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

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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?

My suggestion is (was) that the clock doesnt restart until another player touches the ball or the ball clears the 50.

Its ancient history now though, the current rule seems to be working well.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Don't like it. Rather than reduce negativity it has stopped clubs really being positive, by rushing the behind, playing on quickly and trying to move the ball the length of the ground to score.

Bad decision for mine.

 

[Slippery Pete]

My suggestion is (was) that the clock doesnt restart until another player touches the ball or the ball clears the 50.

Its ancient history now though, the current rule seems to be working well.

If it's all about the kick-in man, the rule should only apply to him.

As for the Hawthorn 2008 GF example - my question remains. How many of those would have been paid as free kicks under the current rule?

 

[raskolnikov]

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

Bet you wouldn't be laughing if your team was behind by four points with a minute left to play in the Grand Final. I think it's a good rule.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If it's all about the kick-in man, the rule should only apply to him.

As for the Hawthorn 2008 GF example - my question remains. How many of those would have been paid as free kicks under the current rule?

Have not watched the game since the day but I'd say quite a few.

(Well one, actually. Once the umpire paid the first one the Hawks wouldnt do it again.)

 

[Books]

If it's all about the kick-in man, the rule should only apply to him.

As for the Hawthorn 2008 GF example - my question remains. How many of those would have been paid as free kicks under the current rule?

Two (or maybe three).

Without going back and watching the DVD, there was the Williams kick from 20 metres which was obvious, there was one that Guerra stepped back over the line so that he could then play on from the top of the square, and from memory I think there may have been one other one as well. Most of them were under pressure.

Personally I think the rule was always going to be changed after the Joel Bowden episode against Essendon. The fact that there were 11 rushed behinds in the GF added extra publicity to the topic.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If it's all about the kick-in man, the rule should only apply to him.

Exactly, my suggestion was that he cant waste time if the clock isnt running until he has hit a target or cleared the area. It (my time-clock suggestion) is all about the kick-in man.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Generally I'm not in favour of ANY rule changes and havn't liked any of them but this one has been great.

You cannot measure the success of the rule based on 'how many times has it been paid'. Its there to stop players just walking it through and at least it has to be a contest now for a rushed behind.

In fact I would say a more successful rule is one that is paid less becuase that way players understand it, its not interfering with the flow of the game and it keeps the influence of umpires down.

Its made for much more exciting play in the last line of defense.

 

[Books]

Have not watched the game since the day but I'd say quite a few.

(Well one, actually. Once the umpire paid the first one the Hawks wouldnt do it again.)

An excellent observation.

 

[joshhem]

Under the current interpretation the time wasting tactic could still occur. If at the kickin the player waits until the umpire calls play-on. He can continue to stand in the square near the goal line until he is 'under pressure' from the man on the mark. When the man on the mark is close enough the player taking the kickin 'rushes' the behind and he gets a low risk purchase on the clock.

I'm really not convinced that the current rule has eliminated the problem at all, it's just the no one has pushed it yet....

 

[Slippery Pete]

Under the current interpretation the time wasting tactic could still occur. If at the kickin the player waits until the umpire calls play-on. He can continue to stand in the square near the goal line until he is 'under pressure' from the man on the mark. When the man on the mark is close enough the player taking the kickin 'rushes' the behind and he gets a low risk purchase on the clock.

I'm really not convinced that the current rule has eliminated the problem at all, it's just the no one has pushed it yet....

Exactly right.

For 100 years, we had a fail safe of sorts against running down the clock- that fail safe was the threat of having the ball taken away. Now, the umpire gives a warning, then calls play on. This enables the clock to start before the ball is in-bounded.

As usual, one rule change caused another rule change, and so on.....

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Under the current interpretation the time wasting tactic could still occur. If at the kickin the player waits until the umpire calls play-on. He can continue to stand in the square near the goal line until he is 'under pressure' from the man on the mark. When the man on the mark is close enough the player taking the kickin 'rushes' the behind and he gets a low risk purchase on the clock.

I'm really not convinced that the current rule has eliminated the problem at all, it's just the no one has pushed it yet....

Correct. The day the defender with the ball deliberately draws pressure to him is the day the umpire has a difficult decision to make. If he brought the pressure upon himself but was originally not under pressure, is that a deliberate rushed behind?

Thats why as much as this rule has been a success, there is always the risk of it going pearshaped when you leave it to the umpires to be making subjective decisions about players thought processes.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Correct. The day the defender with the ball deliberately draws pressure to him is the day the umpire has a difficult decision to make. If he brought the pressure upon himself but was originally not under pressure, is that a deliberate rushed behind?

