3 replies to this topic

[Caveman]

The choice by the Eastern Tigers to 'Deliberately Concede A Behind' twice near the end- especially the second of them has arguably cost them 2 points. I am around 90% confident that by doing this, the tigers have dropped two points and we have gained two points.

Now this is a big bugbear of mine(The DELIBERATELY CONCEDED BEHIND), but today justice has been done- in that by doing this a victory for them was snatched away.

I loathe the defending team handballing it through to gain a point for their opponents but win a free possession. Walking backwards over the line is even worse.

Lets make the distinction here between a 'Rushed Behind' and a 'Deliberately Conceded Behind'

The former should remain as one point and a kick out. The latter should remain one point, however a ball up at the end of the rectangle as is the case with the bloke booting out from a behind going over the line when he kicks it out.

[Caveman]

How appropriate once again (for this argument) that the same team is involved in this debate about rushed behinds.

So I have found this topic from a few years ago and decided to comment on it again.

The DELIBERATELY CONCEDED behind-

I hated the situation where the defending team could sacrifice a behind to their opponents and the trade off for them was to gain IMMEDIATE possession. That had to be changed.



and it was- which was the correct thing to do as it was a blight on the game and urgently needed to be rectified.




However I still claim that the best remedy for a DELIBERATELY CONCEDED behind is to let the behind stand - THEN have a ball up at the end of the rectangular square. This would be the exact same situation as when a player kicks out a "no ball" or to explain it in non-cricket terms, when he kicks it in having put his foot outside the rectangle.

There wasn't much the Richmond bloke could do last night- he had two St Kilda opponents right on him- the rushed behind/deliberately conceded behind is largerly his only safe option. What is/was he expected to do?

So in my book- if someone deliberately concedes a behind- then it should stay as a behind- THEN there is the ball up on the end of the rectangle. No kick out.

This eliminates the free possession to the defending team but it also eliminates the draconian penalty to the defender who is no stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.

The next quandry is whether the point was a 'rushed behind' or a 'deliberately conceded behind'

That would have to be a decision made then by any of the 3 versions of umpire (field, boundary or goal)

I would probably have it that if there is any doubt- then consider it a deliberately conceded behind rather than a rushed behind. Though I could accept the doubt being given to the rushed behind.

Anyway -please change this rule!

[Lisbon]

You're right about the Richmond bloke, there wasn't much else that he could do. What struck me was that he did it fully expecting that it wouldn't be a free kick. Apparently either the Tigers aren't explaining the rules to their players all that well, or the rule itself is difficult to understand.
As for a ball up as opposed to the free kick, I think that sounds fairer, especially when we're talking about a rule that was only introduced after 150 years of footy. If the free possession is the problem, solve it by resuming the game with a contested possession and let the players take their own risks.

[Caveman]

That is correct- a contested possession takes away the 100% advantage one of the teams receives, when there is a chance that a charity free to that team possibly should not have been allocated to them. A blunder by the umpire can be so critical in that situation and for the result.

I will continue to champion the ball up/ bounce down at the end of the rectangle for a deliberately conceded behind.