Joel Bowden = Trevor Chappell

[dom_105]

Fair enough, it was in the rules, but it wasn't pretty.

[Boyler_Room]

Ha, yeah I heard that call too!

[MH_Bomber]

One thing I learnt in my 40 odd years of following the game is that there is a thing called footy karma and the footy gods. Bowden's last 30 seconds actions will come back to haunt Richmond in a big way. Hopefully it will be in the last round and whoever they are playing does that to them and they finish ninth yet again.

[Rossoneri]

One thing I learnt in my 40 odd years of following the game is that there is a thing called footy karma and the footy gods. Bowden's last 30 seconds actions will come back to haunt Richmond in a big way. Hopefully it will be in the last round and whoever they are playing does that to them and they finish ninth yet again.

Hope they miss out on percentge by a point.

But I couldn't give a f***, he is a lousy player in a shit team, what does that make him?

[hop]

One thing I learnt in my 40 odd years of following the game is that there is a thing called footy karma and the footy gods. Bowden's last 30 seconds actions will come back to haunt Richmond in a big way. Hopefully it will be in the last round and whoever they are playing does that to them and they finish ninth yet again.

Hope they miss out on percentge by a point.

But I couldn't give a f***, he is a lousy player in a shit team, what does that make him?

Joel Bowden - Richmond Footballer

[Rossoneri]

One thing I learnt in my 40 odd years of following the game is that there is a thing called footy karma and the footy gods. Bowden's last 30 seconds actions will come back to haunt Richmond in a big way. Hopefully it will be in the last round and whoever they are playing does that to them and they finish ninth yet again.

Hope they miss out on percentge by a point.

But I couldn't give a f***, he is a lousy player in a shit team, what does that make him?

Joel Bowden - Richmond Footballer

Double whammy!

[Dr P]

jeez what he did pissed me off

[boncer34]

8 posts in a year..... unreal.

[bombercol]

Didn't see the game (taped it) and got home from work with 2mins:30 to go.

It was an ugly finish, and I read that Brian Royal said that he would've kept doing it if he had to.

We did miss two easy shots at goal just before that, however in what I heard was a good game it was a shame to finish that way.

Maybe that could be our 3 point rushed behind, to stop it from happening again.

[ace076]

nothing wrong with what Bowden did, if we had of kicked ONE of those set shots, he would not have had the opportunity to do it, simple! Ball back to the centre and game in the balance subject to a centre break. Disappointing, but galant effort none the less.

[The Fly]

Within the rules? Yes
Ugly? Yes
Would we do it in the same situation? Probably

Don't be surprised to see 3 or 4 points for a rushed behind in the future. Don't they already have it (3 pts) in the NAB cup?

[vern]

Did it cost us the game? No - Injuries, poor decision making and poor goalkicking did that.

Did it cost us the chance to win the game? Absolutely - and this is the problem that the AFL needs to look at. They should ask themselves this - would you like to see the last minute or two minutes of the Grand Final end like that?

A simple rule change is needed - if you play on from a kick in and immediately rush a behind then the opposition is awared a free kick for timewasting from the top of the goal square. This will force the player doing the kicking in to either kick or handball to a teammate.

[BenDoolan]

Within the rules? Yes
Ugly? Yes
Would we do it in the same situation? Probably

Don't be surprised to see 3 or 4 points for a rushed behind in the future. Don't they already have it (3 pts) in the NAB cup?

No thanks.

I would rather see the umpire allow the extra point, and then bounce the ball at the top of the square because they didn't kick it in. That would stop the practice in it's tracks.

[MH_Bomber]

Within the rules? Yes
Ugly? Yes
Would we do it in the same situation? Probably

Don't be surprised to see 3 or 4 points for a rushed behind in the future. Don't they already have it (3 pts) in the NAB cup?

No thanks.

I would rather see the umpire allow the extra point, and then bounce the ball at the top of the square because they didn't kick it in. That would stop the practice in it's tracks.

Thats exactly right BD. You wouldnt want to see a GF decided that way.

[robrulz5]

It was cowardly. The typical Richmond way, if that's how they want their club to look then fine.

[The Fly]

Within the rules? Yes
Ugly? Yes
Would we do it in the same situation? Probably

Don't be surprised to see 3 or 4 points for a rushed behind in the future. Don't they already have it (3 pts) in the NAB cup?

No thanks.

