The art of the rushed behind

By Marty Gleason / Roar Guru

The rushed behind. Footy’s get out of jail ticket. Or not. What was Callum Mills to do, facing away from goal and Liam Picken maybe there, maybe not?

Indeed, what are any of us to do, our backs to the world and the implied pressure of Liam Picken set to take us down – mortgage repayments, bratty kids, career going to the dogs – but to occasionally rush a behind in life?

Except Picken held off, and made it obvious what was about to happen.

On the one hand, I feel a bit embarrassed about the Doggies getting more frees than the other teams. I mean, it was devastating that the Bulldogs’ 2016 premiership has officially been annulled due to the tenacity of three anonymous blokes wearing out the slo-mo of their grand final DVDs.

But, on the other hand, Mills needed to get with the program. Even I knew that this year the AFL are cracking down on dodgy rushed behinds, and I’ve been in Bolivia all summer, where I get my AFL news via two soup cans and a string stretched across the Pacific.

Mills had to do one of those fake fumbles – oops – where you get your hands to the ball two or three times and keep running until the line saves you. Sorry ump, just couldn’t grasp it.

The quasi-abolition of the rushed behind has created moments of wonderful skill. A player backed against his goal-line will dodge and handball his way out of trouble, surrounded by two attackers and the most limiting space possible. If you liked the Doggies’ handball-athon of 2016 and centimetre-perfect possession, it’s a new high-water mark. Call me an aesthete. Or call me a wanker if you have to.

[latest_videos_strip category=”afl” name=”AFL”]

By my count, the rushed behind, with a checkered history, decided the 2005, 2006 and 2008 grand finals and played an indeterminate role in 2009.

It’s so strange to think of that era, when a Victorian club didn’t reach the grand final for three years. For people swimming in Hawk or Cat memorabilia, it’s like a black hole in our memories. But this actually happened, supposedly. West Coast and Sydney lined up for their second crack at each other in 2006.

Enter Tadhg Kennelly. Rushed behinds were his bread and butter. The 2005 grand final ended when Sydney missed numerous chances to seal the flag, and then one stray Eagle kick freakishly split the pack and Mark Nickoski (geez that was a memorable era wasn’t it?) was within spitting distance of a Stephen Milne-esque easy winning goal in a grand final.

Kennelly grabbed the ball and walked it through. Then someone took a mark or something.

A year later, with 13 minutes to go and the fast-finishing Swans down by six, Kennelly had David Wirrpanda up his ass and decided to rush the point rather than head away from the goal, which with Kennelly two steps ahead was eminently possible. He actually had to change direction to rush the behind.

“That point could be important,” said my brother, watching on replay, unknowing.

“You have no idea,” I was bursting to reply.

So the Swans lost the 2006 grand final by one rushed behind. Two years later, Hawthorn beat Geelong by 11 rushed behinds. “If in doubt, put it out,” I hear the ghost of an ex-soccer teammate.

Start again if there’s anything going wrong in the backline. That’s what Hawthorn did.

It wasn’t great aesthetically, an apologist’s buzzword for thumping blokes (‘unsociable’) beating the Greatest Team of All, always on the ball, on a quirk.

So the AFL decreed that rushed behinds were no longer a thing. That lasted about two rounds into 2009.

Then there was Steven Baker’s full dive, face-first into the goalpost with a touched behind to preserve St Kilda’s one-point lead in the rain, late in the 2009 grand final. We know what happened after that. Nick Riewoldt held his mark in the goalsquare and Acland Street that night turned into an orgy of soldiers kissing damsels on black-and-white Polaroid pics.

If only. But the Baker touched behind was a thing of real beauty. “I will lose my teeth but St Kilda are winning this premiership,” he seemed to be saying.

It could have been the defining visual image of St Kilda’s history, just like how Brendan Goddard’s speccie as the most iconic moment of all time would be required viewing for all immigrants come to start a new life in Melbourne if only the Saints had held on in 2010.

Time to break off from this reverie of St Kilda domination. I truly think the Mills moment was a free kick, under 2017 interpretation. But to be safe, we’ll just crucify all persons involved.

Crucify the ump! Crucify the AFL for their Bulldog conspiracy! (“Jet fuel can’t melt goalposts, people!”) Crucify Mills!

But not Liam Picken. That guy is just the best.

