Solution for Rushed behinds

[I Rock]

The simple solution is to leave the game alone to sort itself out, a lot like then flooding issue. Attacking football now wins games. However as the AFL appoint too many people and they all feel the need to over anaylise the game to justify their postions.

How does this sound, for each rushed behind scored in a row that is how many points the team receives. 1 rushed = 1 point 2nd rushed with no other score to that team in between points = 2 points total of 3 etc. Once team scores a goal or behind on their own, count resets back to 1.

 

[krisholio14]

Genuine shots at goal that end up as a behind, the full back can kick out without waiting for the flags to be waived.

If the umpire deems the ball to be deliberately rushed through, the player must wait for the flags to be waived.

Sorry for bringing common sense into this

if they rush it just make them wait for the flags to be waved till they can kick it in to get rid of the attacking option of the kick out.

Then you have to have umpires deciding when a player has deliberately rushed a point. They already have enough dramas deciding when a ball is deliberately put out of bounds.

Just go back to the way it was. You can't kick back in until the flags have been waved, on ALL kick ins. Problem solved.

 

[markjjj]

Ok, all this talk about rushed behinds, and everyone giving their opinions..i figured i'd give mine too .. I'd prefer that there was NO change. But if there MUST be a change (as the AFL has already made up it's mind it seems), then this is my suggestion:

All behinds rushed from less than 3m (or 5m... an arbitary length that is not too long) shall be given as 1 point to the opposition as per normal. No changes here.

Any behind rushed from outside of this 3m radius, is given as 3 points to the other team, and a ball up at the 50m arc. (or just a bounce at the 25m, PLUS the rushed point)

This means that if a player gets 'blocked in' to the goals, he has the option to run backwards into goal, but if his team is just struggling to get it out due to the pressure, he can't simply handball/kick it through from anywhere.


Now for the kick ins after a behind, the ball must pass a 25m distance from goal before being allowed to be rushed back, otherwise it is a free kick from 25m out directly infront... PLUS the bhind that was rushed. The way I see it, if you got a kick in the goal square, you have time... if you waste that time, and can't make a decision (either due to great defensive pressure or just stupidity), then you deserve to be penalised

This stops Joel Bowden like situations re-occuring.

It's not perfect, a little tweaking might help...it does make things more complicated, but I think it's more fair than other suggestions.

Have you ever heard of the K.I.S.S. principle?
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

The player who rushes the behind, CANNOT bring it back in...SIMPLE!!!!

There are so many morons on this site!

 

[lvt06]

Just a question.

If two players are running back for the ball and the opposition tap it back just before we get a boot on it for a goal. Will it still be a penalty? OR will that be ok?

 

[The Hobo]

In that case - your idea is stupid and would be hated by all and sundry. You leave it up to the umpires to determine
1: If a player is intentionally rushing a behind, or if the ball just happens to go out of play over the goal line
2: How far away from the goal line the player was, which in your rules determines how many points the opposition scores.

1) no.. it makes no difference if it was intentional or not.. the distance is the only criteria
2) yes... but everything in the game has got to do with distances.. and they are always determined by the umpire... 15m for marks, 10m for running, 50m penalty... if we can trust them for all of the above, why not this?

Nobody likes the umpires having to make decisions like that. Deliberate out of bounds is already a lottery. Aside from the frustration side of things, their 'decisions' directly impact on the score and hence the result of the game. Who the hell wants that?

Again, it's a simple distance decision.. nothin to do with intent.

Finally, who wants a stoppage and ball up at the 50m arc every rushed behind. *yawn*... If i wanted to see more stoppages i would watch Sydney vs St Kilda.

It would reduce the number of rushed behinds, which is an anti climax of sorts... team A streaming towards goal, putting immense pressure on team B, who takes the easy option and rushes a behind... It would reduce the rushed behinds, and so then would

Something doesnt have to be done. So Joel Bowden ate up the clock and the Hawks rushed 11 behinds in the grand final. That's two winning scenarios. Jake King also lost a game if memory serves thanks to an unnecessary rushed behind. There already IS a penalty. You get a free kick but you concede a point. It's really not that big of a deal either way.

