Free kick for rushed behinds-Agree or Disagree??

[noosa hawk mad]

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???????

 

[carntheroos4eva]

I agree with this rule.

It's being trialled in the NAB cup and not in the actual season.

 

[RustyHawk]

I disagree with this rule.

This is Australian Rules and this has been part of the game for ages.

They might as well make the game soccer and take out the point posts and do away with anything other than if the ball goes past the goal line it is a GOAL.

Vote NO this rule.

 

[noosa hawk mad]

I agree with this rule.

It's being trialled in the NAB cup and not in the actual season.

Yes i know it's being trialed in the Nab Cup mate but i still don't agree with it!

 

[JezzHawk]

Don't like the rule.

Making umpires to decide if it was intention or not is stupid.

 

[Roughie]

Hmmm. So the AFL changes the rule that forces the kicking out team to wait for the flags to be waved to create a quicker game. Inturn teams rush behinds to set up a quick kick out before the forward line can set up their defensive set up. Now because of this there are too many rushed behinds?

Look it is obvious the AFL want more goals, why dont they just change the game to a best of five goal shoot out FFS . The constant change of rules are forcing coaches to adapt their game plan and it will continue to happen untill the AFL can get to a point that their happy at, but at the moment they are far to fickle.

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.

 

[caddyhawk]

It means it's better make a deliberate OOB on the full just outside the behind posts. If you have to give a free kick, give it from the most extreme angle. The AFL as usual are a step 'behind'.

 

[carntheroos4eva]

Yes i know it's being trialed in the Nab Cup mate but i still don't agree with it!

That's fine. I don't expect everyone to agree with it to be fair. Many people that we know of don't like the rules at the moment.

 

[raff23]

The AFL is being run by a bunch of peanuts who have no understanding of what the sensible fans and the general football follower want. If this rule is implemented into the season proper next year we will see farcical situations every game. The defender is now supposed to kick to no one if they have no option. Tell me how this is going to benefit the game??. They are obviously completely taking the role of the defender out of the game and basically want as many goals scored as possible. The game is not just about kicking goals it is also about stopping them, has been for over a hundred years. This is going to make life even more difficult for defenders than it already is. What happens in a Grand Final when 1 teams up by less than a kick and they concede a point because they have no one to kick it to, the other team will get the ball and undeservingly would most likely kick a goal to win the game. Imagine the uproar if this occured. Please someone give these idiots the boot before they destroy the game completely.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

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.

 

[markr]

Ridiculous rule. My first preference is to just leave the game alone, but if they absolutely must do something, just throw it in or have a ball up at the top of the goal square. A gifted goal is going too far.

 

[Stuckinarut]

As usual it’s a massive over reaction and allows umpires to make more inconsistent decisions.
I think these law makers just come up with new crap each year to keep themselves in a job.

 

[Zack]

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.

How do you police that??? ONCE AGAIN BY PISSING OFF THE PUBLIC TO HATE THE UMPIRES FOR MAKING THE DECISION THAT ANDREW DUMBETRIOU MADE.

Another stupid rule change by Gomez to cover up his STUPID rule changes to make the game faster and allow teams to kick out before the goal umpire has signalled a point. If he did't change the rule then, there would be no reason to once again change the rule.

MMM soccer and no one cares, but they still keep the off side rule that prevents scoring and apparently we are copying their keep the ball live to get fans... never seen a throw in Gomez? Oops I forgot you never participated as a footballer in a contest that is why you were known as the gutless Adonis.

So why should I be surprised???... I'm not actually just disappointed the piss weak embarassment to the Greek race is destroying our game again and that I might get angry at a game when it disfavours my club and blame all greeks when andrew demetriou is the only greek responsible for being a ballet afficiando.

 

[The Kipster]

I agree with this rule.

It's being trialled in the NAB cup and not in the actual season.

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

 

[carntheroos4eva]

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

To be honest, why did Geelong allow us to go add points to their score in the AFL Grand Final?
Because they were too lazy to realise what they were doing.

