Free kick for rushed behinds-Agree or Disagree??

[Mervyn Beasley]

Unfortunately I have no choice but to agree.
At the end of the day rushing a behind is no different to running the ball over the boundary line so it makes perfect sense.
I've always thought it extremely inconsistent that you can be penalised for deliberate OOBounds just 30cm wide of the behind post even when you have accidentally (not deliberately!) done it.

I've also always thought it an anomaly that you can be under extreme pressure, give up the fight, win clean possession and clear the ball.


I would prefer the 3 point penalty to a free kick though.

 

[The Kipster]

I've always thought that deliberate rushed behinds should be treated the same as deliberate out of bounds. The attacking team has done all the hard work getting it down there - to me it seems pretty p.ss weak that the defenders can just rush it through with only a 1 point penalty.

Will certainly make for some exciting play in front of goal - maybe even some long kicks to a contest!



Actually, for anything rushed through the points the free kick is taken where the ball went over the line which means the maximum 90 degree angle - like what happenned to Campbell Brown in the first quarter of the GF. Anything rushed through the goals will be taken directly in front - same as when you mark in the goal square.

The game is fast enough, that is why this has happened to start with...it will only get faster and more adjudication will occur adhoc because of it...

 

[mr e]

I would prefer the 3 point penalty to a free kick though.

I agree with you here merv i think that the 3 point penalty would be ample.
I wonder what will come in next year? No tackling or heavy bumps a la the international rules series?

 

[Woodside Hawk]

It's going to be interesting what effect the 50m penalty for impeding a player behind the play will have on the zone defence. The classic way to attack a zone in other sports is to run a group of players at one section of it so you out-number the zone, we stopped teams doing this by shepherding. Sure we gave away a downfield free-kick, but the other side already had possession so we weren't punished, and it stopped them getting numbers to the ball. We won't be able to do this anymore.

I reckon this is by far the rule change that will have the most impact on us, and I reckon that's why it was introduced. We used this tactic to great effect all season and I believe its one of the primary reasons Geelong found us so difficult to deal with - their usual overlap run from half-back was impeded.

Its going to be interesting to see what Clarko comes up with to counter this change, and also how we attack other teams versions of our zone defence.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Wave the flags, and sack the rules committee.

They need to be stopped. It's ridiculous to expect them to do anything other than try to justify their existence, and ridiculous in turn to listen to this kind of tripe.

At this rate it probably won't be long and they'll be cutting down the number of players on the ground, the point posts, and having kick ins from the center circle.

 

[Gold Member]

I think the game is at its pinacle right now, even with the rushed behinds. This is another way for the AFL to hurt afl defenders, and reward the forwards. God forbid if a team has to work better with their forward entries to the backline dont have the chance to rush behinds and set up a rebound.

If you look at the trend of recent rules and our current team structure, it seems that back in 2004 Clarkson built our team for what the AFL would become... If backmen are going to be slaughtered by the rules why bother with traditional gorillas whey you can damage teams so severely from the rebound???

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

I keep saying this, but nobody seems to be very impressed by it ... the answer is simple.

If a player has a shot on goal and registers a behind, then the defensive player doesn't have to wait for the flag to be waved. If the umpire determines the player has rushed the ball through, the player kicking out must then wait for the flag to be waved.

To me that's an obvious solution, but then we start hearing absolute crap like free kicks from the behind post. What a wankfest.

It's time we did away with a rules committee, they are making too many changes to justify their existance.

AH, if the rule is going to be changed, then I like your suggestion.

 

[LuvMyHawks]

Tell me this S2G, if the umpires find it hard enough to interpret decisions as it is, how the **** are they going to go adjudicating such an ambiguous rule?

The rules committee are ****ed

My sentiments exactly. They can't get the deliberate oob right now, for FGS..I would hate to be a defender these days, they can't touch a player, it's getting more like basketball every day..Let's change the rules next year, and make it a non-contact sport.
Then everyone would be happy... AS IF!!Just leave the dam rules alone AFL, what a massive over re-action to the rushed behind.They had the same problem many years ago, and it sorted itself out..of course Mike Sheahan takes credit for the change..what else could you expect..

