Rule changes for 2017

[Sedat]

Talk is that 3rd man up will be outlawed in 2017 and there will also be a crackdown on incorrect disposal by hand. Sounds like the AFEL have us in their sights on both counts.

[1eyedog]

Disappointed. As the reigning premier I expected more, such as; traffic lights out in Geelong? Free kick Western Bulldogs.

I think Lachie Hunter is going to go from averaging 25 possies a match to 15.

[comrade]

Talk is that 3rd man up will be outlawed in 2017 and there will also be a crackdown on incorrect disposal by hand. Sounds like the AFEL have us in their sights on both counts.

Clarkson didn't get to the top of the hill by being a nuffie. He knew exactly what he was doing when he questioned our tactics after the semi final.

[Bulldog4life]

Talk is that 3rd man up will be outlawed in 2017 and there will also be a crackdown on incorrect disposal by hand. Sounds like the AFEL have us in their sights on both counts.

David King was on about our handballing all year. Continually saying some were throws. Heard Gerard Healy saying it too. Reminds me of the VFL outlawing Teddy's flick pass all over again.

[G-Mo77]

Just another grey area on some already frustrating rules. I'd love to see a season without a "tweak" of the rules.

[Scraggers]

David King was on about our handballing all year. Continually saying some were throws. Heard Gerard Healy saying it too. Reminds me of the VFL outlawing Teddy's flick pass all over again.

Do you think it is coincidental that the year the sub is removed and interchange reduced to 120 a game is the year we win the GF? Our fitness and quick ball movement (the handball club) was paramount to our game style. No one could match our speed ... The AFL have to try and slow us down somehow.

[GVGjr]

Do you think it is coincidental that the year the sub is removed and interchange reduced to 120 a game is the year we win the GF? Our fitness and quick ball movement (the handball club) was paramount to our game style. No one could match our speed ... The AFL have to try and slow us down somehow.

I think we read the play very well and identified that if a cap on the number of interchanges were implemented then we needed to factor that into our drafting model. All the mids we drafted in 2014 had 14 plus beep tests at the combine.

Even with all of our injuries we just rotated more players through the midfield than other sides.

[Scraggers]

I think we read the play very well and identified that if a cap on the number of interchanges were implemented then we needed to factor that into our drafting model. All the mids we drafted in 2014 had 14 plus beep tests at the combine.

Even with all of our injuries we just rotated more players through the midfield than other sides.

I love that train of thought GVG; so with that in mind, which way is the AFL going in 3/4 years from now ... all our recruits are talls???

[Bulldog4life]

I love that train of thought GVG; so with that in mind, which way is the AFL going in 3/4 years from now ... all our recruits are talls???

I thought losing Stevens and Hrovat we would have gone for another midfielder...I am counting Lipinski as one.

[GVGjr]

I love that train of thought GVG; so with that in mind, which way is the AFL going in 3/4 years from now ... all our recruits are talls???

Hard to say other than what I've previously mentioned that we draft in clusters of similar sized players with differing skill sets.
2 years back we went with a collection of 5 mids who all played forward with a father son pick thrown in as well. On draft night, Webb was nominated as a defender and 12 months later he's back in the midfield.
This year 5 talls were drafted and 4 of them are forwards and no doubt 2 of the will be earmarked for defensive roles. At a guess that could be Young and Greene.

Balanced drafts be damned :) Find what you want and draft a swag of them.

[Sedat]

Confirmed that 3rd man up is outlawed in 2017. Don't you just love the way the AFEL put out a pissy press release just before Xmas like they are taking out the garbage.

This is a major change to the way the game will be played moving forward. Would Melbourne for example have traded for Jordan Lewis and offered him a lengthy 3 year contract had they known the rule would change so quickly? Would Tim English have been ignored by so many clubs? It is an appalling lack of integrity by the AFEL to implement such rule changes after club lists have been finalised for the following year.

