Mike Sheahan

[barks4eva]

I saw Mike Sheahan last night on On the Coach, outraged about the Joel Bowden rushed behinds, with ridiculous suggestions of giving the opposing team a shot for goal from 25 metres out to stop what he regarded as football's equivalant of the Trevor Chappell underarm incident.


FAIR DINKUM

All that you need to do is make a rule that if someone rushes a behind FROM A KICK IN, NOTE AND ONLY FROM A KICK IN after a behind has been scored, then you simply reset the time clock, back to the original time remaining when the previous behind was scored.

Problem solved!

Surely in this day and age of technological advacement this is not beyond even the numbnuts from the AFL.

Afterall Demetriou sees fit to pay himself an 80% increase in his salary, an extra $780,000 or whatever into his own pockets at the same time he buys his new palatial Toorak mansion, then surely it's doable and affordable that you have professional timekeepers on hand to take note of the time remaining after each behind is scored, then in the event of someone rushing a behind from a kick in, the clock is reset, so the team concedes another behind, but no time has been run off the clock.

How easy is that, FAIR DINKUM.

Seriously if it isn't bad enough that the game is run by laterally challenged numbnuts, we have to contend with laterally challenged tossers passing comment nationwide through their media soapbox.

FAIR DINKUM

What a fair dinkum bunch of dingbats.

[krabb]

Do away with the clocks then nobody will know what the hell's going on...including the coaches.

[plugger66]

I have an idea. Leave it as it is.

[To the top]

The ball is not deemed "in play" whilst in the control of the player kicking out - and becomes "live" when first handled by a player receiving from the player kicking out or crossing the boundary line untouched.

There is already time wasting in putting the ball back into play, with "play on" being called by the controlling Umpire (bearing in mind the ball has not been "won" thru play but possesion given only because a behind has been called so it is different to a player delaying to the maximum if marking or receiving a free kick) - despite the introduction of not having to wait until the point has been waved by the Goal Umpire.

It is a conumdrum that a side missing a shot at goal should then concede possesion of the ball anyway - let alone concede it in such a way as to advantage the opposition side.

But how you address this obvious conumdrum is open to question.

Perhaps that the kick out has to travel at least a minimum distance of 50 metres?

[kaos theory]

All that you need to do is make a rule that if someone rushes a behind FROM A KICK IN, NOTE AND ONLY FROM A KICK IN after a behind has been scored, then you simply reset the time clock, back to the original time remaining when the previous behind was scored.

Problem solved!

Correct B4E. The best solution.

I hope the alf doesn't do anything so stupid as want to introduce 3 points for rushed behinds, that would ruin it...

[eel33]

Unfortunately, we all new that this was going to happen one day, and that a rule change/addition is almost inevitable. Whatever is implemented has to be easy to apply at all levels of footy. I think something along the lines of the following could work:

If a behind is rushed from a kick-in without the opposition handling the ball and the defender's team is ahead at the time, then an additional 30 seconds is added to the clock to extend the quarter.

This would discourage actions such as Bowden's from the weekend, by increasing the time required by which the clock must be run down in play. If the team rushing the behind was already trailing or equal on the scoreboard, they would not gain any extra time in which to score a win.

[saint66au]

I have an idea. Leave it as it is.

Yep..with you here....its not like its a foolproof plan to do what Bowden did.

Look at the Richmond v Bulldogs game earlier in the year. a Tigers player rushed a behind to regain the ball, making the Tigers lead back to an even 3 goals...the Doggies kicked 3 straight from there, including one after the siren, drew the game and denied the Tigers two points..which I'm tipping they'd like back right now

[bergsone]

b4e has got it right.....i think

[Eastern]

I have an idea. Leave it as it is.

Yeah !!

What a bloody good idea !!

[3rd generation saint]

As I said in a previous post, if a player does what Bowden did again, it should be judged as not bringing the ball back into play.

The result, same as if you go over the line kicking out, a ball up at the top of the square, simple, not to radical and will prevent it happening again.

[Eastern]

Let the game evolve !!

[rexy]

Nothing wrong with the current rules IMO. Bowden made a tactical decision which paid dividends. He did well, now clubs must come up with a counter tactic to stop it happening to them. Looking forward to seeing Adelaide practice giving away free kicks up the ground .

