out of bounds.
• Chopping of the arms.
• Hands in the back.
• Ruckman taking it out of the ruck.

The rule change was made to ensure that there were more goals kicked, more advertisements shown and thus more money made by the AFL.

Correct. Now quarters are too long as well. Why? Because the AFL introduced time on for ball up stoppages.

So instead of admitting they were wrong on that one, they'll shorten the quarters.

We're going to end up with more time-on than actual regular time.

 

[Testekill]

In the dying seconds of Saturday night's game, a Bulldogs defender knocked the ball 10 metres through for a point, without a Sydney player laying a glove on him. It wasn't paid, because, of course, the umpire deemed the defender to be "under pressure." In almost 100% of rushed behind cases, an umpire can justify that a defender was under some pressure.

Were you watching at the time? Goodes was right behind Wood and was about to kick it off the ground before Wood made the save.

 

[AngelEyes]

it hasn't worked out how many people thought, but it has eliminated the problem that caused it, so its one of the few rule changes that has been a success.

This. I don't think it has worked how people expected in that deliberately running it over the line is not normally a free kick. However, its good as it stops the tactic of kicking or running it over under no pressure. It is rarely paid yet still stops those type of tactics.

Its the type of rule I like, makes the game more better as players don't want to risk it and is rarely ever paid. I would have thought it was a great success.

 

[Tas]

Quoted for truth.

Don't know how we survived for 100 years without a "deliberate rushed behind" rule.........

The problem is clubs are exposing old rules now, teams back a long time ago didn't need a complex set of rules because they played in the spirit of the game. Nowadays with a professional game you have players and coaches looking for any small advantage to keep their jobs and they will milk any weakness in the rules to their advantage.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Were you watching at the time? Goodes was right behind Wood and was about to kick it off the ground before Wood made the save.

Ok, maybe I've underestimated how close the Sydney players were.

However, let me ask you this: If the behind line was, instead, the boundary line - would it have been paid as deliberate out of bounds??

I think yes, it would have been. So there's two very different interpretations for two different chalk lines. It is way too much responsiblity for an umpire to have to guess players' intentions in this manner.

 

[lionbear]

Make the rule that if a team scores a behind, then a second one is scored without the opposition team touching the ball its a shot at goal from on the line.

That way there is no interpretation from the umpires required and when a Bowden style rushed behind is scored then the opposition is guaranteed a goal thus no more Bowden style rushed behinds.

 

[Testekill]

I doubt that it would have been paid deliberate out of bounds. There was reasonable pressure there so it would have been justified. However, I've seen deliberate paid for less so it could happen.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I think yes, it would have been. So there's two very different interpretations for two different chalk lines. It is way too much responsiblity for an umpire to have to guess players' intentions in this manner.

While I tend to agree with this, the reality is the the umpires have executed this rule with a high degree of common sense. One day however they are going to come up with a clanger. And I hope its not in the next fortnight!!

Thats why I suggested at the start to take the umpires out of it by making some adjustments to the way you use the time-clock, eg not restarting the clock until the "kicker-in" has cleared the ball. If you lose the advantage of running down the clock then theres no incentive to give your opponent a score if you are not under pressure.

But so far, so good. The rule has been a success.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Thats why I suggested at the start to take the umpires out of it by making some adjustments to the way you use the time-clock, eg not restarting the clock until the "kicker-in" has cleared the ball. If you lose the advantage of running down the clock then theres no incentive to give your opponent a score if you are not under pressure.

So if the player kicks it to himself, the clock starts after his second kick?? What if he baulks around five players and ends up at the 50 metre line before he kicks it?