Exactly. If teams are getting an advantage with the 3rd man up then the opposition should just block him (and it actually be allowed)Thing is, why is it a problem? Who cares if a third man goes up?And that, sir, is the point. Nobody cares. It’s part of the game. Always has been. It’s been used a bit more recently than it was say 10 years ago. Big ■■■■■■■ deal.
Thing is, why is it a problem? Who cares if a third man goes up?
I hate it, as an ex ruckman I broke ribs twice being it by a third man up.
I like the idea of Ruck contest being between two ruckman, not one guy then a blocking that guy so some other bloke can jump in from your blind side.
It was bullshit and I’m glad they have put a stop to it, I hope it filters down to lower levels
Thing is, why is it a problem? Who cares if a third man goes up?I hate it, as an ex ruckman I broke ribs twice being it by a third man up.
I like the idea of Ruck contest being between two ruckman, not one guy then a blocking that guy so some other bloke can jump in from your blind side.
It was bullshit and I’m glad they have put a stop to it, I hope it filters down to lower levels
You must have been the skinniest ruckman the game has ever seen.
Thing is, why is it a problem? Who cares if a third man goes up?I hate it, as an ex ruckman I broke ribs twice being it by a third man up.
I like the idea of Ruck contest being between two ruckman, not one guy then a blocking that guy so some other bloke can jump in from your blind side.
It was bullshit and I’m glad they have put a stop to it, I hope it filters down to lower levelsa
Agree 100%. Ruckmen work their arses off making position, out muscling and out smarting their opponent only for some punk to get a run up and whack the ball away. Must be deflating and dispiriting.
Block the fkn third man up then. It’s not hard to protect ya ruckman if your a decent side. Just the afl being bored again and deciding to change another rule. It’d be fantastic if we could go just one measly fkn year without some suit thinking yeah let’s change something for the fkn hell of it. FK OFF
Block the fkn third man up then. It's not hard to protect ya ruckman if your a decent side. Just the afl being bored again and deciding to change another rule. It'd be fantastic if we could go just one measly fkn year without some suit thinking yeah let's change something for the fkn hell of it. FK OFF
All well and good if you were allowed to, but you aren’t. Free kick to the blocked player and/or hawthorn.
Thing is, why is it a problem? Who cares if a third man goes up?I hate it, as an ex ruckman I broke ribs twice being it by a third man up.
I like the idea of Ruck contest being between two ruckman, not one guy then a blocking that guy so some other bloke can jump in from your blind side.
It was bullshit and I’m glad they have put a stop to it, I hope it filters down to lower levels
You must have been the skinniest ruckman the game has ever seen.
Christian “Benfti” Bock.
Thing is, why is it a problem? Who cares if a third man goes up?I hate it, as an ex ruckman I broke ribs twice being it by a third man up.
I like the idea of Ruck contest being between two ruckman, not one guy then a blocking that guy so some other bloke can jump in from your blind side.
It was bullshit and I’m glad they have put a stop to it, I hope it filters down to lower levels
You must have been the skinniest ruckman the game has ever seen.
2nd only to Christian Bock! I weighed more than he did. Mind you in my playing days being 195cm and 72 kilos in juniors wasn’t plesent.
Block the fkn third man up then. It's not hard to protect ya ruckman if your a decent side. Just the afl being bored again and deciding to change another rule. It'd be fantastic if we could go just one measly fkn year without some suit thinking yeah let's change something for the fkn hell of it. FK OFFAll well and good if you were allowed to, but you aren’t. Free kick to the blocked player and/or hawthorn.
Indeed, yet the loop hole has always been a ruckman can block for the third man up
When I was umpiring local footy in the 90’s, we were always told by the umpire coaches that we must pay a free kick if a thirdman goes up. Since then I’ve always been against the 3rd man up strategy, as I believed that it was important that the ruckman had the opportunity to duel it out at each stoppage.
We were also told that we must pay a free kick if the man on the mark gets shepherded while the player with the football plays on.
When I was umpiring local footy in the 90's, we were always told by the umpire coaches that we must pay a free kick if a thirdman goes up. Since then I've always been against the 3rd man up strategy, as I believed that it was important that the ruckman had the opportunity to duel it out at each stoppage.We were also told that we must pay a free kick if the man on the mark gets shepherded while the player with the football plays on.
That’s another rule to be changed. I think umpires just turned a blind eye to it because (free kick) Hawthorn and (Malthouse) Collingwood had it as an integral part of their game plans, and everything has to be OK for those shitstain clubs.