The Crowd Says:

2017-04-06T06:14:03+00:00

King Bob

Guest


It is simple; Deliberate Outs should be penalised. Doesn't matter if it is the boundary or goal line. It's a lazy means of defense and against the principle of keeping the game flowing. Players should always take possession and either dispose of the ball or avoid the tackle. If they can't do that the attacking team deserves the score for the pressure they apply. You need to reward the attacking play and not the negative lazy player. Keep it simple. The same rule applied for deliberate out regardless of where it occurs.

2017-04-05T02:51:48+00:00

mattyb

Guest


Great comment there Robbo. You could argue either way about the rule itself but the punishment is far to severe. A ball up would be a much better idea.

2017-04-05T01:24:47+00:00

I ate pies

Guest


Yeah probably should have read the article a bit closer...it's a busy day

2017-04-05T00:25:01+00:00

Jim

Guest


That would be something I think is worth looking at - combined with the change for it to apply to all rushed behinds at all times - I.e. it becomes a completely objective rule, with no 'interpretative dance' required by the umpires.

2017-04-05T00:23:57+00:00

Jim

Guest


Definitely a correct decision on the basis of the rule as it stands, but I think it highlights that it is a stupid rule as currently drafted. But it most certainly isn't alone in that respect amongst a number of dumb/poorly drafted rules in the AFL's current rulebook.

2017-04-05T00:13:17+00:00

Maggie

Guest


Sing out to The Roar administrators - your 'edit' function has gone AWOL. Duplicate post above made in attempt to edit.

2017-04-05T00:10:36+00:00

Maggie

Guest


I'm not sure with whom you are arguing. The author said the Mills knock-through was a free kick. I think it was a correct free kick. Birdman below thinks it was a free kick. It was also very clever by Picken to deliberately slow down.

2017-04-05T00:09:16+00:00

Maggie

Guest


I'm not sure with whom you are arguing. The author said the Mills knock-through was a free kick. I think it was a correct free kick. Birdman below thinks it was a free kick. It was also very clever by Picken to deliberately slow up.

2017-04-05T00:07:09+00:00

Robbo23

Guest


What about the point counts a ball up 10m out? The punushment is not as harsh so iffy calls dont have as much impact, but there is still a decent incentive to not rush it through because you end up in almost the same position, a contest in front of goal.

2017-04-04T22:34:21+00:00

Birdman

Guest


Oh and yes, I reckon it was the correct decision.

2017-04-04T22:33:26+00:00

Birdman

Guest


It already is, Marty. Intent is of itself subjective in the same way soccer applies it to penalty kicks due to handball. The only way to change this is to award more than a point (e.g. 3 points) for any rushed behind however it's done to disincentise it for defenders. BTW I'm not sure that 'solution' is better than the current situation.

2017-04-04T20:58:26+00:00

I ate pies

Guest


It wasn't like that at all. The ball was knocked out of the ruck contest and Mills ran straight from the back of the pack and punched the ball over the line. From the time the ball was knocked out of the ruck contest he only ever had one thing on his mind - to punch that ball over the line. He had ample opportunity to collect the ball and dispose of it. I t was a correct decision from the umpire.

2017-04-04T19:08:41+00:00

Maggie

Guest


Indeed. And then the AFL will have to think up another rule amendment or interpretation. But they've had plenty of practice in doing that.

AUTHOR

2017-04-04T18:40:56+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


A bit worrying if everyone starts doing a Picken in those moments. Goal-line play will become a stupid game of cat and mouse.

AUTHOR

2017-04-04T18:39:40+00:00

Marty Gleason

Roar Guru


Confession: I stole the 'Jet fuel' joke from David Squires. https://www.theguardian.com/football/series/david-squires-on

2017-04-04T18:22:02+00:00

Maggie

Guest


In the last 24 hours Peter Shwab, the AFL umpires head, has said that the free kick call against Mills would be the benchmark for the new tighter interpretation for deliberate rushed behinds, going on to say 'you could say that was as harsh as we should be. So that’s the main one we will use for a guideline to that ruling.' So it will be a brave (or stupid) AFL player who risks knocking the ball through in the future. And you can be sure every Swans' fan will be looking for umpiring consistency (now that would be a miraculous outcome). Although as the author suggests, the art of the faked fumble might be refined, perhaps matched by admiring imitation of Picken's sudden running disability which required him to decelerate rapidly while throwing his hands in the air as he chased Mills. History tells us that every time the AFL amends a rule coaches and players figure out ways to work around it or exploit it. It's a bit like accountants and taxation legislation.

Read more at The Roar