Thats why as much as this rule has been a success, there is always the risk of it going pearshaped when you leave it to the umpires to be making subjective decisions about players thought processes.

Out of interest, does anybody know - Once the umpire calls "play on," does the defender still have to kick it to himself? Or can he just run out of the square at that point?

 

[hawker11]

Rather than adding this ridiculous rule, they should have just stated that in the case of a rushed behind, the defending team must wait for the flags to be waved by the goal umpire before kicking the ball back into play.

This would have eroded the advantage of rushing the behind that was exploited after they changed the rule of waiting for the flags on any behind kicked.

To erase the Joel Bowden situation, perhaps the defender kicking in must not have the option to kick to themselves after a rushed behind.

Instead they reactively added yet another subjective rule.

 

[Fastback]

Two (or maybe three).

Without going back and watching the DVD, there was the Williams kick from 20 metres which was obvious, there was one that Guerra stepped back over the line so that he could then play on from the top of the square, and from memory I think there may have been one other one as well. Most of them were under pressure.

Personally I think the rule was always going to be changed after the Joel Bowden episode against Essendon. The fact that there were 11 rushed behinds in the GF added extra publicity to the topic.

There was also the one where Browny took a mark 30m out directly in front of the Cats goal, was called to play on so Mooney rushed at him and he backtracked 30m to rush a behind for the reset.

Pretty sure you wouldn't get away with that now.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Out of interest, does anybody know - Once the umpire calls "play on," does the defender still have to kick it to himself? Or can he just run out of the square at that point?

I think you still have to kick it to yourself.

 

[oak79]

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.

Just after the rule was introduce, a West Coast player was pinged for it - he punched the ball over the line when under pressure. It wasn't an important match - but the decision was wrong, and the AFL even admitted it. Now they err on the side of caution.

Personally I think the rule should relate to 'prior opportunity'

Free kick paid if:
- a player who has 'prior opportunity' to dispose of the ball, walks accross the goal line or kicks/handballs accross the line

If a player does not have possession or 'prior opportunity', no free or kick
- eg from a kick into the 50, defender punches over line without taking possession

Much simpler interpretation, and easy to officiate.

 

[winty]

Out of interest, does anybody know - Once the umpire calls "play on," does the defender still have to kick it to himself? Or can he just run out of the square at that point?

I think you still have to kick it to yourself.

Correct. I remember Jason Roe running out of the goal square after the ump called play on in a Geelong-Brisbane game circa 2005. Ended up being a bounce at the top of the square.

 

[Thommo 42]

but did he have prior opportunity to be not under pressure?!

 

[Reckoner Tiger]

You only need to watch the 2008 GF to realise their intentions with this rule.
They were never trying to stop in totality rushed behinds...a unique aspect of the game almost since its inception.

It was devised to only stop absolute deliberate time-wasting and unsportsmanlike behaviour, game-deciding stuff.
In hindsight a very good initiative by the AFL which, while flawed initially, is now working excellently and is adjudicated well week-by-week by the umpires.

 

[Dawson]

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??

Two things.
1. You need to research the rule and print it in your post

2. Then you need to try to understand it, because at the moment you don't

 

[TheGodDelusion]

Under the current interpretation the time wasting tactic could still occur. If at the kickin the player waits until the umpire calls play-on. He can continue to stand in the square near the goal line until he is 'under pressure' from the man on the mark. When the man on the mark is close enough the player taking the kickin 'rushes' the behind and he gets a low risk purchase on the clock.

Nah. This happened, Richmond v WC I think, and the umpire paid deliberate and told the player when he complained that it was his choice to play on and then go back to the goal line so tough luck.

The player kicking in still has to kick it, even if play on has been called too.

 

[fairdinkum]

Slippery Pete speaketh the truth.

What a farce this game has become. Richmond deserved that win.

If I were a Tigers fan, I'd be livid. Livid, I say.

(Unless, of course, I was one of the dopes who was happy to see the AFL introduce yet another stupid rule change, back when this one was first brought in. Those people have no right to complain - it is because of you lot the AFL get away with it, year after year. You dopes.)

 

[Byron_Clanger]

The point of the rule was to stop what Hawthorn did in the 08 Grand Final

 

[twentydollarnote]

They should pay a free if its a handball or kick and leave everything else, that way an umpire doesn’t have to interpret whether a player is under pressure in the heat of the moment.