Solution for Rushed behinds

[blue harvest]

There's currently a survey on the afl website to get input for this issue as well as all the other changes they are thinking about.

I have always thought that a deliberately rushed behind should be treated exactly the same as deliberate out of bounds - a free kick where it happens. Simple, consistent and effective.

I don't think time wasting is the issue though. Remember the clock stops as soon as the goal umpire signals a score and does not restart until the player kicks it in.

 

[The Hobo]

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

I like that one... for every 3 rushed behinds... but the only time I think should not be counted is if they go up for a marking contest (not a ruck contest) and the ball is punched through... THat imo is acceptable

 

[Alan Alda]

I like that one... for every 3 rushed behinds... but the only time I think should not be counted is if they go up for a marking contest (not a ruck contest) and the ball is punched through... THat imo is acceptable

Yes any genuine contest should not be penalised. A marking contest is a good example, as is the situation where the ball is bouncing slowly towards goal and the backman is sprinting back to try to touch it before it rolls through for a goal.

 

[LordLucifer]

I cannot believe the amount of tripe posted in this thread !!

We have psuedo-Einsteins coming up with distances & numbers of players etc and a variety of other things that are just way too hard to administer. The umpires cop a swag of crap over the mistakes they already make and if any of the ideas offered here were implemented, you'll see an immediate reduction in the number of people wanting to become umpires because they are on a hiding to nothing whichever way they went.

The AFL created this problem in their quest to speed the game up by allowing the player kicking-in to do it as soon as they wanted.

They do this to try and exploit a weakness in the zone defence and work the ball upfield.

By rushing the behind, it's virtually giving them a 'free kick' so the incentive is there to do it more often.

Simple solution, revert back to the old rule where the player kicking-in has to wait until the Goal Umpire waves the flags.

What this does is completely remove the incentive as their is no guarenteed possession on the kick-in.

The other good part of that is it might see the return of the Geoff Southby roosts to outside of the 50m line to a marking duel by multiple players.

Big kicks, more serious marking contests plus a level of uncertainty as to what is going to happen, makes for a much better spectacle overall.

Much better than the current situation we have of both teams basically doing circle work around the perimeter of the ground by kicking to the 'fatside'.

 

[rdhopkins2]

Vlad would like your opinion please:-
http://afl.com.au/*****/tabid/13376/Default.aspx
http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=69146

 

[DaVe86]

I think this current problem was caused by a prior rule change aimed at preventing flooding. The immediate kick in has really appealed to a defender under pressue. They now have a get out of jail free card with a very low penalty for doing it.


Changing the rules on a whim again would cause another problem.

However i do agree that it is a blight on the game. There is nothing more infuriating that watching a player run backwards and rush it through. We have always said "imagine this woudl happen in a GF". This year it did. It also happened in the Richmond v Essendon game. I am only highlight situations where the rule was abused.

A rushed behind occurs in every game.



If we do decide to change the rules, we need something unobtrusive.

I quite like the idea that the person who rushes the behind cannot take the kick in. May not prevent the rushed behind, but atleast it denies the team the opportunity to play on quickly whilst someone else has to come in to take the kick out.


This is still not ideal...but tampering too much is dangerous.

I'd hate to see the scoring tampered with because that means a stack of games would've had different results throughout history.

I'd hate to see the other team get the ball back from the middle because the whole context of the game is changed....as is a ballup inside 50. It is also contentious sometimes whether it was actually a rushed behind of simply accidental.

Simply ensuring the kickout is taken by someone other than the person who rushed it through sounds quite unobtrusive.

 

[DaVe86]

Vlad would like your opinion please:-
http://afl.com.au/*****/tabid/13376/Default.aspx
http://www.afl.com.au/News/NEWSARTICLE/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsId=69146

thanks for that.


It's great the AFL put's this out...but for the 2nd year in a row there has been no mention of the hands in the back rule. Surely this is the most contentious issue in our game after such a sudden stance on it. Supporter opinion must be necessary to examine this new rule.