Hows that?

I already said, i'd rather no change... but the AFL has stated that they will most likely make a change... so this was my suggestion... I think the current system is fine...

 

[The Hobo]

Most people have no problems with teams knocking the ball through when a player is under immediate pressure from their opposition but last year we saw teams blatantly use conceding a point as an attacking weapon - so I would say the penalty no long fits the "crime"

exactly... i feel that my suggestion covers both situations reasonably well, without an interpretation of intent by the umpire..

 

[The Hobo]

Get your hand off it. Any time a player rushes a behind, regardless of pressure, he is boo'd. What game have you been watching? And they give up a score. If you take the hawks / cats game, it means we conceded almost TWO GOALS. Does that not advantage the opponent?

so what if they get boo'd?? is it going to stop them doing it? of course not..
yes, you conceeded almost two goals from rushed behinds, but if you could not go that way, and had to take a risk to clear the ball instead, it could have resulted in some more goals for geelong.. even if they only capitalized on 25% of the time, that's still almost 4 goals they could have got.. i'm not saying that's the only game it happens, but it happens more and more these days.

You get the ball back but you still have to get it all the way up the ground and into your goals.

there's far more chance of going all the way up the ground when you have time to create an attack.. if the ball is loose and in play, players rush and have to make split second decisions...which can result in goals for opponents if you make one mistake... a kick in gives them far more time.. it's definately an advantage...

In the OP's scenario, imagine your player gets pinged for deliberately rushing a behind in questionable circumstances. He stumbles and it comes off his foot for example. The opposition get 3 points for starters, and then the ball is bounced at 50 metres, lands in someones lap and they snap a goal. You have now conceded 9 points as opposed to one. Does that punnishment fit the crime? Would you like to be on the receiving end of that, particularly if it was a bad interpretation by the umpires?

I don't think you've read my suggestion properly... There is NO interpretation.. if he tripped and fell and managed to kick the ball more than 5m, then yes he would get unfairly penalised.. but in all reality, how often is this going to happen... again, there is NO INTERPRETATION on the umpires part. It is simple distance... if the ball is rushed from over 3m/5m away, it is a bounce plus point.. less than that, one point, kick in as per usual.

 

[The Hobo]

How long has AFL been around for now?

Why change it now? Rules committee already stuffed up the Hand in the Back Rule.....

And now meddling with the Behind Rule!

I say Rushed behind should stay!

The hands in the back rule is terrible... AFL has been around for along time, but the game styles/plans will change, and I agree that occasionally changes are needed... I don't feel that this is a required change however.

 

[The Hobo]

Just a question.

If two players are running back for the ball and the opposition tap it back just before we get a boot on it for a goal. Will it still be a penalty? OR will that be ok?

if they tap it from 3m/5m within the goal, it would be ok... if they are further than that, it would result in a penalty.

 

[The Hobo]

if they rush it just make them wait for the flags to be waved till they can kick it in to get rid of the attacking option of the kick out.

you are still allowing them time to regain compsure...

Imagine your team putting IMMENSE pressure on the defenders, they have nowhere to go... so one just rushes a behind... sure, they have to wait.. but they got off easy..all the hard work of the forwards is not paid off..

it's an easy way out in alot of situations.. sure, it costs them 1 point..but it might save them 6..

 

[The Hobo]

Have you ever heard of the K.I.S.S. principle?
KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID.

The player who rushes the behind, CANNOT bring it back in...SIMPLE!!!!

There are so many morons on this site!

THe problem is not that the team rushes a behind and kicks it back in quickly to counter-attack... sure this is also a problem... but the bigger problem is that teams are using the rushed behind as an easy way out when there is too mcuh pressure on them..

It's the whole point of not being allowed to delibarately take the ball out of play... to not allow players to easily defuse a high pressure situation... this is the same thing, except it costs them one point...

