Rushed Behind Rule

[LostDoggy]

I think that the Nab cup has proven that the rule is a farse and that it has been well documented that penalty isn't worth the crime Dunstall threw up an idea at a defender can rush one behind however if the team rushes a behind again without the opposition team touching it then the free kick is payable.

It got me thinking and I had this idea. If a team rushes a behind then the point counts and then insted of a kick in then the ball is taken to the penalty spot that is on every AFL ground for the interchange infringement for a bounce or throw up. This way it doesn't reward the defence for taking the easy option but doesn't crucify them at the same time.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Don't change the rules, simple.

Never known a sport to tinker so much with the rules of the game.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

I think that they shouldn't mess with the rules it either but unfourtunatly I think they will. There would have to be a better option than the one currently in place at the moment all be it a trial.

[Happy Days]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

They're making a mountain out of a molehill really.

Leave the rule alone.

If theiy're having doubts, think about it, then leave the rule alone.

If they're really unsure about it, ask someone, and then leave it alone.

[Bornadog]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Tell me one reason why a rushed behind is a problem. So the Hawks rushed through 11 rushed behinds in the Grand Final, big deal, its all part of the game.

Simple fix, the ball can't be kicked back into play until the goal umpire has waved the flags............ now where have I seen that before???? Oh thats right, the previous 100 years of playing football.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Serious question.

Has the AFL ever admitted they got a rule change wrong and changed it back? Ever?

[LostDoggy]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Isn't called Aussie rules for nothing.
The rule is they need new rules to fix the old rules.

[ledge]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Change it to Demetriou rules.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Serious question.

Has the AFL ever admitted they got a rule change wrong and changed it back? Ever?

Post-it slips for the inter-change rule?

I don't think I've seen one paid, although a few pretty dubious ones got ignored in our game v Essendon.

[SonofScray]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

They're making a mountain out of a molehill really.

Leave the rule alone.

If theiy're having doubts, think about it, then leave the rule alone.

If they're really unsure about it, ask someone, and then leave it alone.

Exactly.

Why are they so hellbent on changing the game? The adminstrators have got themselves caught in the reactionary process of trying to manufacture a style of fotball through rule changes, failing, and adding new rules to undo the previous ones. It is like there is an obligation to keep tinkering with it.

Let the coaches and players dictate how the game is played, i.e: leave the rules alone.

If they have to stuff around with rules, at least stick to the stuff that isn't actually the game itself, for instance: Interchange v substitution v Ltd interchange etc. Leave the scoring, skills and tactics alone.

[Missing Dog]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Tell me one reason why a rushed behind is a problem. So the Hawks rushed through 11 rushed behinds in the Grand Final, big deal, its all part of the game.

Simple fix, the ball can't be kicked back into play until the goal umpire has waved the flags............ now where have I seen that before???? Oh thats right, the previous 100 years of playing football.

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

I'm not really a big fan seeing the kicker's kick it to themselves, then just walk it over the line. I think this is sort of what there going on about. So why don't they just make a rule that whoever kicks in must pass it off to another player. So if the kicker rushes a behind without passing it off, then he is penalized.

Obviously this wouldn't eliminate it completely which i actually think is good. But it would at least stop guys like Bowden and a few Hawthorn players from rushing behind after behind.

Rush behinds were never a problem before the kickers started to do it. Now why do we need to eliminate it completely? Can't we just use a rule like this instead of removing it all together?

[Topdog]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

It shouldn't worry the AFL, all the opposition had to do was give away a 50m penalty and then he couldn't rush the behind, also stops the clock if I'm not mistaken.

[Bornadog]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

I'm not really a big fan seeing the kicker's kick it to themselves, then just walk it over the line. I think this is sort of what there going on about. So why don't they just make a rule that whoever kicks in must pass it off to another player. So if the kicker rushes a behind without passing it off, then he is penalized.

Obviously this wouldn't eliminate it completely which i actually think is good. But it would at least stop guys like Bowden and a few Hawthorn players from rushing behind after behind.

Rush behinds were never a problem before the kickers started to do it. Now why do we need to eliminate it completely? Can't we just use a rule like this instead of removing it all together?

Sorry, still can't see why we need a rushed behind rule. The current rule has been good enough for more than 100 years, then we have a knee jerk reaction to a couple of players rushing through a whole lot of behinds.

[westdog54]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

Thats one reason. But it was more when Bowden rushed through about 6/7 behinds to stop the opposition from winning the game. Then in the under 18's they did the same thing.

I'm not really a big fan seeing the kicker's kick it to themselves, then just walk it over the line. I think this is sort of what there going on about. So why don't they just make a rule that whoever kicks in must pass it off to another player. So if the kicker rushes a behind without passing it off, then he is penalized.

Obviously this wouldn't eliminate it completely which i actually think is good. But it would at least stop guys like Bowden and a few Hawthorn players from rushing behind after behind.

Rush behinds were never a problem before the kickers started to do it. Now why do we need to eliminate it completely? Can't we just use a rule like this instead of removing it all together?

The Bowden incident happened because the Essendon forwards were too dump to think on their feet and adapt. The second I saw that footage I thought 'if they give away a 50 it'll drag him down the ground'.

As for Hawthorn in the Grand final, I think we're entitled to ask how the Geelong forward line allowed the Hawks defence to rush so many behinds. Where was their forward pressure? Why weren't they more efficient in their forward line? And would we even be having this discussion if the Cats had've won by 10 points?

Griffen#16 made mention of a couple of dubious ones we gave away in our game. If memory serves me correctly, didn't we lose by a solitary point?

Lets look at the facts here:

Fact #1: This was a staggering over-reaction to a minor problem brought about by semi-questionable tactics combined with an opponent's inability to adapt to them.

Fact #2: The AFL was almost comically vague about how this new rule would be enforced, so that when, as G16 said, some questionable decisions were ruled on, no-one had the foggiest idea what the f^(& was going on.

Fact #3: The AFL's track record of drastic and unnecessary rule changes has gone on long enough, and its time for the game's powerbrokers to sit down with the AFL commission and make them look at what they've subjected the game to in the last couple of years

[hujsh]

Re: Rushed Behind Rule

The Bowden incident happened because the Essendon forwards were too dump to think on their feet and adapt. The second I saw that footage I thought 'if they give away a 50 it'll drag him down the ground'.

Wouldn't he just take his kick back on the goal line anyway if he was so content to rush it.