I would rather see the umpire allow the extra point, and then bounce the ball at the top of the square because they didn't kick it in. That would stop the practice in it's tracks.

Thats exactly right BD. You wouldnt want to see a GF decided that way.

Yeah, so the defending team get a 50/50 chance of punching the ball over the line for another RB.

If there is a view that the practise needs to be 'engineered' out before it catches on, then there needs to be a sufficient deterrent. Perhaps the same OOTF from full back rule can be applied. If no player other than the FB touches the ball before it is out of play (rushed) then its an opposition free kick. Taken from the top of square. Problem solved .

[bomberdonnie]

Within the rules? Yes
Ugly? Yes
Would we do it in the same situation? Probably

Don't be surprised to see 3 or 4 points for a rushed behind in the future. Don't they already have it (3 pts) in the NAB cup?

No thanks.

I would rather see the umpire allow the extra point, and then bounce the ball at the top of the square because they didn't kick it in. That would stop the practice in it's tracks.

Totally agree BD this is exactly what I was thinking when I was listening to it

[The Man from Bomberland]

I'd be more interested in this situation if we didn't butcher the game with our kicking in the final few minutes. The game was ours to win and we blew it. There better be some serious goal-kicking practice this week. Get the captain to give those boys some personal tutoring.

[BenDoolan]

Absolute shocker. Agree with Connolly here except the last para, given we had more scoring shots despite being down to 19 men.

Three points for rushed behind to melt the ice

Rohan Connolly | July 21, 2008

YOU knew as Joel Bowden cleverly soaked up the precious 28 seconds left on the clock on Saturday that we were going to be talking about it for some time afterwards.

And so we need to. While protracted debate on the odd quirk in games of football can be tedious, Bowden's two rushed behinds that assured Richmond of its win over Essendon raises some serious issues. The Tigers were six points up when it happened. Say there'd been three or so minutes left on the clock. The canny Tiger could theoretically have kicked to himself then walked back through the goals five times and taken 180-odd seconds off the clock. Smart tactics, certainly. A good look for the game? Absolutely not.

Already, the suggestions are flying thick and fast. You could legislate to prevent the player kicking-in from moving backwards. Outlaw altogether the capacity for him to play on. Start the time clock again only when a second player has touched the ball. Etc., etc.

Personally, I prefer the perhaps more dramatic route of implementing the NAB Cup rule of three points for a rushed behind. That, at least, would have limited Bowden to doing it once. It may also curtail the increasing willingness of defenders to concede behinds in general play.

Think how often now you see a backman up to 20 metres from goal handball or even kick a score for the opposition in order to "get out of jail" or merely just begin another set-play kick-out routine.

But something, surely, has to be done. Now it's happened in a tight game, and knowing not only the frequency of close finishes but the capacity of football to ape innovation, the chance of plenty of recurrences is more than scaremongering. If we're going to continue to talk about changes such as not paying marks for kicks backwards behind centre in an attempt to make it harder to "ice" the clock, this anomaly is even more pressing.

At least when defenders kick the ball around to each other, there's some sort of football skill being executed. What Bowden was able to do involved no one else, and nothing more than a tap from foot to hand before walking backwards a few steps.

In an on-going debate about the attractiveness of the game, the rushed behinds stood out like the sorest of thumbs.

Good luck to Bowden for having the brain to carry it out. And good luck to Richmond for hanging on to the match points, which they probably deserved anyway. But clever though it all was, it wasn't football. It wasn't even sport at all, for that matter.

Not interested.

[rockhole]

We are now experiencing anything up to 10 minutes per game of "junk time" whereby neither team has anu intention of moving the ball forwarded and would rather "ice the clock".

The Bowden incident just shows how this can get out of hand when you get clever pricks exploiting the rules.

I am a fierce traditionalist who loathes any tinkering with the rules, but I believe this whole issue needs to be addressed as it potentially kills what used to be in some instances, the most exciting part of a game.

I believe that we should readdress solutions such as not being able to kick the ball backwards inside defensive 50 (perhaps only during time on), a ball up at the top of the square for a deliberately rushed behind after a point has been scored or any other ideas that prevent this “dead time” which kills the game as a spectacle.

And on another point. Why was time on not blown when Stanton marked and went back for a shot. Is it not standard practice to blow time on if a player is obviously going to take a shot and the umpire stops everything to set the mark. We lost about 30 seconds as a result of this.