[ausfatcat]

Nothing wrong with the current rules IMO. Bowden made a tactical decision which paid dividends. He did well, now clubs must come up with a counter tactic to stop it happening to them. Looking forward to seeing Adelaide practice giving away free kicks up the ground .

There is none when the nearest bloke is ten metres away, I reckon Barks is onto something here, nice simple rules change that wont effect any other area's of the games. But lets make it even more simple.

If someone rushes a behind from a kick in, then don't worry about the resetting the clock that gets a bit too complicated for umpires I think (they are umpires after all). Ball it up at the top of the goal square. will only effect people doing a Bowden.

[JeffDunne]

Why not just enforce that time doesn't restart until another player touches the ball or it travels outside the 50m arc?

[Gabba]

Do away with the clocks then nobody will know what the hell's going on...including the coaches.

Ridiculous idea... it is necessary for well timed pinch-hitting, to evenly spend energy and even strategy...

Have you ever been closely involved in a football team?

Hell, when i was it made a huge difference to how we played.

[Bernard Shakey]

Simple, make the ball be kicked in at least 15 metres, as with the mark interpretation.

To take it out of the umpire's ability to stuff it up paint a 15 metre arc on the ground.

[rexy]

Nothing wrong with the current rules IMO. Bowden made a tactical decision which paid dividends. He did well, now clubs must come up with a counter tactic to stop it happening to them. Looking forward to seeing Adelaide practice giving away free kicks up the ground .

There is none when the nearest bloke is ten metres away, I reckon Barks is onto something here, nice simple rules change that wont effect any other area's of the games. But lets make it even more simple.

If someone rushes a behind from a kick in, then don't worry about the resetting the clock that gets a bit too complicated for umpires I think (they are umpires after all). Ball it up at the top of the goal square. will only effect people doing a Bowden.

Yes there is. Give away a free kick at CHB so that the FB is bought up the ground. Walk into the goal square whilst the FB is kicking out and give away 50. Theres 2.

[barks4eva]

All that you need to do is make a rule that if someone rushes a behind FROM A KICK IN, NOTE AND ONLY FROM A KICK IN after a behind has been scored, then you simply reset the time clock, back to the original time remaining when the previous behind was scored.

Problem solved!

Correct B4E. The best solution.

You're a smart man kaos

[rexy]

Nothing like pumping up the man whos pumping up your own tyres? You should be a politician

[degruch]

I have an idea. Leave it as it is.

Bingo. Just like a dork like Sheahan to wanna change the rules and stuff up the game for a tactic that's been used once. God help us if they think a rushed behind = 3points...the crappiest rule in history.

[crowjelly]

B4E said

"All that you need to do is make a rule that if someone rushes a behind FROM A KICK IN, NOTE AND ONLY FROM A KICK IN after a behind has been scored, then you simply reset the time clock, back to the original time remaining when the previous behind was scored.

Problem solved!"


You only ever have a kick in after a behind has been scored don't you?

So if 5 minutes passes and then a behind is scored the clock goes back 5 minutes does it?

What if on the 2nd kickout following the rushed behind, the fullback goes over the goal square line and there is a bounce at the top of the square and a rushed behind results - does the rule apply then?

Better drafting would be -

"If a rushed behind is scored FROM THE KICK IN following a rushed behind, the time clock shall be reset to the original time when the previous rushed behind was scored.

Problem solved

[St DAC]

Of course, we could just leave it as it is ...

[crowjelly]

Geelong stole a game from us 3 years ago by kicking backwards and icing the clock.


Couldn't stand it if Scarlett walked through behinds in a finals game against us this year - make no mistake the dog would do it if he had the chance!

[rexy]

Geelong stole a game from us 3 years ago by kicking backwards and icing the clock.


Couldn't stand it if Scarlett walked through behinds in a finals game against us this year - make no mistake the dog would do it if he had the chance!

We nearly stole a game from them in the dying minutes but the were good enough by foot to ice the clock and hold on?

[crowjelly]

So while they're changing the rushed behind rule, they can bring in play on for marks from backward kicks as well.

I'm an advocate for attacking football and exciting ends to games - no matter who wins!