A reasoned solution to the rushed behind controversy
Roar Rookie By Kristian Brudenell, 25 Jul 2008 Kristian Brudenell is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- AFL, Essendon, Essendon Bombers, Joel Bowden, media coverage, Richmond, Richmond Tigers
Related coverage
The last week we witnessed mass hysteria over the Richmond Football Clubs’ Joel Bowden and his deliberate rushed behinds in the dying moments of last week’s game against the Essendon Football Club.
An important moment of play ended in a no-contest and Richmond went on to win the game and the obligatory four premiership points. At least that’s what history will show us.
I am amazed that through the diversity of suggestions for rule changes I have been privy to this week; I have not heard my proposed suggestion offered.
The radio and other popular media coverage and discussion has been astounding. I would be very surprised if I was the first person to have thought of the idea, but like stated, I am yet to hear it from either a respected football commentator or the common passionate supporter. My dismay is even further exacerbated due to the solution being so close to home; a slight tweak of an existing rule and the problems is solved, ‘spirit of the game (keeping the game competitive)’ in tact.
Let me firstly state that I don’t necessarily agree that the rule needs changing, but if there were to be a change to ensure that both the ‘spirit of the game’ and behavior we uphold as ‘Australian’, remains, then I believe the following to be the solution.
At present a defending player kicking the football into the field of play from a defending goal square after a behind has been awarded, must ensure that the football is touched by at least one of the other 35 players on the field before it goes out of bounds. Otherwise the resultant penalty is a free kick to the opposition player closest to the position where the ball crosses the boundary line.
Why not simply extend the current existing rule, applicable only to the “boundary line” to incorporate a “dead ball” notion. This notion would cover both boundary and goal lines and would result in the defender having to dispose of the ball constructively or concede a free kick to the attacking team in the goal square as a penalty. The concept would also cover the scenario when players kick the ball to themselves and play on, as the requirement would still be for the ball to be touched by another player before it becomes a “dead ball” again.
The proposed rule change would have merit with even the most stubborn of ‘traditionalists’, as after all, its derivative rule, has long been accepted without any evident discontent. Ultimately fans are happy because they will not ever have to endure what they witnessed in the dying moments of last week’s game, and most importantly the overall impact on the game would be very minimal.
Now for the debate of whether the rule needs changing in the first place. Perhaps next time.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your AFL? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily AFL email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
The Crowd Says (5) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- AFL, Essendon, Essendon Bombers, Joel Bowden, media coverage, Richmond, Richmond Tigers
July 25th 2008 @ 1:46pm
Lazza said | July 25th 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
How about just getting rid of behinds? Won’t happen of course but, as others have pointed out, no other sport rewards you for missing?
The Lockett incident was the most ridiculous of all. Tony Lockett got the winning score in a Major Final and the crowd was silent because he missed? If that’s not ridiculous I don’t know what is?
The 30 second delay between scoring a goal and having it ‘confirmed’ by the umpires just kills the atmosphere as well. A Sydney journalist described it as watching 50k people with a constipated look on their face as they wait for confirmation.
Simple solution. As soon as a goal is scored the goal umpire should signal immediately, crowd goes nuts. After getting the all clear from the field umpires he waves the flags. If not, the goal is disallowed and the crowd goes nuts with indignation?
July 25th 2008 @ 3:02pm
sheek said | July 25th 2008 @ 3:02pm | Report comment
I guess behinds are actually part of the charm of the game, ensuring overlapping scores. Also, attacking teams do get some reward for their pressure on opponenets goal, even if its just a single point.
Otherwise, the scoring would look a little odd: 24-18, 60-48, 96-78, etc. On the other hand, you could have different values for different goals – one point for goal from goal square; 2/3 points for a goal from up to 50m out; 3/6 goals from a radius greater than 50m.
July 25th 2008 @ 3:42pm
Pippinu said | July 25th 2008 @ 3:42pm | Report comment
Kristian
When I started reading this, I feared another ridiculous suggestion – but in fact your argument is a good one and I agree that it is entirely within the spirit of the game, that is, the ball must be touched by another player before it goes out. However, be warned that that rule only applies when it is an actual kick out from within the goal square, if, for example, the player played on (with a little kick to himself), then the ball is allowed to go out without it being touched, and presumably that should mean that he would have every right to turn around and score an own-point (so to speak).
Another consideration, consistent with your general theme of remaining within the spirit of the game, is that if a player oversteps the goal square in kicking out, the ball is bounced at the top of the square. One could certainly extend that rule to someone walking outside the square in any direction (including through for a rushed point).
By the way, I’m not sure if I am confusing myself or I have misread your opening para, but Richmond went on to win the game, not Essendon.
Just a general comment – directed at follow up commentary – it seems that only Sydney people have trouble comprehending the idea of a minor score (7 metres either side of the big posts). It’s rarely a big deal; it is sometimes (like the Plugger example), but then if its earned you a spot in a grand final after the siren (especially when you were carring a bad hammy and weren’t expected to make the distance), you have every right to celebrate – football people know instinctively when something is worth cheering and when it isn’t . A bit like celebrating Aloisi’s penalty after the final whistle in 2005.
You might say: but he scored! And I’ll say: not in the field of play he didn’t!
But that’s better than drawing lots – that’s what happened sometime in the 50s to work out who qualified for the WC after two countries couldn’t be split, can’t remember who: someone like Norway and Turkey.
July 25th 2008 @ 5:51pm
Redb said | July 25th 2008 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
leave the rules as they are.
As an Essendon fan I hated what Bowden did becuase we lost the game, it was however within the rules. We had other chances to win this game and didn’t.
Redb
July 25th 2008 @ 10:55pm
Michael C said | July 25th 2008 @ 10:55pm | Report comment
My solution would be that all rushed behinds result in a bounce at the top of the goal square.
that way, use it as a get out of jail card,…..but, all it does is get’s you on the footpath outside, you still need to catch your taxi or bus!!!
btw – it’s way too easy to rush a behind and get a ‘free kick’, especially since the requirement to await the goal umpires flag waving was relaxed. This means, the team in whos forward 50 we are, don’t have the time they once did to structure up defensively. This little rule tinker has made rushing a behind so much more worthwhile than ever before – - – ruddy domino effect.
I am though loathed to ‘attack’ the ‘tools’ available to a defender, as, the other interpretational tinker that effectively is zero tolerance on an out of bounds that could possibly be interpreted as 10% deliberate – - – well, that makes it so much harder for a defender under pressure near the opposition goals to clear the ball. In the old days, you didn’t have to look up, you’d just grubber it 35 meters around the boundary – - – and, the curved shape of the oval boundary would make it quite likely that your kick would go over. Alas, this ‘virtual’ player the rules committee have provided means that defenders often have no choice other than rushing a behind, because, the only ‘safe’ thing is a kick up the corridor, and, no defender should be hotballing that ‘blind’ from the opposition goal square.
So – - I reckon, we need to work out just what ‘tools’ we want to permit a defender to have and use.