Bowden's tactics

[kelvin_sheedy]

Familiar?

 

[LondonCalling]

Then I guess that makes Jason Laycock, Lance Klusener then.

 

[mickeyjuice]

Familiar?

Only if you're trolling, which seems to be your modus operandi.

Coaches from both sides have said it was fine, same with players, same even with sensible supporters.

Where's the issue? If Essendon hadn't kicked four straight behinds before Bowden rushed the first one, you could have won. It's your fault, not the rules.

Pretty simple stuff, and if you can't even work that out...

 

[kelvin_sheedy]

Only if you're trolling, which seems to be your modus operandi.

Coaches from both sides have said it was fine, same with players, same even with sensible supporters.

Where's the issue? If Essendon hadn't kicked four straight behinds before Bowden rushed the first one, you could have won. It's your fault, not the rules.

Pretty simple stuff, and if you can't even work that out...

I repeat.. it did not cost us a win. We were second best for most of the day.

It's the lack of sportmanship, courage and pride displayed by Joel. I guess there's a reason why he has no respect in the football community.

 

[andypie]

The onus was on Essendon to make the play as they were behind. Instead of waiting back to make sure he doesnt get around you, rush him to make a decision straight away. Annoys the crap out of me how all sides zone off and corall players, giving them all the time in the world to make a decision. Bowden did the right thing, the guy standing on the mark was the goose.

 

[andypie]

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.

I reckon seeing you can play on from a point straight away that it should be 2 or 3 points for a rushed behind, as sides use it as an attacking tool. But the best way to stop it is man up, and as soon as play on is called chase the guy with the ball. You know, the stuff they teach in under 10's. Same as when they boo the running down of the clock, the onus is on the side losing to make the play. Man up instead of flooding back. Problem solved.

 

[Winner]

The onus was on Essendon to make the play as they were behind. Instead of waiting back to make sure he doesnt get around you, rush him to make a decision straight away. Annoys the crap out of me how all sides zone off and corall players, giving them all the time in the world to make a decision. Bowden did the right thing, the guy standing on the mark was the goose.

He sprinted at him every time the umpire called play on... thats the point, there was nothing he could do.

 

[andypie]

He sprinted at him every time the umpire called play on... thats the point, there was nothing he could do.

Well if he did it straight away then theoretically only 3 or 4 seconds were waisted.

 

[Beckers]

Bring in a new rule to stop this!





....only joking....KB, leave it alone!!!!!!

 

[Beckers]

He sprinted at him every time the umpire called play on... thats the point, there was nothing he could do.

Should have given away a 50mtr penatly by overstepping the mark!!!

 

[pdevries]

Smart thinking - within the games rules but ugly to watch - good win for the tiges though - well done

 

[PottSie2]

Rule will be introduced next year for sure.

Imagine seeing that in a Grand Final with a few mins to go ... great way to advertise the game.

It only takes 1 person to sink the game to a new low for others to accept it and run with it as well. Hence the need for a new rule change.

 

[the ranger]

Why is everyone ignoring the fact that there was a kickout before the siren sounded. He could have just kept doing that until the siren sounded, but he didn't. Why? Because he wasn't trying to be unsportsmanlike, he was just doing what any intelligent defender would do in that situation. When there was a player free to kick to, he kicked out and we began moving the ball up the ground.

Hysterical over-reaction by some people.

 

[Simche]

Rule will be introduced next year for sure.

Imagine seeing that in a Grand Final with a few mins to go ... great way to advertise the game.

It only takes 1 person to sink the game to a new low for others to accept it and run with it as well. Hence the need for a new rule change.

No more rule changes thanks. Why can't we just leave the game alone? Should have done that years ago before we let ex coaches and squibs onto the rules committee, wherein they let their egos run wild taking out anything that could vaguely be considered a contest and implementing the sort of footy that would see people of their ilk prosper.

Was it within the rules? Yes. Was it desirable? No. But then there are lots of aspects of footy which are undesirable, icing the clock, tagging, shepparding hundreds of metres off the ball as many successful teams have taken to and pulling blokes down after they've disposed of it to prevent them continuing to run through the lines. All are part of footy now and just need to be accepted.

 

[mickeyjuice]

Rule will be introduced next year for sure.

Imagine seeing that in a Grand Final with a few mins to go ... great way to advertise the game.

It only takes 1 person to sink the game to a new low for others to accept it and run with it as well. Hence the need for a new rule change.

Flooding was going to destroy the game. Sheeds had 37 rule changes that we had to implement to defeat it.

Guess what? Nothing was changed, and the game is hardly dead.

 

[Winner]

Well if he did it straight away then theoretically only 3 or 4 seconds were waisted.

Incorrect.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I repeat.. it did not cost us a win. We were second best for most of the day.

It's the lack of sportmanship, courage and pride displayed by Joel. I guess there's a reason why he has no respect in the football community.

What about when Essendon wasted time at the end of the 2nd quarter? If they had have played to the spirit of the game they may have kicked a goal that would have ultimately led to their victory or at least not given Bowden the extra points to play with and the freedom to use the tactics he did.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I reckon seeing you can play on from a point straight away that it should be 2 or 3 points for a rushed behind, as sides use it as an attacking tool. But the best way to stop it is man up, and as soon as play on is called chase the guy with the ball. You know, the stuff they teach in under 10's. Same as when they boo the running down of the clock, the onus is on the side losing to make the play. Man up instead of flooding back. Problem solved.

That is true to an extent and I understand where you are coming from. However I think that this unfairly punishes the team waiting for the ball to be kicked in as even if they do man up they are not allowed within 10(?) metres of the player kicking in anyway so it gives him the opportunity of wasting at least 5 seconds each time he rushes a behind.

I understand the need to get the ball back into play quickly from a kick in which is why the rule to play on came in. However that was before you could kick in before the umpire had waved his flag. Allowing this allows the player kicking in time to spot up a free man and counter attack which eliminates the need for the player being able to play on to an extent.

Once you start paying 3 points for a rushed behind there is going to be arguments about what is deliberately rushed and what is not. If it is only paid 3 points for a rushed behind from a kick in (or if the other team doesn't touch the ball first) then the argument will be raised as to what is the difference between that and a player handballing through for a rushed behind in the normal course of play?

 

[skybeau]

I repeat.. it did not cost us a win. We were second best for most of the day.

It's the lack of sportmanship, courage and pride displayed by Joel. I guess there's a reason why he has no respect in the football community.

Joel Bowden has a strong involvement in the AFL Player's Association (I think he's the president or something, but very high up). Hence, I suspect he is pretty well respected by the footballing community.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

If nothing else, at least it answers the question of whether there should be a countdown time clock visible from the ground.

 

[King_Mallee]

rules must be changed. IMagine if that became common place

 

[JasRulz63]

I like the idea that's been thrown around, Essendon could've just given away a 50m, would that have worked? Means his out of the square, and you can get closer to him.

 

[Ricky]

That is why there should be 3 points brought in.

Very Unsportsmanlike from Joel Bowden.

Just broke the hearts of us Bomber fans even more....

AFL must bring in the 3 point rule to stop that crap

 

[numchuks]

Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.

Very original topic.

This certainly hasn't been said in the other 300 threads posted since yesterday.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Re: That is why there should be 3 points brought in.

Sook.

Essendon would have done exactly the same thing if positions were reversed.

Just leave the rules alone and HTFU