Next year’s rule will probably be that only one defender (nominated) can contest against a forward.
When I was umpiring local footy in the 90's, we were always told by the umpire coaches that we must pay a free kick if a thirdman goes up. Since then I've always been against the 3rd man up strategy, as I believed that it was important that the ruckman had the opportunity to duel it out at each stoppage.We were also told that we must pay a free kick if the man on the mark gets shepherded while the player with the football plays on.
That’s another rule to be changed. I think umpires just turned a blind eye to it because (free kick) Hawthorn and (Malthouse) Collingwood had it as an integral part of their game plans, and everything has to be OK for those shitstain clubs.
That one I would agree with, if it hasn’t cured itself in about another 3 or 4 years.
What’s most objectionable about the Rules Committee in recent years is their readiness to change the rules to stamp out some tactic that a few journos have got excited about when it’s been used a few times.
The deliberate rushed behind is the classic example. There was one game – one – when Richmond in the last quarter deliberately ran the ball through for a point instead of taking a kickout. On the basis of that game alone the rule got changed, but changed in a way that now allows it to be invoked in a whole lot of far different situations. And now it’s got to the point where they’re introducing this year a whole lot of guidelines about whether the player who puts it through is 8 metres out or 9 metres out and total complex crap like that.
And as for deliberate out of bounds – the enforcement of that rule is a lottery and a joke.
The shepherding of the man on the mark has been used by Hawthorn quite successfully in the last few years. If it continues to be successful, some opposition coach will work out a way to counter it, and then it will disappear. If nobody has worked out a counter after about 6 or 7 years, and it still seems like a blight on the game, then would be the time to think about a rule change. Not now.
When I was umpiring local footy in the 90's, we were always told by the umpire coaches that we must pay a free kick if a thirdman goes up. Since then I've always been against the 3rd man up strategy, as I believed that it was important that the ruckman had the opportunity to duel it out at each stoppage.We were also told that we must pay a free kick if the man on the mark gets shepherded while the player with the football plays on.
That’s another rule to be changed. I think umpires just turned a blind eye to it because (free kick) Hawthorn and (Malthouse) Collingwood had it as an integral part of their game plans, and everything has to be OK for those shitstain clubs.That one I would agree with, if it hasn’t cured itself in about another 3 or 4 years.
What’s most objectionable about the Rules Committee in recent years is their readiness to change the rules to stamp out some tactic that a few journos have got excited about when it’s been used a few times.
The deliberate rushed behind is the classic example. There was one game – one – when Richmond in the last quarter deliberately ran the ball through for a point instead of taking a kickout. On the basis of that game alone the rule got changed, but changed in a way that now allows it to be invoked in a whole lot of far different situations. And now it’s got to the point where they’re introducing this year a whole lot of guidelines about whether the player who puts it through is 8 metres out or 9 metres out and total complex crap like that.
And as for deliberate out of bounds – the enforcement of that rule is a lottery and a joke.
The shepherding of the man on the mark has been used by Hawthorn quite successfully in the last few years. If it continues to be successful, some opposition coach will work out a way to counter it, and then it will disappear. If nobody has worked out a counter after about 6 or 7 years, and it still seems like a blight on the game, then would be the time to think about a rule change. Not now.
Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The major driver of introducing the deliberate point rule was Hawthorn’s use of the tactic in the 2008 Grand Final.
When I was umpiring local footy in the 90's, we were always told by the umpire coaches that we must pay a free kick if a thirdman goes up. Since then I've always been against the 3rd man up strategy, as I believed that it was important that the ruckman had the opportunity to duel it out at each stoppage.We were also told that we must pay a free kick if the man on the mark gets shepherded while the player with the football plays on.
That’s another rule to be changed. I think umpires just turned a blind eye to it because (free kick) Hawthorn and (Malthouse) Collingwood had it as an integral part of their game plans, and everything has to be OK for those shitstain clubs.That one I would agree with, if it hasn’t cured itself in about another 3 or 4 years.
What’s most objectionable about the Rules Committee in recent years is their readiness to change the rules to stamp out some tactic that a few journos have got excited about when it’s been used a few times.
The deliberate rushed behind is the classic example. There was one game – one – when Richmond in the last quarter deliberately ran the ball through for a point instead of taking a kickout. On the basis of that game alone the rule got changed, but changed in a way that now allows it to be invoked in a whole lot of far different situations. And now it’s got to the point where they’re introducing this year a whole lot of guidelines about whether the player who puts it through is 8 metres out or 9 metres out and total complex crap like that.