 

[Psycosis]

There is always a new issue every year.A couple of years ago we were talking about flooding,how much do you hear about that now.Give it a couple more years and it won't be a issue.Let the game evolve on it own

 

[Pessimistic]

I reckon this is by far the rule change that will have the most impact on us, and I reckon that's why it was introduced. We used this tactic to great effect all season and I believe its one of the primary reasons Geelong found us so difficult to deal with - their usual overlap run from half-back was impeded.

Its going to be interesting to see what Clarko comes up with to counter this change, and also how we attack other teams versions of our zone defence.

Its far too selective for my liking - why just when a disposer is running to a contest, why not any player running to a contest ?

EG if someone outs franklin, rioli, williams down in any situation, they should have a 50m and a shot on goal.

As for the rushed behind, id like to see a team deliberately rush behinds at any opportunity to test the rule and see how it 'enhances' the spectacle

Even is soccer they only get a corner kick and some teams play to get corners or even better penalty kicks - in fact they all do - is that what we want to see in footy ?

What strategies will defenders adopt - lets look forward and hope the rules comittee have too - they obviously didnt when they changed the flags rule.

I'm guessing if the defender has a clear posession he will boot the ball into touch rugby style as far awy from goal as he can.
If the ball is in dispute he will 'sweat' on the forward and tackle him for a free as soonas posession is taken - again the second to the ball will be penalised

 

[noosa hawk mad]

There is always a new issue every year.A couple of years ago we were talking about flooding,how much do you hear about that now.Give it a couple more years and it won't be a issue.Let the game evolve on it own

I Agree mate leave the bloody game alone change for sake of change the AFL seem to have know idea!

 

[Dragz]

If this comes in, we'll see defenders retreating to the goal line and taking the tackle and being knocked over the line by the opposition. Or we'll see the ridiculous sight of a defender with the ball just standing there and a forward standing 3 metres from him not tackling him.

 

[blue harvest]

If this comes in, we'll see defenders retreating to the goal line and taking the tackle and being knocked over the line by the opposition. Or we'll see the ridiculous sight of a defender with the ball just standing there and a forward standing 3 metres from him not tackling him.

That would be a crack up!
I think though the forwards would soon learn to tackle by slinging the player into play rather than over the goal line.

Even is soccer they only get a corner kick and some teams play to get corners or even better penalty kicks - in fact they all do - is that what we want to see in footy ?

I thought in soccer if you knock it into their goal it is a goal - big disincentive!

 

[Asty]

I really dont care about NAB cup rules as it is a bit mickey mouse with teams not playing their strongest squads and existing rule modifications.
I would not want to see it come into the regular season. I think it is a knee jerk reaction that is probably unwarranted.
Rushed behinds and running down the clock with rushed behinds were used as tactics but teams should be given time to come up with ways counter act the tactic with out the AFL changing the rules.
Also a rule change immediately after Hawks, legitimately, won a premiership will have bitter supporters using the rule change as a way to say they only won by playing against the "spirit" of the game and the rules were changed because of the GF. That is a bullsh%t comment and one I dont want to start listening to down the pub.
I think there needs to be a rule change but not in the game but at the rule committee level. "No new rule can be brought in with out the need being recognised for 2 consecutive years by 70% majority vote by the committee" or some shite like that.

 

[Delicate Des]

Talk about crushing a peanut with a sledghammer, this is a ridiculous over reaction to the legitimate use of this tactic.
Whilst there may be a need to stop the tactic in the interests of a better game to view, a free kick is a ridiculous over reaction by a committee that have a history of this.
One thing that would change the incidence of this is for players to man up, and not take a cheap advantage by running out to the 50 in zone defence.
However i am sure this will be seen as a farce in the NAB cup games and we weill be free of the stupidity after a few weeks.

