You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!
The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that
The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line = Clueless
The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane
Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged
Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.
I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule
WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.
No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.
Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.
Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.
I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.