Bowden's tactics

Remove this Banner Ad

nut said:
Tactics are becoming more and more important in todays game. Bowdens antics will be thrashed around the media for the next few days... . Dont blame Bowden, Essendon should have made it more tempting for Bowden to kick it into play ie.. concede the first kick, instead they manned up and locked the ball in the forward line and left Bowden with little option.
They should have made more tempting to bowden to bring the ball back into play.... They should also teach it's players how to kick for goal.

It feels good to win when we played poorly, that never used to happen. Did anyone feel like the bombers played like us from the past? It almost felt like we handed them the batten that lets you "donimate a game and loose Batten".
Click to expand...

yeah, this is issue is gonna be the media plaything for some days, judging by radio comments today
it's within the rules, so that's that
i'm sure there'll be various suggestions as to how the rule can be changed, and it doesn't look great
and as one of the abc blokes said this afternoon, can you imagine it happening in the last minute of a grand final, it'd cause riots
 
rancidpants13 said:
yeah, this is issue is gonna be the media plaything for some days, judging by radio comments today
it's within the rules, so that's that
i'm sure there'll be various suggestions as to how the rule can be changed, and it doesn't look great
and as one of the abc blokes said this afternoon, can you imagine it happening in the last minute of a grand final, it'd cause riots
Click to expand...

Its no different to icing of the clock except its on the last line of defence and the the opposition is getting something for it.

Might as well cause a riot for icing the clock. :rolleyes:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

phoenix_rise_ said:
No different to icing the clock for mine but it begun in a more dangerous area of the ground so Bowden waiting until there was an option and found McMahon. Then it became game over.

Its not like Bowden was going to do it until the siren.
Click to expand...

For some reason, people keep ignoring this fact. The eventual kick out to McMahon makes the all the difference. It shows his intent was not to run out the entire clock, as he could have rushed another three behinds if he wanted to. He was just taking the sensible option. So people are calling for a rule change to prevent something that has so far never happened in 150 years of football.
 
Pevers-Legend said:
Tiggers supporters - its ok to admit he did a smart thing but that it was not the best way to snag the four points.

Or do you go to the Trevor Chappell School for sportsman like behaviour?
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong was it and it was the best way to do it, why risk it, when an opportunity came up, he kicked it in. Thats the best way to snag the 4 points. :thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu:


The best way for the Bombers to avoid it was to take one the 3 shots we gave you to Laycock and Stanton and send it back the middle 1, 2 or 3 points down. :rolleyes:

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

LIONS then DAYLIGHT said:
Then reward the team who has zoned up well. Id expect the Lions to do the same thing, lets get that straight, as the rules allow it, but id hope the AFL would change the rule to make it a free kick in the goal square. In the situation where a team decides to rush a behind to ice the clock their main aim is to close down time. They are not concerned about the points given away. They are obviously in front by more then 1 or 2 points. The tactic is basically time wasting, in that they play on then wait for a player to come to them and then walk the ball over the line. It is an obvious time wasting tactic no different to deliberate out of bounds. As such, it should be penalised with a free kick in the goal square to the opposition team.

Surely people can understand that while it is within the rules currently, it is a shocking way to end a game for the spectator. The very nature of the tactic means that its only going to be used during tight games, now that the tactic has been highlighted we could well see an increase in its use.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to punish the team (in this case, Richmond) for having a lead and trying to protect it? (Yeah, I've been listening to Smith on SEN this morning). Essentially what you're saying is Richmond and it's players are not allowed to try and ensure their victory, you want to penalise them for using a strategy that would give them the win. Surely you can see how ridiculous that sounds. What's next, we ban full forwards kicking goals because it means the opposing side might lose the game, because they couldn't spoil/mark/touch the ball on the goal line/do a handstand on the mark/etc?

Everyone's going apeshit over this but there are ways around it. Get the non-officiating umpires attention and BANG push in the back = up the ground free kick. A player runs over the mark = 50m penalty. Give a player space in the pocket, then man up tightly following the kick out. There are options there.

This situation won't happen again, and if it does, it will only result in one rushed behind, maximum. The players will realise what's going on and will take measures to stop it. They aren't dumb, ya know.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ghost of Punt Road said:
I honestly wonder if he WAS milking the clock.

From my vantage point at the game, HE HAD NO-ONE TO KICK TO.

I think the Dons manned up completely, so what else was he going to end up doing?
Click to expand...


