Much is being made in the papers today about the number of rushed behinds Hawthorn conceded, 11 in the GF (record equalling).

As a legitimate tactic it is brilliant coaching by Clarkson and co, and so as soon as a new tactic is uncovered the AFL want to make a new rule to stamp it out. Talk of ball-ups 20m from goal or free-kicks 50m out are stupid, as this will just create another grey area in the rules as to what constitutes 'deliberate' or not rushed behinds.

Well if the AFL had the courage and intelligence to look back a few years to before they allowed the restart to occur before the goal umpires had waved their flags then they would see that it wasn't an issue then, as the team doing the rushing couldn't 'relaunch' as easily after the behind as the attacking team had more time to man up.

Ironic isn't it that in the AFL's desperation to create non-stop ball movement for 30 minutes a quarter, they have themselves created a legitimate tactic that is now considered a blight on the game.

Either leave it as it is and expect rushed behinds to become much more common in the game, or revert the rules back to the way they were (which would have the added bonus of not allowing any more scoring errors like we saw this year when a behind was missed because the goal umpire didn't have time to process the behind and focus on the football coming straight back at him.)

Personally I think the old rule of the flag waving won't help stop rushed behinds.

The Hawks conceded so many of them because of the zone the Cats were setting up. If the Cats had even MORE time to set up the zone while the Hawks were waiting for the flags to be waved they'd have even greater difficulty clearing the ball out and would rush through another.

I see this as a non issue. If you, the attacking team, cannot think through and execute your forward thrust successfully then you deserve to suffer the consequences of the oppositions defensive thinking and strategies.

The hysteria may unfortunately reach critical mass this week as something needs to be talked about till trading starts.

Personally I think the old rule of the flag waving won't help stop rushed behinds.

The Hawks conceded so many of them because of the zone the Cats were setting up. If the Cats had even MORE time to set up the zone while the Hawks were waiting for the flags to be waved they'd have even greater difficulty clearing the ball out and would rush through another.

It's pathetic to see defenders meekly push the ball over the scoring line to concede a point. How many other games can you score for the opposition DELIBERATELY? Increase the behind value to say,3 points and Hawthorn would have given Geelong a bonus score of 5 goals 3. Nearly enough to give them the game. The other black spot on our game is the keeping of possession in the dying minutes even when a team is leading by over 10 goals. I know percentage is a factor in the home and away games but it is happening in the FINALS when % doesn't come into the equation. In a FINAL, team x is leading by 15 goals with 2 minutes to play. They play attacking, attractive footy,cause a turnover and the other mob reduce the deficit to 14 goals with one and a half minutes to go. Big deal!

The other black spot on our game is the keeping of possession in the dying minutes even when a team is leading by over 10 goals. I know percentage is a factor in the home and away games but it is happening in the FINALS when % doesn't come into the equation. In a FINAL, team x is leading by 15 goals with 2 minutes to play. They play attacking, attractive footy,cause a turnover and the other mob reduce the deficit to 14 goals with one and a half minutes to go. Big deal!

Agreed.

"How many other games can you score for the opposition DELIBERATELY?"

All of them? I'm serious. Struggling to think of a game you can't.

"How many other games can you score for the opposition DELIBERATELY?"

All of them? I'm serious. Struggling to think of a game you can't.

Good point! I should have said, "How many other games WOULD you score for the opposition DELIBERATELY? You are a smart cookie 'Trident'.

rugby, and rugby league. basketball. netball. golf. boxing. i am sure there are others.

edit:

swimming. archery. motor racing. baseball. any boarding (ie surf). any bowling (ie lawn or 10 pin). cycling. equine sports. rowing. gymnastics.

It's pathetic to see defenders meekly push the ball over the scoring line to concede a point. How many other games can you score for the opposition DELIBERATELY? Increase the behind value to say,3 points and Hawthorn would have given Geelong a bonus score of 5 goals 3. Nearly enough to give them the game. The other black spot on our game is the keeping of possession in the dying minutes even when a team is leading by over 10 goals. I know percentage is a factor in the home and away games but it is happening in the FINALS when % doesn't come into the equation. In a FINAL, team x is leading by 15 goals with 2 minutes to play. They play attacking, attractive footy,cause a turnover and the other mob reduce the deficit to 14 goals with one and a half minutes to go. Big deal!