FWIW I'm not too bothered by how this will impact us - I suspect that we have already plannned for this eventuality with our trade and draft strategy. I do think some other clubs might have been caught short by this - Geelong with their plethora of mobile rucks who aren't very good at actual ruck work springs to mind.

[jazzadogs]

Bont had five hit outs to advantage in the Grand Final, and 53 hit outs for the year. It is absolutely a tactic that we have used to our advantage, but I hope it's impact will be minor going forward.

The most ridiculous part of the AFEL reasoning was that "there was no evidence to show that it reduced congestion." Who gives a damn? It also doesn't increase congestion, so what is actually gained by changing it? An ongoing role for 210cm players who aren't mobile?

[bornadog]

Bont had five hit outs to advantage in the Grand Final, and 53 hit outs for the year. It is absolutely a tactic that we have used to our advantage, but I hope it's impact will be minor going forward.

The most ridiculous part of the AFEL reasoning was that "there was no evidence to show that it reduced congestion." Who gives a damn? It also doesn't increase congestion, so what is actually gained by changing it? An ongoing role for 210cm players who aren't mobile?

This has always been my beef against rule changes -WHY, what is the benefit, how does it improve the game? What is wrong with the current rule?

[Axe Man]

Luke Hodge has labelled the AFL’s decision to abolish the third man up rule as ‘ridiculous’ (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/luke-hodge-has-labelled-the-afls-decision-to-abolish-the-third-man-up-rule-as-ridiculous/news-story/893e03a1a8415079acc291047d0c8160)

SUPERSTARS Luke Hodge and Patrick Dangerfield have slammed the AFL’s decision to ban the “third man up” in all ruck contests.

The league said the radical rule change, proposed by the Laws of the Game Committee and approved by the commission, was made to guarantee the long-term future of the game’s big men.

The new rule states: “Only nominated ruckmen will be able to compete at a contest for a throw-in or ball-up, with players no longer permitted to contest a ruck contest as a third man up.”

Hawthorn skipper Hodge and Geelong Brownlow medallist Dangerfield were among those to criticise the move. Hawthorn and Geelong have been regular exponents of a tactic that data shows has exploded in recent seasons.

Hodge tweeted: “No 3rd man ???? Ridiculous.”

“What every player is thinking! #seriously #ridiculous” Dangerfield replied.

Geelong ruck Mark Blicavs was also unhappy with the change.

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.

The future of the third man up rule divided clubs at last month’s laws summit meeting, with some wanting the ruck craft to be protected while others were concerned stoppages would become too predictable and congestion would return.

AFL football operations manager Mark Evans said banning players from leaping over the top at ball-ups and throw-ins would safeguard the value of ruckmen.

“These law changes and amendments are in keeping with the AFL’s strong stance to protect players against injury and to promote exciting football in all parts of the ground,” Evans said.

“Eliminating the third man up at ruck contests will support the recruitment of tall players and ensure our game continues to be played at the elite level by players of various sizes and differing abilities.”

Defenders shovelling the ball over the goalline for a rushed behind will be put under a bigger microscope, with umpires told to consider pressure applied, distance from the line and whether there has been prior opportunity.

“A stricter interpretation ... is designed to keep the ball in play and promote contested football, which is the preference of our fans,” Evans said.

The days of players winning free kicks for inducing high tackling contact are over. Umpires will call play on when a tackle is reasonable “and the player with the ball is responsible for the high contact.”

[SlimPickens]

Toby McLeans free kicks for just dropped dramatically.

[Topdog]

If they want proof that it helps congestion they should watch qtrs 2 and 3 of the Hawks final.

[KT31]

If they want proof that it helps congestion they should watch qtrs 2 and 3 of the Hawks final.

Oh well, If I have to watch it again for bloody research then I suppose I have no choice.;)

[bornadog]

Toby McLeans free kicks for just dropped dramatically.

Simple,go the other way. Tackle players around the Neck,shoulder and say he ducked into it.

More stupidity by the AFL. Umpires have to try and work out the right decision. I can see some one getting their head knocked off and the umpire calling play on.

