New free kick tough on defenders

[Nthblood]

New free kick tough on defenders

Sydney Swans defender Ted Richards says the free kick for rushed behinds will lead to more risk taking

The AFL have been trying for years, actually since 2005, to stop defensive football, first it was you could not sweep the hands during the marking contest, then the hands in the back, now this with rushed behinds. I can see this being a real pain in the arse for everybody depending on the way it is governed. Remember what it was like when they brought in the hands in the back rule in marking contest. Why in hell do they keep on mucking around with the rules. As the old saying goes " If It ani't broke don't touch it ", or KISS, " Keep it simple stupid ".

[peterh_oz]

It will lead to more controversy and inconsistancy. The deliberate out is alreasy contentious, this will be worse. I still think it should be a "definite" rule, not a "umpire's discretion" rule. Carry (2 paces or more), untouched handpass or kick over the line is a free, always. No discretion. Touched over the line in any form is NO free. Will see how it pans out. Tho I'd prefer a 1 point followed by a ballup 25m out.

[Nico]

Ted must be learning some new skills there. Picture shows him kicking with his left foot. Not very often that he goes on to the left.

[573v30]

I think the AFL want the bookies to be right regarding where the Swans will end up on the ladder.

[Nthblood]

After watching the weagles and colleewobbles match last night, if that's the way the umpires interpret the rule, we may have winner. But knowing human nature, the umpires will @@@@ it, like they have with every other rule change or interpretation.

[Cheer Squad mbr]

Rather than awarding a free kick, why not just make the rushed behind worth 2 or 3 points instead?
I think that would make it a fairer deterrent.

[Xie Shan]

Here's a thought, why not wait until the umpire's finished waving his flag before re-starting play with the kick-in? Sound familiar?

The reason we've seen more rushed behinds in the first place (and I'm yet to be convinced why this is such a huge problem) is because of the quick kick-in rule!

If the free kick had been in place in 2005, instead of celebrating Leo's mark in the pocket we would have been cursing Tadhg for rushing a behind and giving away a free kick

Leave the game alone.

[liz]

If the free kick had been in place in 2005, instead of celebrating Leo's mark in the pocket we would have been cursing Tadhg for rushing a behind and giving away a free kick

Leave the game alone.

It would be nice if the AFL came out with examples of what would be deemed a deliberate rushed behind and what is just defending under pressure. I think that example of the Kennelly free you've described is a perfect example of one that will fall in the grey area, with some umpires deciding he was not in control of the ball and his primary aim was to deflect it from the path of an oncoming Eagle, while others will deem it a deliberate rushed behind.

It truly is a hasty over-reaction to something which has barely ever been talked about as a blight on the game. It was only really the Bowden action at the end of the Essendon Tigers game last year that raised discussion on it. And while the Dorks rushed quite a few in the GF, it didn't really detract from the game, and could be put down to the clumsy way the Cats were bringing the ball into their forward line in the second half.

I don't have too much of an issue with them trialling something new in the Mickey Mouse Cup, but talk that they might then bring it into the season proper without due consideration of how it will effect the game is bordering on lunacy.

[Xie Shan]

I think that example of the Kennelly free you've described is a perfect example of one that will fall in the grey area, with some umpires deciding he was not in control of the ball and his primary aim was to deflect it from the path of an oncoming Eagle, while others will deem it a deliberate rushed behind.

Well in that case it was a foot race and he actually grabbed the ball first and took it over the line...that's about as deliberate as you get, even though he was under pressure, it does remove the question of whether he had control of the ball. But if that's the kind of thing the AFL is trying to get rid of then I'd be flabbergasted. And I agree, it is a massive over-reaction to something that basically happened in one tight game.

[dread and might]

Here's a thought, why not wait until the umpire's finished waving his flag before re-starting play with the kick-in? Sound familiar?

The reason we've seen more rushed behinds in the first place (and I'm yet to be convinced why this is such a huge problem) is because of the quick kick-in rule!



Leave the game alone.

Very good point. I am in the leave it alone camp

[pinkemu]

Rather than awarding a free kick, why not just make the rushed behind worth 2 or 3 points instead?
I think that would make it a fairer deterrent.

Spot on.

As for hands in the back, I am a supporter of the new rules. The only problem I have with the umpiring of that rule is that forwards seem to get away with in the back (more often than a defender) when playing behind a defender. If that makes sense.

[j s]

It will lead to more controversy and inconsistancy. The deliberate out is alreasy contentious, this will be worse. I still think it should be a "definite" rule, not a "umpire's discretion" rule. Carry (2 paces or more), untouched handpass or kick over the line is a free, always. No discretion. Touched over the line in any form is NO free. Will see how it pans out. Tho I'd prefer a 1 point followed by a ballup 25m out.

Absolutely Peter!! Especially the ballup rather than a free.

Though I'd add one extra condition - consecutive behinds without the attacking team making contact with the ball to cover the situation of orchestrated "fumbling" of the ball over the line and other loopholes where your criteria wouldn't apply. (for example: kick to self, handball to team mate near the behind post who single steps over the line or "fumbles" the catch - none of your criteria would be breached)

[Doctor J.]

Agree with a previous poster. The origins of this rule flow directly from a recent rule change.

When the AFL introduced the quick kick in after a behind rule, they inadvertently provided defenders with an easy out.

Think about it. You've got two forwards bearing down on you, so what do you do to relieve the pressure? Run the ball through for a point. With the quick kick in rule in place you are now free to run the ball 10 metres and kick it to a team mate further up the ground. All this with the benefit of having maybe 1, 2 or possibly 3 opposition forwards out of position, unable to tackle you and unable to get back quick enough to cover the zones. If implemented correctly it can be a very effective set play to move the ball from deep in defence to your forward line.

Simple answer to it. A quick kick in is not allowed for rushed behinds. Do this and you remove any advantage a defending team gets by rushing a behind.

[Dalai Lama]

answer

simply to kick the ball forward through the goals is the best offensive move?

[BeeEmmAre]

Agree with a previous poster. The origins of this rule flow directly from a recent rule change.

When the AFL introduced the quick kick in after a behind rule, they inadvertently provided defenders with an easy out.

Think about it. You've got two forwards bearing down on you, so what do you do to relieve the pressure? Run the ball through for a point. With the quick kick in rule in place you are now free to run the ball 10 metres and kick it to a team mate further up the ground. All this with the benefit of having maybe 1, 2 or possibly 3 opposition forwards out of position, unable to tackle you and unable to get back quick enough to cover the zones. If implemented correctly it can be a very effective set play to move the ball from deep in defence to your forward line.

Simple answer to it. A quick kick in is not allowed for rushed behinds. Do this and you remove any advantage a defending team gets by rushing a behind.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Well done Dr.