- Jun 23, 2004
- 13,506
- 38
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Smart, makes sense, senior player; he knows what he needs to do.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Bowden's tactics
- Thread starter kosifantutti
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's not a surprise that some people on here can not see the forest from the trees.
For a start, all you people who bring up Sheedy and icing the clock, the two situations can not be any more different. There is one very effective tactic which can instantly negate any instance of kicking backwards, which is manning up. Players and coaches are so caught up in putting players behind the ball that it enables this sort of time wasting to occur. There is no tactic to negate what Bowden did today. You can't give away a free kick or a 50 because with Bowden's mindset he still would have rushed it, even if he was 50 out.
This isn't about Essendon and Richmond. It's not even about Bowden, he didn't break any rules so life goes on. However, you have to ask yourself if you believe that this tactic has a place, or should have a place, in football. It's a strange anomaly that a full back is not allowed to kick it out of bounds directly, which would usually result in a throw in, but is not only allowed to run it through the goals, but is rewarded possession by doing so.
If the powers that be decided to kill this tactic off, it will go the same way as scragging after a mark, belting the ball over the boundary line and kicking the ball over the boundary line on the full, all time wasting tactics which were outlawed when players took advantage of them. It wouldn't be such a revolutionary move, as some people on here make it out to be.
For a start, all you people who bring up Sheedy and icing the clock, the two situations can not be any more different. There is one very effective tactic which can instantly negate any instance of kicking backwards, which is manning up. Players and coaches are so caught up in putting players behind the ball that it enables this sort of time wasting to occur. There is no tactic to negate what Bowden did today. You can't give away a free kick or a 50 because with Bowden's mindset he still would have rushed it, even if he was 50 out.
This isn't about Essendon and Richmond. It's not even about Bowden, he didn't break any rules so life goes on. However, you have to ask yourself if you believe that this tactic has a place, or should have a place, in football. It's a strange anomaly that a full back is not allowed to kick it out of bounds directly, which would usually result in a throw in, but is not only allowed to run it through the goals, but is rewarded possession by doing so.
If the powers that be decided to kill this tactic off, it will go the same way as scragging after a mark, belting the ball over the boundary line and kicking the ball over the boundary line on the full, all time wasting tactics which were outlawed when players took advantage of them. It wouldn't be such a revolutionary move, as some people on here make it out to be.
Re: Next rule change - 3 points for a rushed behind.
If he'd done it three or four times and used a couple of minutes until the siren sounded, then it may have been controversial. He rushed one behind, then another on the kick in. He then kicked out to a loose player before the siren sounded. He had no idea the exact time left on the clock and it was a risky strategy. If there had been another 30 seconds and we'd turned the ball over, we could have lost because of the rushed behinds.
If he'd done it three or four times and used a couple of minutes until the siren sounded, then it may have been controversial. He rushed one behind, then another on the kick in. He then kicked out to a loose player before the siren sounded. He had no idea the exact time left on the clock and it was a risky strategy. If there had been another 30 seconds and we'd turned the ball over, we could have lost because of the rushed behinds.
Great use of experience! Nothing wrong with it
I remember a couple of years ago at Subi - the bullies were up by 7 points.
We rushed forward and kicked a point with about 30 seconds to go. The bullies panicked and kicked it long. We won the football and Sampi took a mark 25m out and gave us a draw.
All the bullies needed to do was ruch the ball back for a point instead of kicking long.
smasha
It's Time!
This happens once in what, 176 games and suddenly people want the rule changed?
If it was happening week in week out maybe think about it, but it has happened once.
Typical of a lot of people/media that when something like this occurs once they suddenly want a rule to stop it happening. Imbeciles.
Yeah but we all know what the media thinks of Richmond.
We are like the devil to them.
mickeyjuice
Cancelled
Kinda embarrassing how the Bombers supporters are making more sense than the Tigers supporters in this thread
- May 9, 2003
- 15,594
- 67
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Seattle Mariners and Seahawks
What he did was smart - he knew the rules and used them to his advantage. Nothing wrong with what he did.
simpleton
Cancelled
- Banned
- #184
It was a very smart move by Bowden and I am glad he did it.
However there will need to be a rule change because it seems that a team can waste about 15 seconds for each rush behind. So if a team is up by 11 points with 2 1/2 minutes (150 seconds) to go all they need to do is rush 10 behinds- something I'm sure the AFL doesn't want to see. This tactic is now exposed and with no rule change you will see more and more teams exploit it. My suggestion is to make it a free kick to the opposition team if a behind is rushed without touching another player which will force the kick out to be put in to play.
However there will need to be a rule change because it seems that a team can waste about 15 seconds for each rush behind. So if a team is up by 11 points with 2 1/2 minutes (150 seconds) to go all they need to do is rush 10 behinds- something I'm sure the AFL doesn't want to see. This tactic is now exposed and with no rule change you will see more and more teams exploit it. My suggestion is to make it a free kick to the opposition team if a behind is rushed without touching another player which will force the kick out to be put in to play.
Finally some common sense on this issue from a tiger supporter!
Most agree that Bowden acted within the rules, and played smart.
But this should NOT happen again, and if used more extensively by other teams, could get very ugly.
What happens in a grand final 6 points up your telling me the player could run the clock down five times and win the GAME ! Afl need to look at it? very ugly!
I thought for a while that this will happen, and it has - luckily not in a final.
