Over the festive season, I've been watching some games from 2008 as they’re being replayed on FoxSports (one must have one’s fix...).
I’ve noticed that deliberately rushed behinds were considerably more prominent than I had remembered. Not the blight taken to hideous extreme by Joel Bowden and Brent Guerra, but defenders punching the ball across the goal line as a defensive relief valve.
I remind readers that the AFL is determined to introduce a trial rule penalising deliberately rushed behinds as part of the pre-season competition, with a possibility for implementation in the season proper.
The AFL website includes the following: “Examples of what constitutes a deliberate rushed behind will be included on the Laws of the Game DVD to be released by the AFL umpiring department early in 2009.” (see full article here) [Note: the DVD referred to is available to anyone. Simply contact the AFL and request one.]
My initial preference had been to penalise only the Bowden Manoeuvre, but in watching a good number of games from the 2008 season, I am convinced that the action proposed will improve our game. It’s not often I hand out bouquets to the AFL, so mark this one down in your diaries!
Saturday, January 03, 2009
Rushed behinds
Labels:
Rules,
Rushed behinds
Over the festive season, I've been watching some games from 2008 as they’re being replayed on FoxSports (one must have one’s fix...).I’ve noticed that deliberately rushed behinds were considerably more prominent than I had remembered. Not the blight taken to hideous extreme by Joel Bowden and Brent Guerra, but defenders punching the ball across the goal line as a defensive relief valve.
I remind readers that the AFL is determined to introduce a trial rule penalising deliberately rushed behinds as part of the pre-season competition, with a possibility for implementation in the season proper.
The AFL website includes the following: “Examples of what constitutes a deliberate rushed behind will be included on the Laws of the Game DVD to be released by the AFL umpiring department early in 2009.” (see full article here) [Note: the DVD referred to is available to anyone. Simply contact the AFL and request one.]
My initial preference had been to penalise only the Bowden Manoeuvre, but in watching a good number of games from the 2008 season, I am convinced that the action proposed will improve our game. It’s not often I hand out bouquets to the AFL, so mark this one down in your diaries!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I can't help but feel we are making this game excessively difficult for defenders.
You know from the comments on our article a while back that I think we should just be removing the Bowden example.
I'm amazed that someone hadn't done what he started earlier.
I agree that the rule change will make the game more exciting/better to watch, however I don't think the change is necessary.
Good to see some new articles, I'm struggling atm (recovering from Christmas and New Years)!
Yes James, it IS a struggle to find interesting topics in the hiatus between seasons. Inspiration will come from some unexpected source!
I think it would be quite difficult to craft a rule that successfully differentiated between the Bowden Manoeuvre and a 'conventional' rushed behind. It goes to the issue of intent — Bowden was simply wasting time to deny the Bombers an opportunity to score to win the game; Guerra used the same tactic to give his teammates extra time to make position to effect a better running result as a springboard to attack; defenders punching or kicking the ball through under duress, preferring a one-point result to a potential goal. How would umpires determine the specific intent? Look at the success of the (always variable!) deliberate out-of-bounds interpretation...
Are we making the game harder for defenders with this change? I don't think unduly so. Not as much as, say, the arm chopping interpretation which flagrantly disadvantages defenders by penalising incidental contact.
I suppose we’ll have to wait and see how the rule is interpreted in the early games to make a definitive call on its effect. Gieschen’s record would suggest it will initially be interpreted extremely harshly and later be softened a little (another topic waiting for exposition!)
I think there's a strong case for removing only the Bowden Manoeuvre, but framing a rule for such specific scenarios would be very difficult.
I'd just say rushing a behind when in the process of a kick in. I dunno if that would work but its what i'd do.
Hey for totally something different, lets leave the game as it is....
I agree with James that if we change the rules too much, how would like to be a defender? You cannot touch their shoulder, arm or back. How do you spoil? Now you cannot even rush a behind if your under pressure.
I was brought up the old way. You punch the ball, their hand and then if you cannot reach those, you punch their head :P
@ Kick2Kick: Yeah, we always remember things being 'better', 'simpler' and so on in our past, Jermayn.
Look back at a game from the '80s and tell me the 2008 version isn't better.
Back in the 'good old days', forwards were disadvantaged, with defenders able to put them in a full-nelson with little danger of a free kick.
Perhaps the pendulum has swung back too much in favour of forwards (as pendulums tend to do), although it's mostly zero-tolerance interpretations that have caused the issues you're railing against.
I have to say I've always thought rushing behinds was against the (idealised) spirit of the game. I doubt it's ever been played in that idealised spirit, but that's my Quixotic nature coming out.
@Murph - It did not stop the key forwards kicking well over 100 goals in a season? Sometimes we had around 3 or 4 full forwards who could do this. Names like:
- Dunstall
- Ablett
- Lockett
- Sumich
I do agree that some rules needed to be changed but yes we have moved the pendulum to far.
Post a Comment