I support the ruckman getting a clearer go at it.It is interesting though that this one splits supporters down the middle.
I didn’t mind the AFL’s justification that they want to support the big players to stay in the game and keep their pivotal role.
Genuine ruckman are in danger of becoming extinct, the game needs its dinosaurs.
This is about having really tall people pretend to be ruckman. Way better they remove the centre circle and allow ruck work to reintroduce tests of strength rather than just asking are you 847 feet tall. This is about homes for kids who don’t stick with basketball, and absolutely nothing to do with dinosaurs.
I support the ruckman getting a clearer go at it.It is interesting though that this one splits supporters down the middle.
I didn’t mind the AFL’s justification that they want to support the big players to stay in the game and keep their pivotal role.
Genuine ruckman are in danger of becoming extinct, the game needs its dinosaurs.
What a load of ■■■■
What next? Compulsory to play 2 players over 200cm and 5 under 180cm to “keep them in the game”?
If an athlete(s) can’t adapt to the way their sport is heading they don’t deserve to play at the elite levelPerhaps Vandal Savage and Magneto were right in their suggestion(s) mankind was slowing down its own glorious evolution
Don’t be so full of ■■■■ yourself. If you had your way KB types would still be throwing the ball out in front of themselves and drawing frees.
Just saying I think a ruck contest should be between 2 ruckman and if you want to legislate they should be under 180cm that’s your business.
Other rule changes not within the AFL article posted
In a series of pre-Christmas rule changes, clubs were told:
-
THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.
-
PLAYERS won’t get a free kick for high contact if they drop their knees or raise their arms to make a legal tackle illegal.
-
PUNCHES to the stomach will have a “stricter interpretation”, meaning players are more likely to cop a suspension.
-
JUMPER punches with minimal impact will attract a fine.
-
THE match review panel will be given the power to recommend a sanction to clubs involved in large melees or multiple breaches in a single season.
-
CHARGES of engaging in a melee and wrestling will be merged to further discourage repeat offenders.
Does anyone actually think that removing the third man up is going to make the game worse?
People just want to get angry at the AFL and the rules committee for the sake of it.
I support no rule changes unless they are no-brainers after years of evidence showing that the game is suffering because of something. Alas, they’re always knee-jerk reactions to evolution of the game, and each change usually creates its own set of new problems as players/teams work out ways to, not exploit, but work their way though or around the rules. The game will go through its phases of how it’s played, but it’s these rule changes that forever alter its course.
I support the ruckman getting a clearer go at it.It is interesting though that this one splits supporters down the middle.
I didn’t mind the AFL’s justification that they want to support the big players to stay in the game and keep their pivotal role.
Genuine ruckman are in danger of becoming extinct, the game needs its dinosaurs.
What a load of ■■■■
What next? Compulsory to play 2 players over 200cm and 5 under 180cm to “keep them in the game”?
If an athlete(s) can’t adapt to the way their sport is heading they don’t deserve to play at the elite levelPerhaps Vandal Savage and Magneto were right in their suggestion(s) mankind was slowing down its own glorious evolution
Don’t be so full of ■■■■ yourself. If you had your way KB types would still be throwing the ball out in front of themselves and drawing frees.
Just saying I think a ruck contest should be between 2 ruckman and if you want to legislate they should be under 180cm that’s your business.
I’m full of ■■■■?
You’re basically advocating the AFL change the rules to appease a sub set of players once the natural progression of the game means their kind are no longer relevant
The dinosaurs of the AFL have gone the way the actual dinosaurs, and that’s the way it should be (otherwise it wouldn’t have happened)
Will the ump nominate the two rucks before each contest, like in the under-tens?
And they will say lets have 2 new ruckman you cant ruck 2 stoppages in a row…walla aginst rioli would be fun!
Tippa vs Caleb Daniel.
McGrath vs Rioli
I dont understand why this was actually a problem much less one that required action.
I dont understand why this was actually a problem much less one that required action.
Should be Called the Blicavs rule.
Third man was talked up because Blicavs can run as a mid and contest the ruck as well. sometimes third man up and with Stanley also rucking opposition rucks weren’t sure who they were rucking against.
Media made a big song and dance about it. And here we are.
Does anyone actually think that removing the third man up is going to make the game worse?I think less-than-perfect implementation will likely create as many problems as it fixes.
If they really wanted to protect the role of ruckmen, they never would have stopped bouncing the ball.
- THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.
…in plays involving an Essendon player. Then we’ll just let it go after a couple of weeks.
I support the ruckman getting a clearer go at it.It is interesting though that this one splits supporters down the middle.
I didn’t mind the AFL’s justification that they want to support the big players to stay in the game and keep their pivotal role.