 

[hawks0808]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,24802582-19742,00.html

• THE AFL will trial a new rule for deliberately rushed behinds, penalising teams with free kick where the ball is rushed.

That will give the opposition a simple shot at goal, but the benefit of the doubt will be given to a defender who is under direct pressure in a contest, or whose primary goal is to spoil or touch the ball before it goes through for a goal.

The rule will be tested in the NAB Cup pre-season competition along with a new rule aimed at stopping blatant off-the-ball contact.

A 50m penalty will be awarded for players who tackle or hold an opponent after the opponent has disposed of the football, for the purpose of preventing them from taking part in the next act of play or being able to run on to the next contest

Adrian Anderson said the free after disposal trial was in response to an emerging trend where players were being unfairly hindered after being involved in an act of play.

“We have seen that players are prepared to give away a free kick by putting an opposition player down after disposing of the ball to prevent them from running onto the next contest. Currently only a free kick is awarded and this can be an insufficient deterrent,” Adrian Anderson said.

The no-go zone behind the umpire at a centre bounce will also remain in the preseason.

The AFL also announced several other rule changes for next season:

* The goal line is now the back of the padding on the goal posts, not the middle of the posts.

* Umpires can now recall off-line centre bounces if they unfairly favour a team.

* A report for misconduct now results in a free kick.

* If a team has clear possession when a stretcher enters the field, instead of a ball up, the team will retain possession.

* Interchange breaches will now only be penalised by a 50m kick from where the ball is. Previously, if the ball was in the back half, the ball was taken to the centre square and advanced 50m.

The league looked at several possible penalties for the rushed behind before settling on a free kick.

“The options of a bounce 25m out from goal or a boundary throw-in from the behind post were carefully considered, but not selected because they create extra stoppages and time delays which increase the opportunity for teams to flood," Adrian Anderson said.

"The option of a free kick for a deliberate rushed behind was adopted because it is the simplest option, the greatest deterrent, and is most consistent with the current Laws of the Game.

“A free kick is already paid for deliberately putting the ball out of play in all other areas around the ground and this option allows for similar criteria to be used in the case of deliberate rushed behinds.”

The league also announced other changes to rules during the NAB Cup:

a) Interchange system - remove the restriction on the number of interchanges permitted that was used in the 2008 NAB Cup and introduce a system of two substitute players in addition to six standard interchange players;

b) Remove the rule allowing play on when ball hits goal or behind post; and

c) Remove the ball being thrown back into play 10m in from boundary line.

The rules used in the 2008 NAB Cup to be retained for the 2009 NAB Cup are;

a) No marks for backward kicks in the defensive half of the ground;

b) Nine points for a goal from outside 50m;

c) Ball to be thrown up around the ground; and

d) Distance for a kick to be awarded a mark retained at 20m.

I don't agree with this new rule change i would of thought a ball up 25 meters out would of sorted it out what do you think???????

NO! Total of 7 points basically way to harsh, trial in the NAB, but thats it!

 

[noosa hawk mad]

NO! Total of 7 points basically way to harsh, trial in the NAB, but thats it!

This is the point they will trial it in the NAB & then we will see it introduced into the regular season the AFL rules committee needs a huge overhaul mate never did i think the arm chop rule would come in.

They need to leave our bloody great game alone it has lasted over 100 years with out constant rule changers as a supporter i am sick to death of new rule's being introduced every bloody year!

 

[Pessimistic]

That would be a crack up!
I think though the forwards would soon learn to tackle by slinging the player into play rather than over the goal line.



I thought in soccer if you knock it into their goal it is a goal - big disincentive!

If it goes through the goals then why not award a goal ? It would be better than the farce of a forward taking a kick from the goal line - and we havent even had the frenzied disussion of who takes the goal yet.

The soccer equivalent would be knocking it through the point line.

Funny Now I think the defenders baet counter for this is to have more numbers back - yes it will encourage flooding and has come about from a rule change designed to discourage flooding (allowing the rushed behind to play on straight away)