Suck it up Bombers

[hammo]

I don't think we'll see any rule changes and nor do I think we need any. Rushed behinds are a legitimate tactic when the defensive side is under immense pressure, so you'd need to ensure any rule changes don't impact on that scenario. For that reason I doubt the rule will be changed.

[NMWBloods]

I think the concern is not for normal rushed behinds but the situation where the player taking the kickout brings it back immediately for a rushed behind.

The Swans should have done that in the 2005 GF (and 3AW was calling for it) but if they did then we wouldn't have had the excitement of the final seconds.

[SimonH]

I find the whole thing quite strange.

I though the clock already wasn't meant to start until the game 'went live' (i.e. you kicked it or played on). And if so, there are 2 possibilities:
a) There is no-one from the attacking side to rush at you, so you can just stand there icing the clock until someone does. Just as LRT did against Carlton. That's hardly an 'awww-- how unfair' issue. That's an 'apply some goddamn pressure' issue.
b) There is someone from the attacking side to rush at you, in which case a whopping 2 or 3 seconds go off the clock before you rush the behind. So you might waste a whole 20 seconds if you give up 6 points. Doesn't seem so attractive to me (unless you know there are <20 seconds left in the match, in which case any half-competent footballer with the ball in his hands should be able to save the game).

Can all very simply be solved by an instruction to timekeepers to not restart the clock too early after behinds, I would have thought.

As an aside (because I was watching the last 20 seconds very closely!), I think that in the final bouncedown vs Carlton, the clock didn't start until the ball was travelling down from the apex and the rucks were going for it-- not when it left the umpire's hand for the bounce. So minimising dead time at stoppages is already policy, it seems.

[hammo]

I think the concern is not for normal rushed behinds but the situation where the player taking the kickout brings it back immediately for a rushed behind.

I'm probably referring mostly to the calls for 3 point behinds to be introduced. I think this was suggested by that clown Richard Hinds. As soon as you bring in umpire discretion as to what is a rushed behind, there will be all sorts of confusion and controversy.

[cruiser]

I think the concern is not for normal rushed behinds but the situation where the player taking the kickout brings it back immediately for a rushed behind.

The Swans should have done that in the 2005 GF (and 3AW was calling for it) but if they did then we wouldn't have had the excitement of the final seconds.

Surely a more logical and practical solution would be to force the player to kick the ball and not directly to himself, and bounce it up in the square for a breach.

[31 hard at it]

In wading through all the match stats in our hang on win against Caaarrton I nnoticed 2 rushed points in the swans score and none for Carlton.!!!

We won by 2 rushed behinds.

[NMWBloods]

Surely a more logical and practical solution would be to force the player to kick the ball and not directly to himself, and bounce it up in the square for a breach.

Forcing a player to kick the ball takes away the ability for a team to play on from the square and handball.

Bouncing the ball in the goal square is better for the defensive team.