Goals, behinds and rushed behinds

[Rick]

I was going to raise this in another thread, but thought it might be worthy of its own thread.

First of all I do not have any stats to backup my claims, this is only an observation.

I believe it is generally accepted that we are a pretty inaccurate infront if goals. However I was wondering if our inability to kick more goals than points is deceiving based on our structures and game style.

And perhaps it's across the league.

I noticed this in particular against Carlton where our forward pressure and deep forward entries forced a lot of rushed behinds. One in particular should have been called deliberate against Sam Rowe where he double back in and out of trouble before he stepped over the line.

My beef is that rushed behinds can make a fairly accurate game look inaccurate.

I know most of you will probably disagree but I would like to either see a rushed behind be worth 3 points or a missed set shot be increased to 3 points and a rushed behind be worth 1.

Thoughts?

[HAL]

What is stopping you?

[Brenny]

I agree with you. 100%.

Another stat I want to see is 'out of bounds on the full' or 'shots at goal'.

Shots at goal will show shots taken that didn't make the distance (set shots) or out on the full. I reckon that would be a better indicator.

[Bucks5]

I like Brenny's idea. Shots that fall short or go OOF should be included when assessing a player's goal kicking accuracy

[piedys]

I have absolutely no faith in any of our forwards lining up for goal, with the exception of Elliott, and perhaps Goldsack, when on-song.
Even Pendles is missing some sodas directly in front this year.

[AN_Inkling]

I'm barely concerned about our accuracy. It's not terrible and I don't think it greatly hurts us, with the pressure we are putting on at the moment.

It's like 2010-11. Missing goals? Big deal. Just means the ball is spending 70% of its time down our end of the ground. Teams are seriously struggling to take the ball out of defense against us at the moment, and kicking points is making it even more difficult. I'd not be surprised if part of it is a tactic.

Because of this, I think missed goals are less important than they've ever been.

[stui magpie]

Regardless, it's still crap kicking if we're landing the ball in a position to be rushed.

Personally, I'd like to take something from Soccer (and I can't stand soccer) in that if the ball crosses the goal line it's a goal. Bounce off the post, come of someone's hand or head, doesn't matter, if it crosses the goal line it's a goal.

Would stop all the bullshit reviews and angst about whether the ball was touched or not or hit the post.

[AN_Inkling]

And would mean you could handball through goals. No thanks.

[collie dog]

I am sick of these video reviews of whether a ball is touched. My solution is simple and fixes all the problems the OP raises.

Simply disregard all touches, even if a defender runs the ball over the goal line. Anything that passes the goal line is a goal. Anything that passes the behind line is a point. As in soccer, a touch by a defender is still an (own) goal.

Too easy and it avoids the stupid question, "Was it touched off the boot?"

[AN_Inkling]

^^Deja vu much?

And again, I say no thanks. We call for the league to stop messing with the game, then ask for a change to such a fundamental aspect as how you can score a goal? I want my goals kicked, not slapped, handballed, punched, tackled or headed.

[E]

[Tannin]

Rick, you are right on the money. Agree 100% with you on the need to fix the rules up. No *not* "change the rules" as dumb people are saying, *fix* the rules and get this part of the game running well again, just as it used to before:

(a) Unscrupulous coaches started gaming the rules with multiple deliberate rushed behinds to waste time

(b) The brain-dead rules committee buggerised around the point, bring in a ridiculous new rule that the rushed behind had to be "under pressure", and that "under pressure" meant whatever the umpire felt like at that particular moment. Daft! Blind Freddie could have told you that such a rule would and could only be umpired subjectively, variably, and controversially. Blind Freddie could also have told you that, before too long, the notion of "under pressure" would be expanded to include practically anything and everything. And Blind Freddie, as we all know now, would have been proven absolutely right. The new rule is utterly useless and still controversial.

So, first, axe the stupid new rule. Second, replace it with a simpler, fairer, more logical rule - one which achieves a good, clean, fair game, and yet stays true to the spirit of the original rules back before coaches learned to game the system. A rule which depends on facts, not opinions about players' intentions.

A goal is scored when the ball goes through from the attacking player's boot - exactly as it is now.

If the attacking team was last to touch the ball but not with the boot (i.e., a touched ball), a behind is scored - exactly as now.

If the defending team was last to touch the ball (with hand, foot, or anything else), then the score is two points.

Intention does not matter. Value judgements do not enter into it. Who touched the ball last? That is the only question and although umpires can make mistakes, this way they are only being asked to judge a fact, not make up an opinion.

As for gaming the system, at 2 points a shot, you wouldn't want to do it too often! If you are desperate to save a certain goal, OK, you wear the two points. One point is nothing, two points hurts a bit. You try not to give them away.

(Rick suggests three points. I'm OK with three, but reckon two is ideal. Stui's notion is another good one, but a far more radical change. Mine is simple and isn't even a change, insofar as it returns the game to something very like what it always was until the Rules Committee borked it.)

[E]

[David]

You guys are taking a leaf out of KB's book and looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm fine with rushed behinds counting for one point. That's how it's been for 117 years and the game hasn't yet collapsed in a screaming heap. I opposed the deliberate rushed behind rule when it came in, but am happy with how it's been handled: that is to say, it's never paid, but its presence creates a subtle deterrent (along with the fact of conceding a point to the opposition). What's the problem, exactly?

I'm 100% with Inkling on the ball crossing the goal line by anything but foot. Stui and Jack's suggestion is a one-way ticket to Rugby League. As always, be careful what you wish for!

[slydog81]

Poor accuracy nearly cost us a grand final in 2010.

It needs to improve.