The idea we came up with yesterday was that the clock should not start until either a) another player touches the ball after a kick-in ala basketball, or b) the player kicking to himself to play-on goes past the mark.
Good idea further up this thread - are you allowed to put someone behind the goal-line when kicking-in, so when the umpire calls play-on, you charge at him from behind?
This is a bit like the idea that Graham Cornes has about standing on the mark. The opposing man on the mark goes back 3-4 metres to get a running jump at the mark. Is your teammate allowed to stand 1/2 metre behind the mark, to stop this?
The idea we came up with yesterday was that the clock should not start until either a) another player touches the ball after a kick-in ala basketball, or b) the player kicking to himself to play-on goes past the mark.
Good idea further up this thread - are you allowed to put someone behind the goal-line when kicking-in, so when the umpire calls play-on, you charge at him from behind?
This is a bit like the idea that Graham Cornes has about standing on the mark. The opposing man on the mark goes back 3-4 metres to get a running jump at the mark. Is your teammate allowed to stand 1/2 metre behind the mark, to stop this?
HBF
Flying Scotsman
- Sep 24, 2002
- 156,223
- 101,319
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Exactly.
Perhaps not in the "spirit of the game", but like you said, he knew the rules, and he used them to his advantage.
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 35,715
- 55,293
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
Effes said:
Where it happened in the game is not the issue for me.
The rule as a whole needs changing. Why should you be able to rush the ball through the goals with minimal penalty but be penalised a free kick for rushing it out of bounds ?
Why should you give up a shot for goal if your effort to rush a behind hits the point post but only concede a point if you get it through the goals ?
The tactic is not the problem. The problem is the penalty for doing it is not severe enough.
The fact of the matter is if it was not seen as a potential issue then the AFL would not have introduced the 3 point rule in the NAB Cup.
ant555
The Oracle
- May 4, 2004
- 35,715
- 55,293
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Penrith Panthers
It would eliminate it simply becasue there would be a free player up the field to kick to
The best way to stop it would be for the closest player to goal to simply hold his opponent and give away a down field free kick. Of course if this started to happen too much then there would be a chance of an increased penalty for this action being introduced.
Tiger_Of_Old
THE_GUN:"Why don't you use your reg acc"7/9/24
Im sure that player wouldnt give a stuff how ugly it looked with a premiership medal around his neck
1. If Reimers ran from the side and allowed Bowden a few yards of space I am sure Bowden would have ran out with the ball. Reimers would have had the pace to catch him even with a few yards given away. If there wasnt a target free up ahead what would Bowden have done? He would have kicked it to a contest
2. Agree with an earlier poster. If Essendon manned up all players but allowed a free Richmond player in the left back pocket, Bowden would have kicked it to him. Then the Bombers would have manned up on all the rest of players and stop the avenue for a rushed behind. That Richmond player would have had to kick it down the wing to a contest.
There is no need to change the rules, just be smart and entice the backman to have an opportunity to come out but man up all players eg flood...
Hawthorn uses that tactic well on opposition kick outs
2. Agree with an earlier poster. If Essendon manned up all players but allowed a free Richmond player in the left back pocket, Bowden would have kicked it to him. Then the Bombers would have manned up on all the rest of players and stop the avenue for a rushed behind. That Richmond player would have had to kick it down the wing to a contest.
There is no need to change the rules, just be smart and entice the backman to have an opportunity to come out but man up all players eg flood...
Hawthorn uses that tactic well on opposition kick outs
Re: Next rule change - 3 points for a rushed behind.
Fully agree.
Essendon supporters need to get a grip. Fact is Jason Laycock lost them the game, yet they're so blind they try to blame Joel Bowden for doing something totally legitimate, which the Essendon players were too dumb to even realise.
Fully agree.
Essendon supporters need to get a grip. Fact is Jason Laycock lost them the game, yet they're so blind they try to blame Joel Bowden for doing something totally legitimate, which the Essendon players were too dumb to even realise.
I haven't read all the posts but what ever happened to the rule regarding deliberately wasting time, it was a reportable offence 'time wasting'?
This rule was discussed a fair bit when the backline keepy off tactic was getting ugly.
So unless this rule has been removed what Bowden did IMO is clearly against a time wasting rule.
He did not gain any on field advantage other than taking time off the clock and not allowing the opposition a chance to get the ball. Maybe the first rushed behind is fine but do it more than once it should be a free kick IF the time wasting rule is still valid.
notting18
Norm Smith Medallist
Every AFL player should from this day on take a leaf out of Bowden's book.
- Feb 5, 2004
- 14,967
- 9,904
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- sanfl - the mighty double magpies
Smart play by Bowden but it has Trevor Chappell written all over it.
How is it different to chipping the ball around with 5 minutes left which ever single team does.
- Feb 21, 2006
- 21,143
- 20,163
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Turtles NYJets Celtics Spurs Fake Sports
There have been a lot of suggestions so far as to how to counter this, the majority of which would not work such as the 3 point rule or Essendon giving away a professional free kick (why should they be penalised?)
20 years ago you could not play on from a kick in. Bring this back, force the player to kick and all Essendon have to do is man up and force a contest. Simple. Not necessarily that much of a rule change per se and is reintroducing a rule that I had to play by as a junior.
BTW I see nothing wrong with what Bowden did. If it was against Melbourne I would be fuming, but I was at the game in the Richmond members with my cousin so it was quite amusing for me, especially being against Essendon.