Exactly,kick it straight to the Essendon talls?

He did the right thing.

Lloyd throwing the grass into the air cost Essendon the game.:D
 
A player gets 30 seconds to have a shot at goal, and Bowden wasted 14 seconds from the time he conceeded the first rushed behind. Huge flaw in the rules, not in Bowdens tactics simple as that.
 
I've just come in to this thread and haven't got the time to go through 20 pages so sorry if this has been debated earlier but one tactic I heard on talkback radio was to give away a free kick in the middle of the ground.

Have an Essendon player hold or takle a Richmond player and the ball is moved up field.
 
kosifantutti said:
Less than a minute to go and Tigers a goal up. Bowden kicking in plays on waits for the Essendon players to come at him. Handpasses over the line. Repeats.

What do you think
Click to expand...

did not look sporting, but was a desperate story for the Tiges, and was within the law, it was about winning. Amen
 
there's no difference to what bowden did and what every player does towards the end of a quarter - kick it back and forth wasting time.

part of the game, move on with life.

why is it when 1 thing happens in our game, people suddenly want to change the rules? leave the bloody rules alone!
 
Well done to Joel Bowden. It reminded me of another infamous Richmond win, when the last-placed Tigers defeated the top-of-the-ladder Adelaide Crows by chipping the ball sideways and backwards and refusing to kick the ball into Neil Craig's flood. Smart, disciplined play that required resolve and calmness from the player(s). Joel Bowden was also heavily involved that Crows game, wasn't he? Him and his brother were the main culprits from memory.

People have said what Bowden did to the Bombers wasn't sporting. No, it wasn't. But since when has the AFL been about fair play? Footballers spend the entire game cheating, interfering and holding onto each other, diving and trying to con the umpires.

At least Bowden played within the rules. And there lies the problem. This is not just about the Richmond win on the weekend. The close finish simply exposed the problem with the laws which have been there all along. It happens all the time, in every game and it will continue to happen.

Why should players should be allowed to deliberately rush a behind, then retain possession? Why do we penalise players for Deliberate Out Of Bounds, but then we reward them with a "free kick" when they deliberately rush through a behind? In the old days, it was seen to be a penalty to concede 1 point. But in today's modern game, coaches and players realise it's no penalty at all. That's why they continue to do it. Some people have said that Essendon should've deliberately conceded a free kick, or a fifty metre penalty. But this would not have stopped Richmond from playing backwards and conceding another behind. People need to think these through before they say stuff like that

There is a simple remedy to all of this: The umpire should call for a bounce at the top of the goal square for a "Deliberate rushed behind".

Problem solved.

Don't change the scoring system to 3 points or whatever. No need for that.
Don't penalise the player like the "Deliberate out of bounds". No need for that.


If they brought this rule change in, no team would ever again concede a rushed behind. Imagine how much better the game would be if defenders had to play their way out trouble, rather than take the easy (and cheesy) way out?
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Let the coaches sort it out. If its late in the game, take the man off the mark - leave the mark empty - and stand him next to the goal umpire. That way the full back has to kick to a contest, if he wants to turn around he'll run straight into a tacklle
Click to expand...
Won't work. Not hard to handpass over a player's head through for a behind. I think they should introduce a rule (the game evolves, rule changes become necessary) where it is a bounce if the man kicking in rushes a behind. They could still pass it to another player who rushes a behind, but that would be the opposition team's fault for not manning up.

Good work by Bowden, picked a loophole in the rules. Now, if the rules committee act upon it, then his clever tactics will have, in a round-a-bout way, improved the game.
 
It was smart play from Bowden and any team would have used a similar tactic. The Essendon player on the mark should have slammed him to the ground when he was preparing to kick in. Richmond would have got a 50 (forcing him to kick the ball) and Bowden may have been injured . It's not really in the spirit of the game but it may have forced Richmond to kick to a contested situation.
 
Best thing he could have done.:thumbsu:
What if Bowden kicks out, there is a turnover, Essendon score, drawn game. Bowden becomes a tool and a fool and everyone says ,and there is a thread about, "Duhh why didn't he rush a behind and run the clock down ":rolleyes:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Bowden's tactics

Similar threads

John Who
  • Poll
Opinion Unsubbing the tactical-sub in place of an injury, yay or nay?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
kickazz
kickazz
G
Have other sides caught up tactically to geelong??
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
3K
windyhill
windyhill

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top