Genuine ruckman are in danger of becoming extinct, the game needs its dinosaurs.
What a load of ■■■■
What next? Compulsory to play 2 players over 200cm and 5 under 180cm to “keep them in the game”?
If an athlete(s) can’t adapt to the way their sport is heading they don’t deserve to play at the elite levelPerhaps Vandal Savage and Magneto were right in their suggestion(s) mankind was slowing down its own glorious evolution
Don’t be so full of ■■■■ yourself. If you had your way KB types would still be throwing the ball out in front of themselves and drawing frees.
Just saying I think a ruck contest should be between 2 ruckman and if you want to legislate they should be under 180cm that’s your business.
I’m full of ■■■■?
You’re basically advocating the AFL change the rules to appease a sub set of players once the natural progression of the game means their kind are no longer relevant
The dinosaurs of the AFL have gone the way the actual dinosaurs, and that’s the way it should be (otherwise it wouldn’t have happened)
I don’t say you have no point, but if you throw ■■■■, I will throw it back.
Evolution is a good thing in general, but not always, the game is in danger of becoming an endurance sport more than a physical contest, with players like Lockett unlikely to be able to get a game as it has evolved to today. Many spectacular Aboriginal players would struggle to get a game too if they couldn’t develop an endurance base.
The AFL will change rules according to its guiding principles and I would argue that it is using the bolded 2 principles below to inform this decision.
The guiding principles for the Laws of the Game are:
- The unique characteristics of the game should be maintained and encouraged
- Player health and safety is protected via the Laws of the Game, interpretations and officiating
- A priority of the Laws, interpretations and officiating is to reward and protect the player who makes winning the ball their primary objective
- Australian Football at AFL level should be maintained as a physically tough and contested game with appropriate consideration to player health and safety
- Players of various sizes, football and athletic ability have an opportunity for success in the game played at the highest level
- The direction and movement of the ball is unpredictable and has few restrictions
- There are few restrictions on where player can be located across the ground
- Continuous and free flowing football is encouraged ahead of repetitive short passages of play
- The Laws of the Game balances offensive and defensive aspects of play, where an attacking style of game is encouraged
afl.com.au/afl-hq/afl-laws-of-the-game
Not that I don’t hate the AFL as much as the next Blitzer.
Other rule changes not within the AFL article postedSo, there is a melee on the field and as of 2017, now the club also gets pinged and fined? What's next? The AFL ought to get together with VicRoads and use each other's creativity, on creating new fines.In a series of pre-Christmas rule changes, clubs were told:
THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.
PLAYERS won’t get a free kick for high contact if they drop their knees or raise their arms to make a legal tackle illegal.
PUNCHES to the stomach will have a “stricter interpretation”, meaning players are more likely to cop a suspension.
JUMPER punches with minimal impact will attract a fine.
THE match review panel will be given the power to recommend a sanction to clubs involved in large melees or multiple breaches in a single season.
CHARGES of engaging in a melee and wrestling will be merged to further discourage repeat offenders.
* THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.…in plays involving an Essendon player. Then we’ll just let it go after a couple of weeks.
In the case of Essendon players, they will be penalised as well as suspended and treated as a delisted free agent at the end of the season
Other rule changes not within the AFL article postedIn a series of pre-Christmas rule changes, clubs were told:
- THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.
* PLAYERS won’t get a free kick for high contact if they drop their knees or raise their arms to make a legal tackle illegal.
PUNCHES to the stomach will have a “stricter interpretation”, meaning players are more likely to cop a suspension.
JUMPER punches with minimal impact will attract a fine.
THE match review panel will be given the power to recommend a sanction to clubs involved in large melees or multiple breaches in a single season.
CHARGES of engaging in a melee and wrestling will be merged to further discourage repeat offenders.
Fantastic!
Other rule changes not within the AFL article postedIn a series of pre-Christmas rule changes, clubs were told:
- THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.
* PLAYERS won’t get a free kick for high contact if they drop their knees or raise their arms to make a legal tackle illegal.
PUNCHES to the stomach will have a “stricter interpretation”, meaning players are more likely to cop a suspension.
JUMPER punches with minimal impact will attract a fine.
THE match review panel will be given the power to recommend a sanction to clubs involved in large melees or multiple breaches in a single season.
CHARGES of engaging in a melee and wrestling will be merged to further discourage repeat offenders.
Fantastic!
So how will Joel Selwood get a kick now?
* THERE will be a stricter interpretation of deliberate rushed behinds.aka…the Joel Bowden Rule.…in plays involving an Essendon player. Then we’ll just let it go after a couple of weeks.