The Rushed Behind Debate aka Keep Mike Sheehan Off The Rules Committee
July 22, 2008 by Tristan Heffernan
Rarely does a week go by in AFL football without a piece of controversy that sets opinions on fire. This week, it was Richmond’s Joel Bowden’s tactics of rushing a couple of behinds from the kick-in to eat up time in the latter stages of the Tigers’ 4 point victory over the Bombers.
So Joel Bowden – Hero … or villain?
The response to this tactic has been nothing short of remarkable. From rule changes, to ethics, to questioning Bowden’s sexuality – it is incredible to read and listen to the uproar that has eventuated. How about this peach from the staunch supporter of sensationalism himself, Mike Sheehan:
Joel Bowden has rekindled memories of Trevor Chappell and cricket’s day of infamy at the MCG.
Wow. Seriously?
Is he really comparing the ever-increasing practice of rushing behinds to the groundbreaking underarm delivery?
Personally, I have no problem with what Bowden did – in fact I at the time I applauded his cool head and clear thinking. Before I move on – here’s another Mike Sheehan beauty…
How farcical will it look if Bowden’s behaviour is replicated on Grand Final day?
The 2005 Grand Final was won by four points. It was saved by Leo Barry’s mark, not by full-back Barry taking refuge behind the goal-line to run down the clock.
Firstly, the comparison is incredibly ridiculous – at risk of insulting your intelligence, how Sheehan can draw a comparison between Barry’s mark and Bowden’s kick in decision is farcical in itself.
And secondly – put Barry in Bowden’s position. The premiership is on the line and they have a couple of points to play with – points that have been earnt by outperforming the other team over the last 99% of the game. Is there any doubt Leo Barry would have done exactly the same thing?
But what I have found even more entertaining is the proposed rule changes concerning rushed behinds coming in from all corners of the globe. Try some of these on for size:
Leigh Matthews has called for the deliberate rushing of a behind to result in a point, and then a bounce at the top of the goal square rather than a kick in.
Mike Sheehan has called for a – get this – free kick to the opposing team at a ‘hot spot’ 25m from goal after every rushed behind. Yes really – I couldn’t make this up.
Other suggestions I’ve seen go from as simple as 3 points for a rushed behind like the NAB Cup, to having to clear a 45m imaginary line, to different scores depending on whether the ball clears the forward 50m arc.
For the love of Gary Ablett Sr – can you say ‘Overreaction’?
Fair dinkum.
Here’s an idea – how about we stop screwing around with the rules every bloody time someone shows enough nous to use the rules to their advantage? Every year, we add more and more rules, more and more interpretations to the game. Hands in the back, holding the ball, deliberate out of bounds, the list goes on. And all seem to raise as many problems as what they solve. Just watch the tacklers holding the ball in – wasn’t the rule change meant to encourage getting the ball out?
Do we really need another rule that is left up to the umpires’ interpretation? The deliberate out of bounds rule has come under much closer scrutiny in recent years. Do we really want another law relying on the umpire’s interpretation of ‘deliberate’ – one with direct influence on the scoreboard?
I sure as hell don’t. I can only hope Kevin Bartlett feels the same.
Agree Hef, Mike has deadset lost his marbles over this one.
Why didn’t the Essendon player (Riemers) on the mark run into the goal square, and give away a 50m penalty, its pretty hard to rush a behind from 50 out
Absolutely right. Huge media beatup. The reality is that time doesn’t start until the guy plays on, at which point he’s fair game for a quick charge and tackle. If the guy on the mark is on the ball, you get a handful of seconds per point.
Essendon weren’t on the ball to stop Bowden, but even then he only got to waste 15-20 seconds max with his points. And then he saw a better option and kicked out properly.
Geez, you’d think he got to use up an entire minute per rushed behind or something.
Reminds me of watching the NM-St Kilda game and hearing the commentators swoon with delight about how THIS COULD BE THE CONTROVERSY OF THE SEASON when St Kilda gave away the interchange 50m free. They have to find something to go on about every week, and if there’s not something really big they just make something really big. This week they had nothing better than Bowden’s rushed behinds.
Oh yeah, you know who wasted MORE time with a point in the last minute of that game? Brent Stanton. Somehow no-one’s going on about what an idiot he was to take 30 seconds to take a set shot with his team more than a goal down that late in the game (particularly since he missed).
Raf – funny you bring up the St Kilda interchange free – I thought the same thing and almost did a piece on it. Controversial? Hardly. Why is running onto the ground early any different to giving away a push in the back 40m out? Both are against the rules. And waiting to run onto the ground is infinitely easier.
Spot on with Stanton too.
Every time there’s a little issue with one game the media seems to get in a “change-the-rules-now” craze. The game has gone alright for over 150 years, let it be. Players and coaches get smart, it’s up to their opponents to get smarter… not up to the league to create these knee-jerk rules that stuff up this great game!
Greg – well I am pretty sure they have made a change or two in those 150 years. I agree, no need for a knee jerk reaction, but keeping issues in mind is healthy for the AFLs future.
Solution to deliberate behind problem. After a deliberate behind, the fullback shall kick-in from behind the goal line and not the goal square line. This will not only penalise in distance but also restrict the angle of the kick-in and will prevent a repeat of the offence.
if the umpire knew the rule book inside out. joel bowden should of been reported for time wasting and Essendon should of had a free in the goal square.