Two games this year could well change the rule from rushed behinds being one point to three points or other methods of getting rid of this ‘problem’ of our game.
I personally do not see a problem in it as I think it is a great part of our game and ALL the rule changes are going in favour of the forwards (no hands in the back rule etc) so why cannot we give the defenders a break?
The two games explained
- The first game was back in July which saw Joel Bowden rush a few points in a row in the last two minutes to see the Tigers win by four points.
- The second game was the Hawthorn Hawks rushing 11 points which saw Geelong loose the un-loosable game and the Hawks win the Grand Final for 2008.
The outrage from Joel Bowdens actions will only be louder when the Grand Final parades etc are finished by everyone (like us) discussing Hawthorns tactics. Clarkson himself, is in favour of the rule change which might be seen as hypocritical (I do) but again I think its all an over reaction like the interchange fiasco this year.
The Possible Rule changes
These possibilities came from the DieHardFooty blog, read for more input etc
- Deliberate rushing of a behind to result in a point, and then a bounce at the top of the goal square rather than a kick in.
- A free kick to the opposing team at a ‘hot spot’ 25m from goal after every rushed behind.
- 3 points for a rushed behind like the NAB Cup.
- or even more confusing ideas like: having to clear a 45m imaginary line, to different scores depending on whether the ball clears the forward 50m arc.
Seriously why do we have to continually change rules that do not need to be changed? The problem with all these possibilities is that it just confuses the game. What consists of a rushed behind from a spoil at a marking contest on the goal line? It just brings in more gray areas which confuses the umpires which angers the fans.
So what do you think? Do we now need to change this rule seeing a Grand Final has now been decided by a team rushing behinds?
Loading ...
September 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
The confusion that can come from determining what is a ‘rushed behind’ is exactly the reason it shouldn’t be brought in.
Take a look at the grey line with deliberate out of bounds and the confusion and even anger these decisions can cause.
This is another knee jerk reaction … if the Hawks had only won by 8 points, would we still be saying that rushing 11 behinds was the reason they won?
Die Hard Footys last blog post..Ryan O’Keefe Wants Out of Sydney
[Reply to Comment]
September 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
No. Just leave it alone.
Hawthorn ran an incredible risk on the weekend – effectively giving away 2 goals. If they’d lost the game by a few points, we’d all be talking about how silly they were to have rushed so many. And that’s the beauty of it – we’ve perhaps got the only game in the world where you choose to give your opposition points, for possession of the ball.
And as Die Hard says above, imagine how angry we’re going to be when the decision on just what’s deliberate goes against us in a close game.
Leave the game alone. I really like it.
[Reply to Comment]
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Totally agree that we need to leave this rule alone.
And you are right about the ambiguity of deciding what is deliberate or not. On the Grand Final Shane Crawford kicked the football 40+ meters along the boundary and was given a free kick against him. 30+ years ago you used to be able to kick the football out on the full and it’ll only be thrown in…
The umpires have a hard enough job as it is
Thanks for your comments and opinions Wounded Tiger and Die Hard.
Jermayns last blog post..Year of the Gentleman – Ne-Yo
[Reply to Comment]
October 9th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Sorry guys, I’m in vehement disagreement! BUT, it’s not the rushed behind that needs to be dealt with.
The Hawthorn tactic was NOT to waste time, which was the objective of the Bowden Manoeuvre. Hawthorn were looking to free up a target. It was Guerra’s aim to rush the behind to take away some pressure (even if only fleetingly in some Geelong minds) and then immediately kick in to a newly freed up target. Clever tactics.
IF we revert to the old rule, where the player licking in had to wait until the goalie had FINISHED waving the flag before kicking in, we remove the tactical advantage that the Hawks exploited.
The Bowden Manoeuvre was nothing less than wasting time, and should have been penalised in exactly the same way as:
• retarding a player after a mark; or
• kicking or punching the ball after it has gone over the boundary line. The appropriate penalty for wasting time, under the current rules, is a 50-metre penalty. The umpires either weren’t cluey enough to understand Bowden’s intention (unlikely) or not empowered to make that judgement call (highly likely under the Gieschen regime).
BTW, the deliberate out-of-bounds free against Crawford was a disgrace. Yet another example of the umpires either not understanding the game or not being empowered to make a commonsense call.
aussierulesblogs last blog post..Grand Final musings, 1A
[Reply to Comment]
October 10th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Problem with penalising Bowdens actions and not Guerra’s is the gray areas that it causes which ends up causing the frustration towards the umpires.
I personally did not see a problem with Bowdens or Guerra’s actions. You cannot change the rules reactionary continually to what happens in the game. Do you change the rules to stop evolving the game or do you change the rules to keep the game evolving?? Or do you just leave them??
Thanks for your comments and input aussierulesblogs
Jermayns last blog post..WotUSeek: The Adult Free Search Engine
[Reply to Comment]