Now this might be seen as stupidity on my part, but when Hawthorn were kicking back and forth in the dying stages of the game, to me it suggested that Hawthorn weren't going to let Geelong even touch the ball. Making it all the more painful for them (the fact they were going to lose the GF) and they could do nothing about it. Call it unsociable football, but Hawthorn were effectively saying 'The cup is ours, you are not worthy or deserving enough to touch the ball in the dying seconds of our premiership'.

This is only in the situation of a team winning by enough that the win is guaranteed.

And good on them i say. If that was Melbourne going on to win the cup , i wouldn't want our team to let the opposition get within kooee of the ball in the dying stages. But hey, that's just me!

Not quite sure which way you're arguing deanox, but fair call Right back at me (i think). Sorry BM.

I should have said "Struggling to think of a comparable team game you can't." Ie the teams are on the field at the same time and both are able to score at any time.

This removes swimming, boxing, (most) golf, ten pin bowling, archery, baseball, boarding, equine, rowing, (most) motor racing, (most) cycling and gymnastics.

That leaves the rugbies, basketball, netball, lawn bowls (mostly). Soccer too. And Gridiron.

I can think of scenarios where you would score for the opposition in order to reset for a winning play in all of those, except netball (the only one where 1 point is always the maximum score (soccer away goals count it out))

A non-issue, when it gets to 20+ rushed behinds, talk to me then.

It's not like the behinds chew up much viewing time either, takes 2 seconds for them to walk through then kick the ball out again.

If anything it adds to crowd atmosphere cos they start booing!

Now this might be seen as stupidity on my part, but when Hawthorn were kicking back and forth in the dying stages of the game, to me it suggested that Hawthorn weren't going to let Geelong even touch the ball. Making it all the more painful for them (the fact they were going to lose the GF) and they could do nothing about it. Call it unsociable football, but Hawthorn were effectively saying 'The cup is ours, you are not worthy or deserving enough to touch the ball in the dying seconds of our premiership'.

This is only in the situation of a team winning by enough that the win is guaranteed.

And good on them i say. If that was Melbourne going on to win the cup , i wouldn't want our team to let the opposition get within kooee of the ball in the dying stages. But hey, that's just me!

I was Thinking the same thing exactly whilst i was watching that game. I really enjoyed watching Hawthorn take the Cats apart Mentally. They were not at all scared by Geelong. No more smart arse on field comments from that [censored] Matthew Scarlett.

Dont Change the Rules any Bloody more KB!!! Idiot (I do like your Toyota ad though) you can have that one!!

I can't see the problem at all with rushing so many behinds. It's very old-school of the media to pick on a new tactic they deem uncouth. Rushing behinds allows the defensive team to escape a situation they fell could lead to an oposition goal, but at the same tiem gifts their opponents a point. Had Geelong stormed back to win the game, Hawthorn supporters might be looking back on those rushed behinds differently, but with a 4+ goal lead, rushing behinds was the method Hawthorn believed would not give Geelong a sniff in each of those situations. Look at other sports. Teams are not simply willing to allow their opponents back into a contest in order to continue to play an aesthetically pleasing brand. Taking a knee at the end of American football games, dribbling down the clock in basketball, Iran-style injury faking and tonking the ball the length of the pitch in soccer, cricket sides (including and often led by, Australisa) bowling short for long periods of time to stymie batting sides' scoring, he list goes on. Boo hoo. If Geelong didn't like the tactics so much, then they should have changed their setup for the Hawthorn kickouts. Or better still, not completely choked on the big stage. Adding 3 points for a rushed behind is near sacreligious. We don't need another slot in the scoreboard. It's a fundamental change to teh game we can thoroughly do without.

