Incorrect rushed behind decision

[Aarick13]

why cant they just make the rule if you have clear possession of the ball and rush it behind its a free kick. hawthorn last year would grab the ball and pass it behind. that would be a free kick. if you punch it behind its just 1 point.

its as simple as that.

 

[pjcrows]

The rule is actually quite good. In a matter of weeks it has removed from the game the farce that we saw from Joel Bowden against Essendon last season & the ridiculous number of rushed behinds that we saw in the GF. Defenders are now having to defend the opposition's scoring area instead of taking the easy way out. It is good for the game & for spectators of the game.

A rule that brings subjectivity to the scoring system cannot be good. It will only end in tears.

 

[Makka]

The result doesn't really matter for the game as it was a practice match. It was a good hit out for both teams. But this is an issue that MUST be resolved leading into the season proper. If it cost a team 4 points there'll be a lot of unhappy people!

 

[Makka]

why cant they just make the rule if you have clear possession of the ball and rush it behind its a free kick. hawthorn last year would grab the ball and pass it behind. that would be a free kick. if you punch it behind its just 1 point.

its as simple as that.

Makes sense to me!

 

[Brazen]

From looking at the below video the ump totally stuffed up.

http://media.theage.com.au/?rid=46590

Yep that definitely makes it a 100% stuff up by the ump... lots of people have been going on about it having to be in a marking contest which it might not necessarily have been... but thats not the requirment as stated in the video:

"For clarification:

- Players who are in a marking contest or in general play may punch or knock the ball away from their opponents to prevent them from gaining possession of the football or from scoring. This will not be deemed as deliberately rushed."

 

[Rob]

Having just seen the replay, it's borderline. Selwood knocked the ball away with both fists towards the goal, there was no doubt he was trying to get the ball through for a behind. The issue is whether he was trying to knock it away from his opponent - who was pretty close to him, but not attempting the mark it as he was out of position.

And the rule still sucks balls.

 

[Crimson King]

^Adding to that, it looked like there was another Freo and Eagle's player arriving from the side about the crash the pack, there is no doubt he was trying to rush a behind but I would say it was a contest and apparently in that situation you are allowed to rush a behind.

 

[Brazen]

^Adding to that, it looked like there was another Freo and Eagle's player arriving from the side about the crash the pack, there is no doubt he was trying to rush a behind but I would say it was a contest and apparently in that situation you are allowed to rush a behind.

Yep thats the point - doesnt matter that he meant to do it - in that situation (as per my quote a few posts up) you are allowed to deliberately knock it through.

And lol at the freo guys that were saying he was 5 metres in the clear... just watched replay and when he hits it theres actually a docker with his arm resting against his side

 

[Quinz]

Yeah just saw it, a pretty shocking decision. Still, we shouldn't have lost from 5 goals up anyway.

It's just a NAB Challenge match, but the AFL need to have a look at it and make sure they get it right if they want to implement it into the real season.

 

[ImperialPurple]

And lol at the freo guys that were saying he was 5 metres in the clear... just watched replay and when he hits it theres actually a docker with his arm resting against his side

I'd say that description is closer to the truth than yours....

Was at the game too... and yep a bizarre decision... 3 or 4 of them running back to goalsquare with flight of Palmers goal attempt, jostling etc towards fall of the ball and it was like a fist thrown up to ensure it wasnt a goal - ie get a touch on it - and it sailed off his fist through the goals - while he was looking up at the ball away from the goals... shocker for sure from the ump

So let's just say - oh LOL at Brazen saying "3 or 4 of them running back to goalsquare with flight of Palmers goal attempt, jostling etc towards fall of the ball and it was like a fist thrown up to ensure it wasnt a goal - ie get a touch on it - and it sailed off his fist through the goals"

 

[raff23]

The rule is actually quite good. In a matter of weeks it has removed from the game the farce that we saw from Joel Bowden against Essendon last season & the ridiculous number of rushed behinds that we saw in the GF. Defenders are now having to defend the opposition's scoring area instead of taking the easy way out. It is good for the game & for spectators of the game.

You work for the AFL do you? what this idiotic rule has done is removed the right of the defender to be allowed to stop the goal being scored and set up the play from the kick in. A complete overreaction to what happened in the grand final. instead now we have the defenders basically acting like goal keepers now to avoid getting penalised they are rewarding lucky football instead of smart football.

 

[Makka]

Having just seen the replay, it's borderline. Selwood knocked the ball away with both fists towards the goal, there was no doubt he was trying to get the ball through for a behind. The issue is whether he was trying to knock it away from his opponent - who was pretty close to him, but not attempting the mark it as he was out of position.

And the rule still sucks balls.

Judging by the AFL's own video regarding this rule then to me it shouldn't of been penalised. They need to clear this up ASAP before the season proper starts.

 

[greenred]

Judging by the AFL's own video regarding this rule then to me it shouldn't of been penalised. They need to clear this up ASAP before the season proper starts.

Are you referring to the Petrie example? If so, it was an entirely different situation. Petrie was running with the flight of the ball, Selwood was facing the ball. Petrie had two choices - knock the ball through for a point, or knock it over the boundary. Selwood had numerous options, and while none are ideal, if the AFL want to prevent rushed behinds, they need to determine what constitutes a reasonable option. Selwood could have attempted to mark the ball, he could have knocked the ball forwards, where he had two teammates approaching, or he could have knocked the ball sideways.

Regardless of whether it should or should not have been a free under the rule, the rule needs to be scrapped. How the AFL and it's rules committee were unable to forsee the issues that would arise is very worrying.

