-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Rushed behinds.
- Thread starter Boogoos
- Start date
- Tagged users None
daniel_kosinski_15
Rookie
It did annoy me, I wanted to kill Guerra who did it about 6-7 times but in the end it made Geelong's score look even more pathetic
.
Thats why I laugh when they say they cost themselves by bad kicking. From the boot they actually kicked about 11.13 while it is still bad kicking nowhere near as bad as it looked and they were just beaten by a better team on the day.
.Thats why I laugh when they say they cost themselves by bad kicking. From the boot they actually kicked about 11.13 while it is still bad kicking nowhere near as bad as it looked and they were just beaten by a better team on the day.
I dont have a problem with it...it just helped the Hawks try and set up the play again when the Cats were closing things down around the ground.
- Mar 23, 2007
- 34,932
- 23,542
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man U, Canucks and 49ers
It was tactically brilliant, as it immediately opened up the other side of the ground and counter-acted the Cats' zoning defence.
However, I am not a fan of this, or the new in the back penalties in markign contests.
However, I am not a fan of this, or the new in the back penalties in markign contests.
how many rushed behinds was it exactly?
- Oct 13, 2006
- 2,776
- 2,332
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Man City
11
they actually kicked 11.12
rdhopkins2
Carpe Diem
Given we were a couple down from in the 2nd qtr any tactic that allowed us to keep possession of the ball was a good one. You use more energy chasing the opposition.
I thought it may have actually come back to bite them in a close finish . But it didn't .
What you couldn't say was how many goals it may have saved though . It was 'odd' but it worked I guess .
What you couldn't say was how many goals it may have saved though . It was 'odd' but it worked I guess .
I think it was around 12, many of which were just walked over the line after 30 seconds of standing their waiting for an uncontested pass.
Good on the Hawks for using the rules to their advantage. But clearly this can not be allowed to continue. It was excrutiating to watch, even when I was supporting the Hawks on the day. We need a rule change to make this 'easy out' less attractive.
Good on the Hawks for using the rules to their advantage. But clearly this can not be allowed to continue. It was excrutiating to watch, even when I was supporting the Hawks on the day. We need a rule change to make this 'easy out' less attractive.
- Banned
- #10
- Thread starter
- #11
Personally, I liked it since it made the game unique and different. But if a trend of this "safe point" stuff continues it could become tedious and boring. But quite clearly it worked and saved the Hawks many a time when Geelong had their fantastic zone happening. It also can be entertaining in my mind since when it happens usually the game is slow and stuck in the back pocket. At least when the rush does happen most of the time the ball is moved quickly on and is on the other side of the ground quite quickly.
- Thread starter
- #12
Joel Bowden did it twice in a game.... we are talking 10+ times
I thought it was a good tactic, though not without its risks as they conceded almost two goals by the end. That's why I don't think the AFL should try stuffing around with the rules to stop it. Like any tactic, it can have the potential to backfire.
Its a testament to the Geelong structure and pressure in our back 50 that we had to rush so many behinds. The tactic allowed us to reset our structure and even then, Geelong were difficult to create mismatches against.