Wonder if teams will start setting up their zone deeper and allowing the defending team to the 50 metre line to combat that.

Quite looking forward to the next frontier of tactical coaching :D

Not quite sure which way you're arguing denox, but fair call Right back at me (i think). Sorry BM.

I should have said "Struggling to think of a comparable team game you can't." Ie the teams are on the field at the same time and both are able to score at any time.

This removes swimming, boxing, (most) golf, ten pin bowling, archery, baseball, boarding, equine, rowing, (most) motor racing, (most) cycling and gymnastics.

That leaves the rugbies, basketball, netball, lawn bowls (mostly). Soccer too. And Gridiron.

I can think of scenarios where you would score for the opposition in order to reset for a winning play in all of those, except netball (the only one where 1 point is always the maximum score (soccer away goals count it out))

i meant that lots of sports 'could not' score own goals.

HOWEVER, i have found that in basketball you can. and particularly in gridiron, you can score a 'safety' which gives the opponents 2 points and you possession (similar to us rushing a behind).

however in rugby, you cannot score for the opposition. nor lawn bowls (because they have to throw it). and im not sure about netball anymore.

particularly in gridiron, you can score a 'safety' which gives the opponents 2 points and you possession (similar to us rushing a behind).

Sorry to nitpick, but a safety is not a desired result. If you concede a safety, you not only cough up two points, but you lose possession as well, as you have to kick the ball back to the opposition after the restart.

Sorry to nitpick, but a safety is not a desired result. If you concede a safety, you not only cough up two points, but you lose possession as well, as you have to kick the ball back to the opposition after the restart.

no its not nitpicking, i dont know gridiron at all.

but am i correct in saying a safety is a better option than allowing the opposition to score a touchdown? they are the only two times in sport where i can think of players intentionally scoring for an opposition team.

actually from reading the wikipedia article it is much more common in canadian football than american football, but nevertheless it is a way of scoring for the opposition that can be exploited, as opposed to soccer, which you get no benefit from, or basketball even, because you score the same and get possession back anyway. And from reading the wikipedia article there appear to have been a few instances where players have purposely conceded a safety for one reason or another.

Wonder if teams will start setting up their zone deeper and allowing the defending team to the 50 metre line to combat that.

Quite looking forward to the next frontier of tactical coaching :D

That could be the next tactical option Eastie. Clubs could just corale the player in possession of the ball, ie not go at him, therefore not step over the line for a rushed behind and force him to kick to a contest. Then again, that might just milk time for the team with the ball -which might be just what they want.

"nor lawn bowls (because they have to throw it)."

You can 'score' for them by moving one of your (scoring) balls to a safety position - with the intent of knocking the jack that way later. I guess it's not a 'score' until marked though.

Could've sworn you could in the rugbies, just not the done thing. Can anyone confirm that both union and league rules prohibit it? I'm pretty certain you can in netball (for no gain) but am happy to be corrected. Oh, and that should've read 'deanox' not 'denox'. Fixed.

you cannot in rugby union. if you put the ball down over your try line there is no score for the opposition. if you took it over it is an opposition scrum meters out, if the opposition kicks it over it is what is known as a '22 drop out' similar to what happens in gridiron.

That could be the next tactical option Eastie. Clubs could just corale the player in possession of the ball, ie not go at him, therefore not step over the line for a rushed behind and force him to kick to a contest. Then again, that might just milk time for the team with the ball -which might be just what they want.

Maybe have the full forward hide behind the goal umpire?

If thought to be a problem worth fixing, the simple answer would seem to be bounce the ball at the edge of the goal-square if the ball goes back over the score-line if the attacking team does not touch it first.

Maybe the league should pencil that in and see what happens next year.

Leave the bloody game alone.

Perhaps for a rushed behind, the player cannot dispose of the ball within a rectangular radius as wide as the two point posts and 1.5 times as long. I personally don't have an issue with judicious use of tactics, however, and would like to see the integrity of the game maintained. I wouldn't change the rules.