Re: the umpires, Easily it will be the similar to the deliberate out of bounds rule.
Mind you it's only for the NAB Cup games and thank god not for the normal season.
I am happy for the guys to try it but I think that it will be like the 9 point goals it won't be brought into the regular season.

 

[NQ Hawk]

I read an Age article on line about the rule changes and it said that the rule will be trialed in the NAB cup with the potential of introduction into the 2009 season.

If they think its a good thing it could be in the 2009 season

Only rule change I would like to see

Listen to the supporters!

 

[carntheroos4eva]

I read an Age article on line about the rule changes and it said that the rule will be trialed in the NAB cup with the potential of introduction into the 2009 season.

If they think its a good thing it could be in the 2009 season

Only rule change I would like to see

Listen to the supporters!

I can tell you it won't be included in next year's home and away season. Only in the NAB Cup. I have known this for a little while.

 

[The Kipster]

Re: the umpires, Easily it will be the similar to the deliberate out of bounds rule.
Mind you it's only for the NAB Cup games and thank god not for the normal season.
I am happy for the guys to try it but I think that it will be like the 9 point goals it won't be brought into the regular season.

The umpires have crucified the 'deliberate out of bounds' rule for years - remember Sammy in Brisbane?
We will eventually end up with more umpires than players in oreder to interpret the rules correctly.

I hope it is only trialled in the NAB and it fails miserably..

 

[carntheroos4eva]

The umpires have crucified the 'deliberate out of bounds' rule for years - remember Sammy in Brisbane?
We will eventually end up with more umpires than players in oreder to interpret the rules correctly.

I hope it is only trialled in the NAB and it fails miserably..

Yeah I remember that one. I also remember the one that was paid against Changa.
There are going to be 4 umpires at every game this year.

 

[blue harvest]

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!

It means it's better make a deliberate OOB on the full just outside the behind posts. If you have to give a free kick, give it from the most extreme angle. The AFL as usual are a step 'behind'.

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.

 

[Eye of the Hawk]

The rushed behinds is a direct result for coaches having more of an emphasis on defensive pressure. Problem is I can see other teams copying our rolling cluster especially St.Kilda as I heard Lyon commenting on how it was revolutionary and all. But hopefully other teams realise that Hawthorn only do it so well because we have an abundance of highly skillful left footers and silky right footers.

 

[markr]

The rushed behinds is a direct result for coaches having more of an emphasis on defensive pressure. Problem is I can see other teams copying our rolling cluster especially St.Kilda as I heard Lyon commenting on how it was revolutionary and all. But hopefully other teams realise that Hawthorn only do it so well because we have an abundance of highly skillful left footers and silky right footers.

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.

 

[Henry Jr]

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.

Agreed - I heard Jeff G on 927 this morning and was staggered when I heard about this rule.

They should call it the Gary Ablett Jr GF rule as thats basically what it is.

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

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.

Perfect.

Whilst those ten seconds may not seem of consequence to some, it is an appropriate penalty that weighs the scales in favor of the attacking side.

Simplest, smartest, fairest outcome - unfortunately, it's not me that you need to impress AH.

As a footnote, it was interesting to see Geelong was 1 of 3 clubs that did not vote for the introduction of this rule.

 

[Gary Shadforth]

.

I am one of those fans who do not like changes to the rules. But there should be alterations in allowing a player to just casually stroll over the white line between the scoring posts to stall the game for reasons quite obvious.

I agree we used the poor spectacle many times in the last quarter of the GF and, hence, assisted us to our tenth premiership. However, it is a bad spectacle for our game as the practice has become more frequent season-by season in the modern era.

Giving an opponent a simple shot at goal as a penalty will soon eliminate deliberate rushed behinds but I do not like the words 'benefit of the doubt' contained in the rule book. This allows umps to make decisions and is fraught with differing interpretations from the three men in various colors which is all the more frustrating.

--------------------------------------------------------