It makes it too easy for the defender, and the forwards hard work goes to nothing.

 

[THRILLHOU]

so what if they get boo'd?? is it going to stop them doing it? of course not..
yes, you conceeded almost two goals from rushed behinds, but if you could not go that way, and had to take a risk to clear the ball instead, it could have resulted in some more goals for geelong.. even if they only capitalized on 25% of the time, that's still almost 4 goals they could have got.. i'm not saying that's the only game it happens, but it happens more and more these days.

Or, with the way Geelong were kicking that day they could have capitalized on none and we win by an extra couple of goals. Who knows. The point is, rushing behinds gifts the opposition a point.

I don't think you've read my suggestion properly... There is NO interpretation.. if he tripped and fell and managed to kick the ball more than 5m, then yes he would get unfairly penalised.. but in all reality, how often is this going to happen... again, there is NO INTERPRETATION on the umpires part. It is simple distance... if the ball is rushed from over 3m/5m away, it is a bounce plus point.. less than that, one point, kick in as per usual.

It's not always the case that they just do a joel bowden and walk it over the line. I dunno the exact classification but as far as I'm aware, a rushed behind is classified as anything that doesn't come off the foot of the attacking team. So what - if a ball is skidding along the floor and someone comes sliding across to get a hand on it, they should be penalised? Or are you saying it's only when someone deliberately carries it across the line, in which case, it is up to the umpires to determine what was deliberate or not - same as for deliberate out of bounds which already causes enough debate.

And finally - who decides if they are 3-5 meters away? The umpires constantly stuff up the 15 meters for regular kicks. And if they walk the ball over the line, how are they 3-5 meters away? So they can run and carry it over the line so long as they dont kick or handball it at a distance?

 

[pazza]

No need for rule changes, but, maybe a club will come up with a kickout strategy that is so foolproof that there be no need to rush a behind so much. Throw in further developments in small forwards and their defensive skills and then the problem will go away in a very big hurry.

Example of a simple kickout strategy - get a bloke who can kick 65-70metres on the fly and have him doing the kickouts.

 

[The Hobo]

Or, with the way Geelong were kicking that day they could have capitalized on none and we win by an extra couple of goals. Who knows. The point is, rushing behinds gifts the opposition a point.

quite possibly... but if geelong's defensive pressure was that good in the GF that they forced 11 rushed behinds, then they should at least be given a chance to score due to their hard work. If they miss, then it's their own problem.

It's not always the case that they just do a joel bowden and walk it over the line. I dunno the exact classification but as far as I'm aware, a rushed behind is classified as anything that doesn't come off the foot of the attacking team. So what - if a ball is skidding along the floor and someone comes sliding across to get a hand on it, they should be penalised? Or are you saying it's only when someone deliberately carries it across the line, in which case, it is up to the umpires to determine what was deliberate or not - same as for deliberate out of bounds which already causes enough debate.

why would that be penalised? Chances are if that happens they will be less than 3/5m away from the line, in which case it's not penalised.... again, there is NO decision for the umpire to make in regards to intent.. it doesn't matter if he turns around and kicks it 90 rows back, if he is less than3m from goal, it's one point. I don't know why you keep bringing umpires discretion into this...

And finally - who decides if they are 3-5 meters away? The umpires constantly stuff up the 15 meters for regular kicks. And if they walk the ball over the line, how are they 3-5 meters away? So they can run and carry it over the line so long as they dont kick or handball it at a distance?

So let's scrap the 15m rule..every kick is a mark.. sure, they muck up 15m distances sometimes, but we accept that..and the same way we'll accept this.

if they walk the ball over the line, they are less than 3/5m away, in which case it's one point... sure, if they can run to the goal and get within that distance and rush it, no penalty... but it stops people from just rushing behinds from 30m out etc.

 

[windyhill]

Next kick outside 50 is the best I`ve heard.

 

[Beau_Waters for PM]

Solution: a team who rushes a behind is not able to take the kick in until the goal umpires have waved their flags.

