"Hurry-up" rule for defenders

[caitsith01]

Why do all rules have to be about forcing attacking play? As many have pointed out, you can counter icing the clock by simply manning up. If, say, the Saints are using their zone to kill a team, then it seems like a 100% legitimate tactic to me to counter that by exploiting the zone to chip the ball between free players.

Example, Geelong played smart footy on the weekend. They had the game in the bag, and instead of playing into the Doggies hands and continuing to allow a shootout, they maintained possession, mostly in the defensive half. Absolutely nothing wrong with it - it took the Dogs a while to respond, and when they eventually did (too late) it made it much riskier to keep doing it.

All of this crap about forcing them to play on, making it play on if you kick backwards etc etc is totally unneccessary - there is nothing wrong now! Possessing the ball in your own defensive 50 is not illegal and is a calculated risk and reward. It forms one of the many tactical permutations of AFL football. If teams aren't flexible enough to counter it then they deserve to lose.

 

[LordLucifer]

Here's a question for all you smart-eggs !!

Saturday night Blues V Lions and one of the Blues players had won a free kick or taken a mark near to the boundary line just next to the Brisbane goal-posts.

The Lions player stood the mark very close to the boundary line and the Carlton player (think it was Houlihan) went back to take his kick, thing was, he was well outside the playing arena.

The Carlton player kept sizing up his options to clear the ball from deep in his defence but didn't kick it so the umpire went through all that malarkey about 'move it on' etc and then the umpire clearly called 'play on now' with the Carlton player still outside the boundary line.

So, why didn't the boundary umpire blow his whistle and call for the ball to throw it back in ??

 

[cos789]

Here's a question for all you smart-eggs !!

Saturday night Blues V Lions and one of the Blues players had won a free kick or taken a mark near to the boundary line just next to the Brisbane goal-posts.

The Lions player stood the mark very close to the boundary line and the Carlton player (think it was Houlihan) went back to take his kick, thing was, he was well outside the playing arena.

The Carlton player kept sizing up his options to clear the ball from deep in his defence but didn't kick it so the umpire went through all that malarkey about 'move it on' etc and then the umpire clearly called 'play on now' with the Carlton player still outside the boundary line.

So, why didn't the boundary umpire blow his whistle and call for the ball to throw it back in ??

It's a throw-in if you're outside the boundary .
It's point if you're behind the goals .

Let's get some things straight .

Players kick the ball back because they are coached to .
Each time the ball is kicked back , ground is lost , time is lost , defenders can man up and there is a margin for error .
Winning coaches now realise the best way to win is to deliver the ball as quickly as possible into the forward line .
The VFL rule is unnecessary if coaches are smart .
If in a winning situation with 2 mins on the clock I would like my team to kick long uncontested or long contested near the boundary .
In the reverse situation I would like the other team to kick backwards then man up and force the turn over within range .
Kicking in should be a simple timed thing after taking possession .

.

 

[LordLucifer]

It's a throw-in if you're outside the boundary .
It's point if you're behind the goals .

That's my point, the player was outside the boundary when the called 'play on' so why wasn't it a throw in ??

 

[clobba]

You are looking at this the wrong way - by assuming your team is always the one with the narrow lead AND in possession. But that will, on average, only be 50% of the time in close (1 goal or less) contests.

Look at it this way instead - what if your team is the one trailing by (say) 2 points (which for the purpose of this debate, there is as much chance of this as there is of them leading by 2 points) and the opposition has the ball? Obviously, you would then want a sudden change in the rules to maximise the chances of a contest and the chance of a turnover.

And what would a neutral spectator want - surely the same, rules that encourage the greater chance of a contest.

That's why the VFL rule SHOULD definitely be introduced into the AFL. It's a good rule that makes for more exciting football when the games go to the wire. It encourages contests, it hurries the game up. It gives you more hope when your team is trailling by those proverbial 2 points. It gets you more on the edge of your seats.

Nope I'd want my team to man up and force a contest not effectively be told to "Play fair and share your ball" By Vlad and his over rules committee

 

[greennick]

It's a throw-in if you're outside the boundary .
It's point if you're behind the goals
.

I would have thought the ball will not be considered in play till he kicks it back in or runs over the line. I don't know if that is the actual rule, but it is good to see sometimes common sense actually prevails.

 

[Hawthorn United]

I'm getting sick of rules being brought in to kill off a tactic coaches develop. Rules for protecting players and such are fine, but because a team has realised how to change the tempo and prevent the other team from getting the matchwinning goal we need to change it?

The team behind should be trying to win the game on their own, not have the opposition present them the chance. Earn your win, don't bring in a rule that makes it easier for you.

As far as I'm aware, it's still 18 vs 18 on the field.

 

[Dawggin It]

Here's a question for all you smart-eggs !!

Saturday night Blues V Lions and one of the Blues players had won a free kick or taken a mark near to the boundary line just next to the Brisbane goal-posts.

The Lions player stood the mark very close to the boundary line and the Carlton player (think it was Houlihan) went back to take his kick, thing was, he was well outside the playing arena.

The Carlton player kept sizing up his options to clear the ball from deep in his defence but didn't kick it so the umpire went through all that malarkey about 'move it on' etc and then the umpire clearly called 'play on now' with the Carlton player still outside the boundary line.

So, why didn't the boundary umpire blow his whistle and call for the ball to throw it back in ??

Even if you are standing outside the field of play, it isn't a point or out of bounds until you go off the line of the mark, even if the umpire has called play-on.

 

[MightyHawks]

If you want to give defenders less time to pass the ball, or make them kick forwards or any of those other ideas, have you thought through the consequences of your proposed rule change?

Don't worry, the AFL don't usually either.

Quite simply, your irritation is with teams attempting to counter flooding.

However, If you change the rule to make it harder to counter flooding, then you're actually encouraging teams to flood.

I think Carlton in the mid 90s was the first team to really start icing the clock by kicking it backwards and sideways. I didn't like it at all at the time. But now I think it's a good tactic. Man up and it goes away... Amazing how often a team that's behind takes about a minute to wake up and realise that they need to man up...

 

[cos789]

I would have thought the ball will not be considered in play till he kicks it back in or runs over the line. I don't know if that is the actual rule, but it is good to see sometimes common sense actually prevails.

Play on is exactly that - play on - clock ticking .
You cannot be in play when you're out of play or over the goal line .
The only latitude a player is given is that arcing towards the boundary is not automatically considered playing on . If a player takes too long or goes off his line (two step guideline) then it's play on and you cannot be in play over the boundary . If an incident occurs over the bounday then a free kick will be given either at the point of play or the boundary , whatever is the greater penalty .

And to answer your question - mistakes happen .

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Clearly when one team is trying to ice the clock, the umpires are much stricter on it, which I think is a good thing.

This is one area where I reckon they interprit the situation very well.