 

[Skystyler]

its not worrying yet. It will be worrying if they now go ahead with it after this farce, introducing another rule that involves umpires using mind reading powers.
I hate the way skillful, agile players have to pretend they've fumbled the ball over the line, or suddenly have the turning circle of a Ford Territory, to avoid being penalised. Its a joke.

 

[polly63]

Probably the BEST rule change since the 'drag it in' free kick. Rushed behinds is/was easily the biggest blight on the game since the Swans(?) rugby pack/stack. Thank you AFL and coaches, thank you.

 

[Murph_S13]

I think the rule has been a startling success. Mistakes by umpires happen umpteen times a game now. These mistakes are nothing new.

The argument that a poor decision on this rule could lose a grand final is fair enough. But the same umpire could pay a 50-metre penalty for a soft infringement and put the player in the goal square. So where's the difference?

It has been a breath of fresh air to see the creativity of defenders working the ball out of their defensive 50. So much more attractive than the pathetic rushed behind.

It must also be remembered that rushed behinds were in vogue as a means to exploit the changes to kickout rules. Kicking out before the goalie has waved the flags enables teams to set up so-called 'coast-to-caost' goals— hence the attraction of the rushed behind.

Poor PR by the AFL (Adrian Anderson) in not releasing the video explanations when the trial was announced. Has made it hard for fans and media. I understand (from a very good source) that clubs saw the video for this rule before the nab cup began.

 

[Makka]

Has anyone heard anything from the AFL regarding this issue yet? I thought they were looking into it today. Curious to see where the rule stands in this circumstance.

 

[Brazen]

I think the rule has been a startling success. Mistakes by umpires happen umpteen times a game now. These mistakes are nothing new.

The argument that a poor decision on this rule could lose a grand final is fair enough. But the same umpire could pay a 50-metre penalty for a soft infringement and put the player in the goal square. So where's the difference?

It has been a breath of fresh air to see the creativity of defenders working the ball out of their defensive 50. So much more attractive than the pathetic rushed behind.

Great post... while I am critical of this umpires decision - I like the rule and just hope this error highlights the need for consistent and more clearly defined interpretation. I think the rule has really livened things up in and around goals, and provides greater incentive to forward to pile on the pressure without fearing they will be left out of position for a quick kick in when the defender steps over the line. Thats all that is really needed to my mind - is application of the way its interpreted in the video - all you want penalised is the really obvious step across the line while in posession that lets them quickly kick it back in.

 

[Brazen]

Has anyone heard anything from the AFL regarding this issue yet? I thought they were looking into it today. Curious to see where the rule stands in this circumstance.

Was an article in West over here today saying Geishen had said it was incorrect decision and that no form of spoiling will be penalised.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

When I suggested last year that this might happen I was shot down as a Hawks fan defending their GF tactics.

This is bigger than who we support, they are trying to introduce a rule which is heavily based on the umpires interpretation right in front of goal.

We all know how unpopular and controversial nearly every deliberate out of bounds is, now they are trying to move this to the goal square.

Clubs are going to lose games because of this rule and shit is going to hit the fan. Just go back to waiting for the umps to wave their flag, taking away the advantage, and the game will evolve to sort it. Like flooding.

This makes me so bloody angry.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

its not worrying yet. It will be worrying if they now go ahead with it after this farce, introducing another rule that involves umpires using mind reading powers.
I hate the way skillful, agile players have to pretend they've fumbled the ball over the line, or suddenly have the turning circle of a Ford Territory, to avoid being penalised. Its a joke.

Spot on. That's what it will come to, acting skills.

That's what happens on the boundary line and it will move to the goal line.

 

[Matt Murder]

I think diving and staging for free kicks is more of a blight on the game.

 

[Murph_S13]

...they are trying to introduce a rule which is heavily based on the umpires interpretation right in front of goal.

Huh? Aren't ALL contests in and around the goals in exactly the same situation? A full-back touches the full-forward's back in a contest in the goal square, the umpire pays a free kick right in front of goal. . . Where's the difference?

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Huh? Aren't ALL contests in and around the goals in exactly the same situation? A full-back touches the full-forward's back in a contest in the goal square, the umpire pays a free kick right in front of goal. . . Where's the difference?

These decision are not so heavily based on the umpires interpretation..

I'll try and be clearer...

How often are the deliberate out-of-bounds decisions black and white? It is the most inconsistently interpreted rule in the game.

However, luckily they rarely cost a team a game, besides, the umpires hardly ever pay them in the forward 50.

My point is that this decision has now been moved to a scoring area, meaning that every time one is paid, the attacking team gets a shot on goal.
For such a large punishment to be decided on such a subjective basis, it is a disaster waiting to happen.

I saw many examples tonight of a defender 'fumbling' the ball over the boundary line in the forward 50 (as they always do) and not being punished, whereas if they had done it 5 metres further along, on the goal line, it would of cost their team a goal.

****ing defies logic this bloody rule.

 

[Murph_S13]

I can understand your confusion Chunky. You've clearly missed catching up on the interpretations being used by the multi-coloured adjudicators (men in white was soooo much easier!).

... every time one is paid, the attacking team gets a shot on goal.

Over the pre-season competition, how many deliberate rushed behind free kicks have been awarded? Is it a couple?

... I saw many examples tonight of a defender 'fumbling' the ball over the boundary line in the forward 50 (as they always do) and not being punished, whereas if they had done it 5 metres further along, on the goal line, it would of cost their team a goal.

Did you check out the video explanations of what would be considered a deliberate rushed behind? (here) Seriously, if you're not doing a Bowden or a Guerra, you're pretty much safe. The McMahon decision was a shocker, but the umps will learn from that — AND they'll always make some mistakes as they are (allegedly) human.

So stop working yourself into a lather about nothing.