[Sedat]

I'm taking a glass half full approach to this idiotic rule change - we just drafted the best junior ruckman in the country who happens to be 205cms tall. I'm quite sure he would have gone well inside the top 10 of the draft had this rule change been confirmed 2 months ago.

As for Bont, I think he'll be able to cope ;)

[The Bulldogs Bite]

How long before the AFL introduces a tip off, Basketball style?

[G-Mo77]

Staging for frees I'm not fond of but this change makes it even harder for the ump to judge.

3rd man up was a good way to clear congestion. Look at more rolling stoppages another great way to make football more exciting.

Stomach punches only now being penalised harshly? Pat yourselves on the back guys. It took you 20+ years to make a decision on this. Bravo.

Stricter interpretation of rushed behinds. Well done for using another grey pencil to colour our game.

Sorry for the excess sarcasm guys and gals.

[bornadog]

Staging for frees I'm not fond of but this change makes it even harder for the ump to judge.

3rd man up was a good way to clear congestion. Look at more rolling stoppages another great way to make football more exciting.

Stomach punches only now being penalised harshly? Pat yourselves on the back guys. It took you 20+ years to make a decision on this. Bravo.

Stricter interpretation of rushed behinds. Well done for using another grey pencil to colour our game.

Sorry for the excess sarcasm guys and gals.

This time of the year I am cool about it:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EC5Y3wEYjo

[GVGjr]

Whats happened to proposed rule changes being trialed in the Preseason competition?

I don't mind rules being changed if it's supported by facts but clubs need to assess the impact of these changes and be able to trade and draft accordingly if it has the potential to change the way they play.

[boydogs]

Whats happened to proposed rule changes being trialed in the Preseason competition?

I don't mind rules being changed if it's supported by facts but clubs need to assess the impact of these changes and be able to trade and draft accordingly if it has the potential to change the way they play.

It's not practical to wait 15 years until Tim English retires before implementing rule changes without impacting on the careers of existing players. But that is a great reason not to change the rules unless it is really necessary

[hujsh]

Stricter interpretation of rushed behinds. Well done for using another grey pencil to colour our game.

.

Don't see the reason for this at all. The initial change got rid of the Patrick Bowden bullshit and has had little other impact on the game aside from supporters expecting more free kicks because people are stupid. It was one of the few good changes with little to no side effects.

[G-Mo77]

Discussing this at work and someone brought up the ppint about the big lumbering ruck could find a return with the rule change. I see a lot more stoppages with the 3rd up abolished so is there room for one now? Would a guy like Wil Minson found a home if the rules were changed before all list lodgments were made? Would he have stayed on our list?

[Bulldog4life]

Whats happened to proposed rule changes being trialed in the Preseason competition?

I don't mind rules being changed if it's supported by facts but clubs need to assess the impact of these changes and be able to trade and draft accordingly if it has the potential to change the way they play.

Because that makes too much sense G. We can't have that.

[jeemak]

I know we're all a titch more positive about things than we usually are at this time of year, but am I the only one who thinks three major aspects of our strategy, seemingly under the microscope for immediate change, form the basis of the major rule review this year?

Let's face it, the rushed behind rule - unless the umpires become bigger sadists than they already seem to be - is probably low hanging fruit for the AFEL, but the lowering centre of gravity/dropping the knees into a tackle, quick hands and third man up are clearly targeted towards the way we play.

As a tackler there are options, you can tackle just above the knee or just below the shoulders. Each tackling scenario has different outcomes or risk profiles. Go too low, you're called for a trip, go to high you're called for an over the shoulder free kick - so the low risk option is to tackle the middle. Essentially the AFL is now taking away the risk profile a tackler has in attacking the upper body with this rule change. Why should a player not be able to shift his centre of gravity lower to counter someone aiming a tackle high on their body?

The most stupid thing about it is, by making it easier to tackle the upper body you're more likely to see more balls locked in within the tackle because arms aren't free, resulting in more congestion providing they don't mess around with prior opportunity rules (just wait for that to be next on the list).

