Mike Sheahan

[iwantmeseats]

how annoying is these knoee jerk reaction rule changes everytime a issue pops up??? Im for anything as long as its NOT 3 pts. NO changes should EVER EVER be made to the scoring system!

[rodgerfox]

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.

Why?

Do you think it's a conumdrum if you miss a target in the defensive 50 and turn the ball over?

[Banger2Plugger]

Change the rules cos the dumb nuts at Essendon were too slow, and had a lack of understanding of the rules geezzzz.

Give a damn free kick away - and man up!! - say even a 50metre penalty so it goes to the centre, man up and flood back - ready for a rebound.

It been done (and dare I say it) in basketball for years - and even in afl - the professional free kick.

Sounds like too many players are in footy dream teams and don't want to devalue themselves by giving a free kick away!

[markp]

I'm in favour of leaving it as it is.... failing that, maybe make it a bounce on the point of the square following consecutive rushed behinds.

[stinger]

leave the game the flower alone ffs.............

[Beno88]

Perfect way to overcome this problem - kick the goal in the first place. Then opposition don't get a kick out. If you kick a point, you give up the ball, bad luck.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Maybe someone here can clear up something I've been wondering ever since the incident over the weekend.

If the player covering the mark steps into the box, what's the penalty?

Is it not 50 meters as in crossing the mark?

So all an Essendon player had to do was deliberately infringe and Bowden wouldn't have had the option of playing repeated retreat?

[saintsRrising]

Maybe someone here can clear up something I've been wondering ever since the incident over the weekend.

If the player covering the mark steps into the box, what's the penalty?

Is it not 50 meters as in crossing the mark?

Yes it is.

So all an Essendon player had to do was deliberately infringe and Bowden wouldn't have had the option of playing repeated retreat?

No, that is not correct.

Bowden or any other player does not have to take advantage of a 50m when offered and can elect to stay where they are. Though the guy standing the mark has to move 50m down the ground.



To force the issue you would need another infringement elsewhere against a different Tiger, far enough away such that that Tiger could not easily kick a "forced" behind.

ie a Dons player to scrag a Tiger on say the wing so that free kick is awarded there.

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Maybe someone here can clear up something I've been wondering ever since the incident over the weekend.

If the player covering the mark steps into the box, what's the penalty?

Is it not 50 meters as in crossing the mark?

Yes it is.

So all an Essendon player had to do was deliberately infringe and Bowden wouldn't have had the option of playing repeated retreat?

No, that is not correct.

Bowden or any other player does not have to take advantage of a 50m when offered and can elect to stay where they are. Though the guy standing the mark has to move 50m down the ground.



To force the issue you would need another infringement elsewhere against a different Tiger, far enough away such that that Tiger could not easily kick a "forced" behind.

ie a Dons player to scrag a Tiger on say the wing so that free kick is awarded there.

Good point.

It would be doing the team thing to clock <insert hated tiger's name here>.

[saintsRrising]

Alterantively you could have a 19th man run onto the field!!!!!!

And hope the guy kicking at goal misses giving you a chance to score....


Which could be interesting...does the guy have a shot at goal...or play safe and kick backwards????

[Life Long Saint]

The change advocates are missing one main point and that is that Bowden played on. The ball is then live. Resetting the clock or waiting for someone else to touch it is irrelevant as the ball is live.

The bottom line is that this is an isolated incident and other teams will go away formulate a counter measure.

No rule change required.

[desertsaint]

The bottom line is that this is an isolated incident and other teams will go away formulate a counter measure.

No rule change required.

There is no counter measure, other than deliberately conceding a free, hence, unless players play to the spirit of the game, a rule change is unfortunately required.

B4E is right in that the most simple measure is required, and we shouldn't change the scoring system, but we also can't rely on timekeepers to stop the clock the instant a player rushes a behind (always a few seconds lag), and rewinding the clock is a hassle. So i think don't allow the point and award a free at the top of the 50 for the attacking team. It's harsh, but by being harsh no one will risk it, hence it's no longer a problem.

I'm not for changing the rushed behind rule, EXCEPT when it's from a kick out after a behind. Once any other player has touched the ball the rule no longer applies.

[JeffDunne]

The change advocates are missing one main point and that is that Bowden played on. The ball is then live. Resetting the clock or waiting for someone else to touch it is irrelevant as the ball is live.

The bottom line is that this is an isolated incident and other teams will go away formulate a counter measure.

No rule change required.

The ball can be live when the clock's not running.

i.e taking a shot after the siren.

[Life Long Saint]

The change advocates are missing one main point and that is that Bowden played on. The ball is then live. Resetting the clock or waiting for someone else to touch it is irrelevant as the ball is live.

The bottom line is that this is an isolated incident and other teams will go away formulate a counter measure.

No rule change required.

The ball can be live when the clock's not running.

i.e taking a shot after the siren.

Try playing on in that situation!

The ball is not live at all.

Once a player chooses to play on from the kick-off the clock starts ticking and the ball is live. It does not unfairly advantage any one team prior to the commencement of a game. Top order teams are less likely to follow this as they would back themselves not to lose the game.

The football world should be applying the blowtorch to Essendon for missing the crucial shots that would have put them in front.

Storm in a tea cup!

[Life Long Saint]

The bottom line is that this is an isolated incident and other teams will go away formulate a counter measure.

No rule change required.

There is no counter measure, other than deliberately conceding a free, hence, unless players play to the spirit of the game, a rule change is unfortunately required.

B4E is right in that the most simple measure is required, and we shouldn't change the scoring system, but we also can't rely on timekeepers to stop the clock the instant a player rushes a behind (always a few seconds lag), and rewinding the clock is a hassle. So i think don't allow the point and award a free at the top of the 50 for the attacking team. It's harsh, but by being harsh no one will risk it, hence it's no longer a problem.

I'm not for changing the rushed behind rule, EXCEPT when it's from a kick out after a behind. Once any other player has touched the ball the rule no longer applies.

What if the player plays on, runs 25m away from goal (with a bounce), turns around runs 25m back the other way and then rushes the behind? Is that still not a score? What if he runs the 25m, turns around and kicks the ball back through for a point? Same?

Any rule that is brought in will be open to the umpires interpretation. And no good can come of it. Leave it be.