Everything else stays the same i.e. kickins from non-rushed behinds can be played on immediately.

Its so simple.

 

[sharpie]

Leave it as it is.

though that is unlikely.

Rushed behinds should only be penalised if the last possession came from a teammate. I.e if essendon are going into attack and lucas bombs it from 60m and guerra intercepts and rushes it through - then it should be 1 pt and a kick in to hawks.

however if lucas bombs it and guerra intercepts and handballs to birchall in the goal square and birchall rushes it through - should be a bounce 25m out.

But for god sakes - i hope they trial it in the pre-season before rushing it in

 

[THRILLHOU]

why would that be penalised? Chances are if that happens they will be less than 3/5m away from the line, in which case it's not penalised.... again, there is NO decision for the umpire to make in regards to intent.. it doesn't matter if he turns around and kicks it 90 rows back, if he is less than3m from goal, it's one point. I don't know why you keep bringing umpires discretion into this...

if they walk the ball over the line, they are less than 3/5m away, in which case it's one point... sure, if they can run to the goal and get within that distance and rush it, no penalty... but it stops people from just rushing behinds from 30m out etc.

So your solution does nothing to stop what Joel Bowden did. You can just walk the ball over the line constantly to eat up time. Wasn't that the point of a rule change?? To prevent rushed behinds being used as a tactic? Who the hell rushes a behind from 30 meters away?

And the umpires would have to determine if they were 3-5m away would they not? Therefore the umpires would be deciding if it was worth 1 point or 3 points. As if anyone wants that.

 

[The Hobo]

So your solution does nothing to stop what Joel Bowden did. You can just walk the ball over the line constantly to eat up time. Wasn't that the point of a rule change?? To prevent rushed behinds being used as a tactic? Who the hell rushes a behind from 30 meters away?

Ok, can you not read?

Now for the kick ins after a behind, the ball must pass a 25m distance from goal before being allowed to be rushed back, otherwise it is a free kick from 25m out directly infront... PLUS the bhind that was rushed. The way I see it, if you got a kick in the goal square, you have time... if you waste that time, and can't make a decision (either due to great defensive pressure or just stupidity), then you deserve to be penalised

This stops Joel Bowden like situations re-occuring.

And there have been many instances of rushed behinds from over 3m out..maybe not from 30m out, but from 5-10 quite often.

And the umpires would have to determine if they were 3-5m away would they not? Therefore the umpires would be deciding if it was worth 1 point or 3 points. As if anyone wants that.

Yes they would, and we trust them for 15m marks, 10m runs, 50m penalties... if it were that hard, we could always draw a second arc..but i would definately be against that.

 

[Alan Alda]

I have a radical idea - every time a team deliberately rushes a behind, the opposing team should be awarded one point.

Hang on...

So Hawthorn rushed 11 behinds in the grand final. So what? Geelong got an additional 11 points. Huge gamble by the Hawks gifting the best side of the last two years an extra 11 points in the grand final. Can you imagine the uproar among Hawks fans if they had've lost by less than 11 points?

As it was, on the day Hawthorn was 37 points better than Geelong, so the gamble paid off and they won by 26.

No rule change required. The penalty already exists and it is significant when it adds up.

 

[THRILLHOU]

Ok, can you not read?



And there have been many instances of rushed behinds from over 3m out..maybe not from 30m out, but from 5-10 quite often.

Yes they would, and we trust them for 15m marks, 10m runs, 50m penalties... if it were that hard, we could always draw a second arc..but i would definately be against that.

If your rule change requires 3 new rules, it should not be put into play. It's ridiculous. Ball comes off your foot, goal. Ball crosses the goal line any other way, behind.

If you find yourself in a situation where you need 3 points in two minutes, and the other team hold it up ala Joel Bowden - i guess you should have played better for the other 118 minutes.

The rule does not need changing... Or in your case, the rule does not need to be grossly over complicated

 

[Azzballz Deluxe]

I reckon if the ball is blatantly put over the line by the opposition, the point should still stand but a bounce (ball up) should be played at the top of the square. This way it would still be worth the rushed behind if you are desperate, but you risk a 7-point play so to speak.