I'm really surprised umpires need assistance with interpreting what a fair handball is too, I mean, is this an admission that handballing rules had been relaxed over recent times to speed up the game, and once again, avoid congestion? If that is the case, why the changes, have we really taken the piss or is someone just really pissed we've taken advantage of the interpretation as it has stood for a while and mastered the craft accordingly?

The third man up change is ridiculous, this was a clear advantage to us at different times this year and I can't think of any logical reason (big man longevity in the game aside........please, give me a break) for the change. Why would we do it if it didn't get it out in the open?

Someone at AFL House is pissed and we'd be wearing the brunt of it if we were going to play the same way as we did in 2016. The silver lining is we won't be.

[boydogs]

Jeemak - a player can still lower their centre of gravity to avoid a tackler. They just don't get a free if that is what made the tackle high. I can see McLean still doing it to evade tackles successfully

[Twodogs]

I know we're all a titch more positive about things than we usually are at this time of year, but am I the only one who thinks three major aspects of our strategy, seemingly under the microscope for immediate change, form the basis of the major rule review this year?

Let's face it, the rushed behind rule - unless the umpires become bigger sadists than they already seem to be - is probably low hanging fruit for the AFEL, but the lowering centre of gravity/dropping the knees into a tackle, quick hands and third man up are clearly targeted towards the way we play.

As a tackler there are options, you can tackle just above the knee or just below the shoulders. Each tackling scenario has different outcomes or risk profiles. Go too low, you're called for a trip, go to high you're called for an over the shoulder free kick - so the low risk option is to tackle the middle. Essentially the AFL is now taking away the risk profile a tackler has in attacking the upper body with this rule change. Why should a player not be able to shift his centre of gravity lower to counter someone aiming a tackle high on their body?

The most stupid thing about it is, by making it easier to tackle the upper body you're more likely to see more balls locked in within the tackle because arms aren't free, resulting in more congestion providing they don't mess around with prior opportunity rules (just wait for that to be next on the list).

I'm really surprised umpires need assistance with interpreting what a fair handball is too, I mean, is this an admission that handballing rules had been relaxed over recent times to speed up the game, and once again, avoid congestion? If that is the case, why the changes, have we really taken the piss or is someone just really pissed we've taken advantage of the interpretation as it has stood for a while and mastered the craft accordingly?

The third man up change is ridiculous, this was a clear advantage to us at different times this year and I can't think of any logical reason (big man longevity in the game aside........please, give me a break) for the change. Why would we do it if it didn't get it out in the open?

Someone at AFL House is pissed and we'd be wearing the brunt of it if we were going to play the same way as we did in 2016. The silver lining is we won't be.

Yep. If we play the same way we did last year we will be losing games regardless of the lousy umpiring

[jeemak]

Jeemak - a player can still lower their centre of gravity to avoid a tackler. They just don't get a free if that is what made the tackle high. I can see McLean still doing it to evade tackles successfully

I understand that and I think it's rubbish. it removes the onus on the tackler to hit the middle of the body, rather than the upper body. In my view there should be an element of risk in trying to go for the perfect tackle that pins the arms high on the body.

[bornadog]

How exactly are the umpires going to work out who is going up in the ruck at every ball up and throw in? Does it mean players have to nominate every time?

[jeemak]

How will they know if a player has deliberately lowered their centre of gravity to force a tackle high?

Why the AFEL makes interpretation more difficult all the time is beyond me.

[hujsh]

How will they know if a player has deliberately lowered their centre of gravity to force a tackle high?

Why the AFEL makes interpretation more difficult all the time is beyond me.

Hard to tell in the heat of the moment when all you see is Magic getting his head ripped off

[bornadog]

How will they know if a player has deliberately lowered their centre of gravity to force a tackle high?

Why the AFEL makes interpretation more difficult all the time is beyond me.

Exactly, it is a joke.

[GVGjr]

I know we're all a titch more positive about things than we usually are at this time of year, but am I the only one who thinks three major aspects of our strategy, seemingly under the microscope for immediate change, form the basis of the major rule review this year?



