AFL Rules Committee produces yet another stupid rule change

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

I can play this silly game too. Why stop at a 3rd man up. Teams will have 17 men up soon.

No matter how stupid, the rules committee have to justify their existence somehow.

Both are worth watching again.

Ok first thing i.noticed here was healy the farking grub called for the player to do it. If thatā€™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.

FK me we shouldā€™ve won that gameā€¦
Lost count of how many times Iā€™ve said that about Richmond games

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

I can play this silly game too. Why stop at a 3rd man up. Teams will have 17 men up soon.

Why not?
Apart from your own personal tastes what reasons do you have for disallowing 17 men up?

Both are worth watching again.

Ok first thing i.noticed here was healy the farking grub called for the player to do it. If thatā€™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.

FK me we shouldā€™ve won that gameā€¦
Lost count of how many times Iā€™ve said that about Richmond games

IIRC we had the opportunity but Hille and (was it) Stanton missed straightforward shots late.

I think this is a good rule change.

Both are worth watching again.

Ok first thing i.noticed here was healy the farking grub called for the player to do it. If thatā€™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.

FK me we shouldā€™ve won that gameā€¦
Lost count of how many times Iā€™ve said that about Richmond games

IIRC we had the opportunity but Hille and (was it) Stanton missed straightforward shots late.

I have laycock missing that shot in my mind but could be wrong

who cares if the third man cant go up. is it such a bad thing for the game?

Both are worth watching again.

Ok first thing i.noticed here was healy the farking grub called for the player to do it. If thatā€™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.

FK me we shouldā€™ve won that gameā€¦
Lost count of how many times Iā€™ve said that about Richmond games

IIRC we had the opportunity but Hille and (was it) Stanton missed straightforward shots late.

I have laycock missing that shot in my mind but could be wrong

That sounds right. But we missed two easy shots that should have had us in front.

To my mind, that was a rule that had to change.

who cares if the third man cant go up. is it such a bad thing for the game?

My issue isnā€™t with the rule, just the (non) justification for the change

who cares if the third man cant go up. is it such a bad thing for the game?

My issue isnā€™t with the rule, just the (non) justification for the change


The justification for the rule is pretty clear. They want to enhance the position of ruckman to keep the tradition of a variety of body types playing and give protection from a third party jumping into your back. Which Iā€™m all for.

I donā€™t mind the rule change but I just donā€™t want to see more perplexing ruck frees paid. The other possible issue I see is that the 3rd man up usually knocks it clear of the pack & allows the play to flow, more 1 on 1 ruck contest around the ground could simply lead to more ugly packs & the rolling maul.

who cares if the third man cant go up. is it such a bad thing for the game?

My issue isnā€™t with the rule, just the (non) justification for the change


The justification for the rule is pretty clear. They want to enhance the position of ruckman to keep the tradition of a variety of body types playing and give protection from a third party jumping into your back. Which Iā€™m all for.

Have any ruckman been injured by a third man in 100 years?
Have any ruckman been made obsolete by teams utilising a third man up? And what efforts were made by the AFL to preserve the stay at home full forward? Or the slow Joe Misit style midfielder?

who cares if the third man cant go up. is it such a bad thing for the game?

My issue isnā€™t with the rule, just the (non) justification for the change


The justification for the rule is pretty clear. They want to enhance the position of ruckman to keep the tradition of a variety of body types playing and give protection from a third party jumping into your back. Which Iā€™m all for.

Have any ruckman been injured by a third man in 100 years?

Benfti apparently

1 Like

ā€˜Third man upā€™ rule tweaked ahead of round one
Nat Edwards March 17, 2017 3:18 PM

THE AFL has tweaked its new ā€˜third man upā€™ rule to ensure a passive player hit by a throw-in at a stoppage will not be penalised.

A memo, seen by AFL.com.au, was sent to all AFL clubs on Friday morning from new AFL football operations boss Simon Lethlean, to inform them of the modification.

From round one, umpires are instructed to call play on ā€œif the ball strikes the non-designated ruck, who is passive and has no intention to contest or impact the ruck contestā€.

The Leagueā€™s new ruck rule, designed to ban the third man up at ruck contests, came under fire during the pre-season when Adelaideā€™s Dean Gore had a free kick paid against him after he was struck in the back by a boundary throw-in that fell short of the two nominated ruckmen.

Crows coach Don Pyke told reporters during a media briefing in Adelaide on Friday he was pleased with the change to the rule.

ā€œThat makes sense,ā€ Pyke said.

"If guys are standing around the stoppage minding their own business and going about being a midfielder and the ball hits them, play on.

"The other challenge weā€™ll face is if the ball gets thrown in and it lands short.

"I think the umpires will use their discretion, but the rule, as I understand it, is if you contest the ball before it hits the ground, itā€™s a free kick as well.

"Iā€™d argue players will instinctively go, itā€™s going to land here, the ruckman are here, Iā€™m going to have to wait for the ball to bounce.

ā€œHopefully they will throw it in again.ā€

Under the rule at the time, Gore was penalised as he was not the designated ruckman at that contest.

The League canvassed club coaches after the Gore incident, and subsequently decided to alter the law.

The clubs were also asked for feedback on the stricter interpretation of the deliberate rushed behind rule, as well as the trial of a more lenient penalty.

During the first three weeks of the JLT Community Series, the punishment for a deliberate rushed behind was a ball-up 14 metres out from goal, rather than a free kick from the goal line.

After surveying the 18 clubs and analysing the results, the League decided the penalty for a deliberate rushed behind would remain a free kick from the goal line, as was the case last year.

The stricter interpretation as outlined to clubs ahead of the JLT Community Series, will also remain, meaning players who try to rush a behind from ā€œoutside of the top of the kick-off line (nine metres) and its extension to the behind postā€, will be penalised.

That they had to make a rule change instead of telling umpires to use common sense about balls hitting passive players really says something about how the game is umpired

5 Likes

[quote=ā€œYossarian, post:56, topic:3880, full:trueā€]
That they had to make a rule change instead of telling umpires to use common sense about balls hitting passive players really says something about how the game is umpired
[/quote] According to the rules?

Actually part of the reason they were happy to make the change was that they got analysis that showed it didnā€™t lead to any cleaner clearances.

The umpires know the what but donā€™t get the why. They umpire like a program instead of a thinking person

2 Likes

[quote=ā€œAnts, post:57, topic:3880, full:trueā€]

Yes, but maybe they left out the bits of the analysis that didnā€™t suit their agenda.

1 Like

How about using this thread for rule change suggestions!

My thought has been brought about by Hawthornā€™s dilemma, they have given away this years first round draft pick, so finishing low on the ladder benefits St Kilda and not them.

This concept could be harnessed for the betterment of the competition. Instead of getting the number 1 draft pick if you finish on the bottom, alternatively you could get to be the first to pick which opposition side you would like to select in the next years competition, and your pick will be determined by their ladder position.

So the effect would be to delay draft gratification by one year and you will have an incentive to try to worsen the draft position of whoever selected your team, and conversely the team you selected, you will want to make their ladder position worse. So generally every team will have an incentive to play well in any given year, rather than getting instant draft gratification for playing badly in a particular year.

1 Like