 

[RuthlessRichmond]

Ok, here's how I see a possible solution.

Firstly, what's causing the deluge of rushed behinds (particularly from kick ins)?

The constant zoning / man on man tactics from sides definding the kick in. Therefore starving the team kicking in of options to kick to.

So what I propose is that when a behind is scored, each side must have 3 players inside the opposite 50m arc and 3 players on the far side of the centre square when the ball is to be kicked back in. The players are to be in these zoned areas when the goal umpire has finished waving their flags (to give them time to get back if they have to). They are allowed out of these zones when the ball is first touched after it has been kicked in or when the layer kicking the ball in has kicked it to himself.

If the side kicking in from the behind does not have 3 players in each zone when the goal umpire has finished waving his/her flags then a ball up will take place at the top of the 50m arc.

If the side defending the kick in does not have 3 players in each zone when the goal umpire has finished waving his/her flags then the side kicking in gets a 50m penalty.

This hopefully will create space for players to lead into to receive a kick in, in rugby league they have the 10m rule where the defending team must be 10m back from the tackled player to give the attacking team the space to actually attack.

Well our game has evolved to the point where we have 10-15 midfielders now and players playing in the traditional positions rarely occurs, how often at kick ins do you look at the other end of the field and there are 2 or 4 players, sometimes never any players there?

I know there will be people who don't like my solution, but think about it, the game has evolved, why should the rules not evolve with it, without of course taking anything away from the game.

 

[THRILLHOU]

Ok, here's how I see a possible solution.

Firstly, what's causing the deluge of rushed behinds (particularly from kick ins)?

The constant zoning / man on man tactics from sides definding the kick in. Therefore starving the team kicking in of options to kick to.

So what I propose is that when a behind is scored, each side must have 3 players inside the opposite 50m arc and 3 players on the far side of the centre square when the ball is to be kicked back in. The players are to be in these zoned areas when the goal umpire has finished waving their flags (to give them time to get back if they have to). They are allowed out of these zones when the ball is first touched after it has been kicked in or when the layer kicking the ball in has kicked it to himself.

If the side kicking in from the behind does not have 3 players in each zone when the goal umpire has finished waving his/her flags then a ball up will take place at the top of the 50m arc.

If the side defending the kick in does not have 3 players in each zone when the goal umpire has finished waving his/her flags then the side kicking in gets a 50m penalty.

This hopefully will create space for players to lead into to receive a kick in, in rugby league they have the 10m rule where the defending team must be 10m back from the tackled player to give the attacking team the space to actually attack.

Well our game has evolved to the point where we have 10-15 midfielders now and players playing in the traditional positions rarely occurs, how often at kick ins do you look at the other end of the field and there are 2 or 4 players, sometimes never any players there?

I know there will be people who don't like my solution, but think about it, the game has evolved, why should the rules not evolve with it, without of course taking anything away from the game.

Look at how complex everyone is making the rules! The umpire now has to count how many players are in each zone. If they have too many or not enough various things happen.

In your above scenario, the best solution would be to recruit a player who can play on from a kick in, take on his immediate defender and kick the ball to a teammates advantage outside 50. As sam newman said (one of the few good things he has said) - theres no such thing as a 50/50. The player kicking has the ability to put it to his teammates advantage. If your team is too shit to work it out from a kick in, that's your bad luck. The AFL shouldn't change the rules to accomodate.

People act as though a rushed behind is some kind of master tactic. It is fraught with danger. How many times do games boil down to one or two points. And honestly how often does the joel bowden scenario come up? It's not like players look to the line as their first option.

The average rushed behinds per game went from 2.0 in 2007 to 2.4 in 2008. Hardly worth writing home about! Everyone is up in arms over the grannie and Joel Bowden. Get over it!

 

[roylandroos]

my opinion is that after a 3 deliberate rushed behinds there should be a bounce 25m out from the goals.