Rushed Behinds

[Bill James]

Research from Swinburne in the past has suggested rushing be used more often. The rationale was compelling and the distilled thesis went something like this: Teams scored a goal (6pts) on average every fourth time they went inside 50 so rushing a behind (1pt) any time a clearance was in doubt was a better result than risking a goal.

It has always made sense at the end of a close game. With 1-2 minutes remaining in the game and say a 1-2 goal lead, it would be easy to chew up the remaining time by repeatedly bringing the ball back into play and using as much time as possible before rushing a behind. The opposition would never get hands on the ball and therfore could not goal.

RFC and JB in particular are using the new quick kick in rule to advantage and are happy to rush behinds in order to gain an unimpeded kick in certain circumstances. Probably won't be long until Malthouse et al winge about it. It is a bit early to make a call but I quite like the new rule and the way RFC is using it although there seems to be potential to abuse it.

 

[AngryAnt]

Well picked up on William.

The higher than usual number of rushed behinds may well bring about the 3 point score for a rushed behind next year.

It was interesting to see our Tigers not rush a behind to maintain possession late when the scores were level last night, after rushing two or three throughout the rest of the game.

I know you'd have to be stupid to rush a behind when scores are level late in the game, but I am sure the AFL would like to stamp it out forever and three points for a rushed behind will go a long way to stamping out an ugly side of footy.

Please lets not change the rules AGAIN!

 

[TOT70]

I actually think it is exhilarating. Rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end, where they rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end....

I enjoyed the second quarter last night. It was non-stop, frenetic stuff and the pressure was always on the last player in the chain as he prepared his kick for goal.

 

[Skills]

Research from Swinburne in the past has suggested rushing be used more often. The rationale was compelling and the distilled thesis went something like this: Teams scored a goal (6pts) on average every fourth time they went inside 50 so rushing a behind (1pt) any time a clearance was in doubt was a better result than risking a goal.

It has always made sense at the end of a close game.  With 1-2 minutes remaining in the game and say a 1-2 goal lead, it would be easy to chew up the remaining time by repeatedly bringing the ball back into play and using as much time as possible before rushing a behind. The opposition would never get hands on the ball and therfore could not goal.

RFC and JB in particular are using the new quick kick in rule to advantage and are happy to rush behinds in order to gain an unimpeded kick in certain circumstances. Probably won't be long until Malthouse et al winge about it. It is a bit early to make a call but I quite like the new rule and the way RFC is using it although there seems to be potential to abuse it.

I'd be very interested to know how many Swinburne students have played Finals football?
I haven't too many footballers in September give away points to the opposition.

 

[Jexy]

I actually think it is exhilarating. Rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end, where they rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end....

I enjoyed the second quarter last night. It was non-stop, frenetic stuff and the pressure was always on the last player in the chain as he prepared his kick for goal.

Agree TOT. I love the quick rebound to a player streaming down the wing. Some say its like basketball, but that's a pretty lazy criticism I reckon.

 

[Scoop]

I actually think it is exhilarating.  Rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end, where they rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end....

I enjoyed the second quarter last night.  It was non-stop, frenetic stuff and the pressure was always on the last player in the chain as he prepared his kick for goal.

I agree TOT.

Joel Bowden actually sums up the rushed behind vs keeping it in play perfectly. Rush the behind get a free kick out to a guy running up the wing and the one point at the wrong end may end up in a goal at the other end.

Three factors contributed to the spectacle last nite;

1) The MCG is a true football ground size. Too big too flood and a lot of space to run into.

2) It was outdoors. Bit greasy, gusty wind blowing at certain times. No roof leads to colder temps, heavier air and I think the ball does different things in the outdoors then at Telstra where it goes exactly where it should. Bad kicks go where they should same as good. In last nites conditions any kick, good or bad, you didn't know what would happen. Might skate on with the cold grass, might drop in the breeze or damper air.

3) It wa a nite game, always makes for different conditions.

MCG plus outdoors plus night game equals great football to watch. Don't care what any one says Geelong V Melbourne and Richmond vEssendon were better games because of these factors. I think Telstra Dome is more like basketball but at the MCG the new rules make it a much more thrilling encounter.

 

[AngryAnt]

I don't want the rule changed either, but if the number of rushed behinds continues because of the new quick kick in rules, then the AFL will have to change it to stamp it out.

This is exactly the wrong knee-jerk approach to rule changes that got us into this mess in the first place. Change a rule, don't anticipate what teams will do to exploit a rule, then make another rule to fix the new problem. Absolute stupidity.

 

[AngryAnt]

I actually think it is exhilarating. Rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end, where they rush a behind, kick under no pressure to a runner and the ball is up the other end....

I enjoyed the second quarter last night. It was non-stop, frenetic stuff and the pressure was always on the last player in the chain as he prepared his kick for goal.

I agree TOT.

Joel Bowden actually sums up the rushed behind vs keeping it in play perfectly. Rush the behind get a free kick out to a guy running up the wing and the one point at the wrong end may end up in a goal at the other end.

Three factors contributed to the spectacle last nite;

1) The MCG is a true football ground size. Too big too flood and a lot of space to run into.

2) It was outdoors. Bit greasy, gusty wind blowing at certain times. No roof leads to colder temps, heavier air and I think the ball does different things in the outdoors then at Telstra where it goes exactly where it should. Bad kicks go where they should same as good. In last nites conditions any kick, good or bad, you didn't know what would happen. Might skate on with the cold grass, might drop in the breeze or damper air.

3) It wa a nite game, always makes for different conditions.

MCG plus outdoors plus night game equals great football to watch. Don't care what any one says Geelong V Melbourne and Richmond vEssendon were better games because of these factors. I think Telstra Dome is more like basketball but at the MCG the new rules make it a much more thrilling encounter.

Yeah - the last two games (Carlton and Ess) both at the G and at night have been bloody fantastic to watch apart from the frustration of all the points kicked. The running football and quick rebounds have made for exciting games. No. 11 is a master of position and rebound football - loved when he waited for an option on the goal-line, none on offer so sticks the ball through for a rushed point. A second later kicks out to the southern wing and we were off on an attack again.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I don't want the rule changed either, but if the number of rushed behinds continues because of the new quick kick in rules, then the AFL will have to change it to stamp it out.

This is exactly the wrong knee-jerk approach to rule changes that got us into this mess in the first place. Change a rule, don't anticipate what teams will do to exploit a rule, then make another rule to fix the new problem. Absolute stupidity.

Agree. If the quick kick out rule is being abused then change it back. Simple.

It's bureaucratic madness to bring in yet another rule ie 3pts for a rushed behind to counteract a rule that didn't IMO need to be brought in at all.

When will it all end? : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

 

[Ghost of Punt Road]

Rushed behinds?

Isn't that what happens after a scorching hot Vindaloo?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Rushed behinds?

Isn't that what happens after a scorching hot Vindaloo?

The very reason I've always preferred the term "point".

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Rushed behinds?

Isn't that what happens after a scorching hot Vindaloo?

The very reason I've always preferred the term "point".

A goal is worth 6 points, and a behind is worth 1 point, and.... um, I have no idea where I am going with this. :-\