And as for deliberate out of bounds – the enforcement of that rule is a lottery and a joke.
The shepherding of the man on the mark has been used by Hawthorn quite successfully in the last few years. If it continues to be successful, some opposition coach will work out a way to counter it, and then it will disappear. If nobody has worked out a counter after about 6 or 7 years, and it still seems like a blight on the game, then would be the time to think about a rule change. Not now.
Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The major driver of introducing the deliberate point rule was Hawthorn’s use of the tactic in the 2008 Grand Final.
We’re both right.
The game I was thinking of was Richmond v us, not Footscray (How could I make that mistake???); Richmond led by 6 points and Joel Bowden deliberately rushed two behinds while taking the kick out-- non kickout really – and reduced the winning margin to 4 points but saved the game for Richmond by conceding a behind rather than kicking to a contest.
In the GF the same year, Hawthorn rushed 11 points for Geelong. But the situation was different because Hawthorn were on top from halfway through the third quarter and won by 25 points. I don’t recall any of the rushed behinds being really offensive, though.
When I was umpiring local footy in the 90's, we were always told by the umpire coaches that we must pay a free kick if a thirdman goes up. Since then I've always been against the 3rd man up strategy, as I believed that it was important that the ruckman had the opportunity to duel it out at each stoppage.We were also told that we must pay a free kick if the man on the mark gets shepherded while the player with the football plays on.
That’s another rule to be changed. I think umpires just turned a blind eye to it because (free kick) Hawthorn and (Malthouse) Collingwood had it as an integral part of their game plans, and everything has to be OK for those shitstain clubs.That one I would agree with, if it hasn’t cured itself in about another 3 or 4 years.
What’s most objectionable about the Rules Committee in recent years is their readiness to change the rules to stamp out some tactic that a few journos have got excited about when it’s been used a few times.
The deliberate rushed behind is the classic example. There was one game – one – when Richmond in the last quarter deliberately ran the ball through for a point instead of taking a kickout. On the basis of that game alone the rule got changed, but changed in a way that now allows it to be invoked in a whole lot of far different situations. And now it’s got to the point where they’re introducing this year a whole lot of guidelines about whether the player who puts it through is 8 metres out or 9 metres out and total complex crap like that.
And as for deliberate out of bounds – the enforcement of that rule is a lottery and a joke.
The shepherding of the man on the mark has been used by Hawthorn quite successfully in the last few years. If it continues to be successful, some opposition coach will work out a way to counter it, and then it will disappear. If nobody has worked out a counter after about 6 or 7 years, and it still seems like a blight on the game, then would be the time to think about a rule change. Not now.
Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The major driver of introducing the deliberate point rule was Hawthorn’s use of the tactic in the 2008 Grand Final.We’re both right.
The game I was thinking of was Richmond v us, not Footscray (How could I make that mistake???); Richmond led by 6 points and Joel Bowden deliberately rushed two behinds while taking the kick out-- non kickout really – and reduced the winning margin to 4 points but saved the game for Richmond by conceding a behind rather than kicking to a contest.
In the GF the same year, Hawthorn rushed 11 points for Geelong. But the situation was different because Hawthorn were on top from halfway through the third quarter and won by 25 points. I don’t recall any of the rushed behinds being really offensive, though.
My first thought whenever I think of that change is Bowden too. And funnily enough I didn’t remember it was against us either. Obviously a combination of that and the GF.
l remember it being against us. Within the rules of the game, but certainly not in the spirit of the contest.
1 Like
Both are worth watching again.
Ok first thing i.noticed here was healy the farking grub called for the player to do it. If that’s how you win games then there is no honour in it and this is the reason the rules should have been reviewed to stop gutless plays like this.
Great tackle from jetta btw.
Now this was a legitimate pre-planned tactic. you can see a few times they go backwards a fair way to rush a behind because the way forward is too risky. This is the same kind of tactic as the switch. They were pretty smart in some of the other rushed situations too, geelongs small forwards really couldn’t apply their pressure because the rushed point negated them.
Neither were a good look but really the rule didn’t need to be changed based on what hawthorn did. But it did based on what bowden did. A better rule would have been no rushed behinds in time on in the last quarter. No interpretation, no ambiguity.
Nek minnit teams will have to nominate which 2 players go up in a marking contest, with a free paid against a third man in