AFL officials are keen to introduce the new rushed behinds rule for the regular season, even though the feedback from coaches is still mixed.

Some mistakes in policing the rule during the pre-season have clouded the issue, but umpires director Jeff Gieschen and the league's game analysis manager Andrew McKay say the rule is working.

Under the rule change, an umpire can penalise a defender a free kick on the goal line if the rushed behind is blatant.

Hawthorn's 11 rushed behinds in their grand final win over Geelong last September highlighted the trend of defenders using the rushed behind as a tactic to stop play.

"Coaches were a bit sceptical to start with, but they're pretty happy with how it's going," McKay said.

"But it's a mixed bag as to whether they want the rule (in the regular season) for `09."

McKay is also a member of the laws of the game committee, which will decide on Thursday whether to recommend the introduction of the rule for the regular season.

If they vote in favour the AFL executive will refer the matter to the commission at their March 20 meeting, a week out from round one.

"It's worked quite well - it's a little bit of a pity, as Jeff said, that a few of the umps have got it wrong," McKay said.

"But it's worked quite well and it was designed to get rid of the ones that looked terrible.

"It's the `boo' factor, isn't it - the ones that the crowd boos.

"You want to get rid of those, because it's not good for the game."

McKay, a star defender in his playing days at Carlton, laughed when asked if backmen might try to make rushed behinds look less than deliberate.

"Try your luck, go ahead, try your luck - have you been back there, in the goalsquare?" he said.

Meanwhile, McKay continues to strongly defend the decision to charge Collingwood captain Nick Maxwell with rough conduct.

McKay is chairman of the match review panel, which last month handed Maxwell a four-match ban for his bump on West Coast youngster Patrick McGinnity.

The clash left McGinnity with a broken jaw, putting him out of action for up to three months, and created a storm of controversy about whether the bump had a future in the game.

Collingwood lost the tribunal case, but successfully appealed - the first time a player has won an appeal under the current system.

That led to a tightening of the rough conduct rules.

The Magpies argued Maxwell's head, not his shoulder, made contact with McGinnity's jaw and the AFL did not dispute that during the original tribunal hearing.

But McKay remains convinced it was the shoulder.

He thinks if there had been some argument during the tribunal hearing about what part of Maxwell's body had made contact, it might have influenced the appeals board decision.

"I believe it was shoulder to jaw, that's why I made that decision ... I still believe it's shoulder to jaw," he said.

"I might be wrong, but that's what we thought.

"We're not out to `get' people, it doesn't bother me that Maxwell got off ... good luck to him."

Brought to you by AAP © 2024 AAP