Also, the questions are obviously aimed at getting a desired result. Plus there are a few no-brainers in there,

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Simple solution, revert back to the old rule where the player kicking-in has to wait until the Goal Umpire waves the flags.

Agree with this 100%. However it only combats the "quick play-on" motivation for rushing behinds.

It doesnt solve the other incentive which is the time wasting, running the clock down, motivation, which teams can do ad nauseum in junk time. To solve this, the solution is also simple. Do not restart the clock until the ball has crossed an arc drawn 20 metres from the end of the goal square, or touched another player, whichever comes first.

Neither rule change is invasive and neither requires umpires to make subjective decisions about what may or maynot be deliberate.

 

[NQ Hawk]

Like the idea of the player who rushed the behind not taking the kick

Make the player taking the kickout after a rushed behind kick it from behind the line not anywhere within the square.

 

[Butane]

Why do a lot of people want the rushed behind rule changed? In almost every sport there are rules that are meant to punish the team that can be abused. It many ways it adds to the sport not subtracts.

AFL: Team rushes a point to 'get out of trouble' and take the kick in.

Basketball: Teams tap hands/block deliberately to slow down the game and give the other team a free throw.

Waterpolo: Team throws the ball as far as they can but still in play to the other side of the pool to waste time while the other goes to get it.

NFL: Quarter back throws it straight out of bounds to stop the clock from counting down as opposed to trying to make a play and keep the ball in play.

Baseball: Pitcher deliberately throws 4 balls to make that batsmen walk to first to get another batsman in.(happened last night)

Cricket:(not a great example) Fieldsman may let the batsmen get a cheeky run to get the 'lesser' batsmen on strike.

Soccer: Defenders kicking the ball out to avoid trouble giving away corners and throws in.

Hockey: Same sort of thing as Soccer.

 

[Ant85]

Ok too much thought is going into a rule that is simple.

The whole idea of the rushed behind is to:

a) Give the defender a "last line of defence" escape route, whilst being penalised a point for his decision

b) Maintain the flow of the game with an instant kick-in to play.

The contentious part of this rule is a) being penalised a point.

The other intentions behind the rule are fine.

The defender ought to have a last minute resort, and the game needs to keep moving.

An idea? Throw it in at the 50m arc.

It's pretty much the same as a defender kicking in, without the one-point penalty, and gives the forwards a greater chance at another attack as opposed to the defending side gaining possession as the rule currently stands.

Voila, problem solved.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah it's not broken and if you do it too much you lose too many points.

If it needs to be changed keep it simple.
1. Wait for the Flags.
or
2. Make the kick out a compolsory 15m with ballup penalty.

No new decisions for the umpires to stuff up. ( Was that deliberate or not)?
Just because the forwards are putting on pressure does not mean they deserve to be given a goal.

 

[Margim]

Here's my proposal...

After a rushed behind has been scored, a rock-scissors-paper contest will be held between the two opposing captains. Play will be halted for both captains to make it down to the goal square at which the rushed behind took place.

The contest will be 'best out of three', with each subcontest being re-run if there is a draw (ie Rock-Rock).

If the defending side wins, they kick in as normal, although must wait for both captains to return to their original positions on the ground, at which point time will be restarted.

If the attacking side wins, they may take their free kick from the centre of the ground. The player who rushed the behind must run a quick lap around the ground, and will not be allowed to enter play until they have returned to their defensive goalpoasts.

OR

We could leave it pretty much as is, with a minor disincentive for rushing consecutive behinds (ie, if a player rushes behinds within a certain window, its a bounce at the top of the square).

 

[Axle17]

I think its best kept the way it is.
Only idea i have, if it were to be changed is:

Once the team rushes a behind, then one point is deducted from their tally, and awarded to the other team.

Would have made for one hell of a GF if that were the case