A friend of mine has a theory that when teams win a flag that they weren't rally expect to typically (not all the time) they have done it because they exploited the rules better than other sides and he told me straight after the GF that rules would be changed to curb our success or at least test it further.

He cited 3 rules that the AFL would explore.
1) Our quick handballs that appear to be more of a throw
2) The 3rd man up role that Bontempelli and Jong exploited better than most
3) Players dropping to their knees and getting free kicks and in his words specifically highlighted McLean

He mentioned that the coaches will speak to the AFL and sow the seeds for a review and I think he's probably close to being right on the money and it has me concerned on if we will be be quick enough to adapt.



Someone at AFL House is pissed and we'd be wearing the brunt of it if we were going to play the same way as we did in 2016. The silver lining is we won't be.

Lets hope we make the necessary changes.

[GVGjr]

How exactly are the umpires going to work out who is going up in the ruck at every ball up and throw in? Does it mean players have to nominate every time?

They do now don't they? The only change is now they can't have someone jump over the top of them.

[jeemak]

A friend of mine has a theory that when teams win a flag that they weren't rally expect to typically (not all the time) they have done it because they exploited the rules better than other sides and he told me straight after the GF that rules would be changed to curb our success or at least test it further.

He cited 3 rules that the AFL would explore.
1) Our quick handballs that appear to be more of a throw
2) The 3rd man up role that Bontempelli and Jong exploited better than most
3) Players dropping to their knees and getting free kicks and in his words specifically highlighted McLean

He mentioned that the coaches will speak to the AFL and sow the seeds for a review and I think he's probably close to being right on the money and it has me concerned on if we will be be quick enough to adapt.



Lets hope we make the necessary changes.

I don't think it's an unreasonable theory, the first thing Clarkson did after we beat Hawthorn in the semi was bleat to the media about not receiving more free kicks given their large tackle count - it wouldn't be surprising if a few quiet (or not so quiet) words to the officialdom followed.

It's likely we'll not only have our handballs scrutinised more closely, I predict we'll get less time to hang on to the ball in the tackle too.

Much like Clarkson does though, Beveridge would have challenged his coaching team to be creative over the break and come up with strategies to evolve our style, taking for granted opposition clubs at the pointy end will determine ways to to counter how we played in 2016.

I have a feeling with Crameri and Cloke featuring in our forward line we'll take a less handball intensive and more direct approach to moving the ball. With Boyd, Cloke, Crameri and Stringer we'll have a nice mix of height and running capacity to work with from our taller forwards, we'll want to get it to them as quickly as possible.

[boydogs]

I understand that and I think it's rubbish. it removes the onus on the tackler to hit the middle of the body, rather than the upper body. In my view there should be an element of risk in trying to go for the perfect tackle that pins the arms high on the body.

Upper body tackles will still be easier to evade.
The issue is the umpiring, much easier to see arm over shoulder and pay the free than try and work how high the tackle was when the player bent their knees to pickup the ball

[jazzadogs]

What happens when they stuff up a boundary throw in and it falls on someone's head? Players will be jumping out of the way to avoid touching it.

[bornadog]

They do now don't they? The only change is now they can't have someone jump over the top of them.

So at every ball up around the ground, the players nominate to the umpire who is going up?

[hujsh]

So at every ball up around the ground, the players nominate to the umpire who is going up?

Yes I believe they do

[GVGjr]

So at every ball up around the ground, the players nominate to the umpire who is going up?

I was told this earlier in the year and I'm assuming it's correct. I guess the thing is that if you can't use the 3rd man up option in the centre square bounces then isn't it reasonable to do this for all ruck contests so that it's consistent across the ground?

To me one of the key things the AFL is trying to achieve is to make sure we don't lose ruckman to mobile talls. Perhaps coaches putting the likes Minson on the shelf has in some way played a part in the decision.

[aker39]

How exactly are the umpires going to work out who is going up in the ruck at every ball up and throw in? Does it mean players have to nominate every time?


They do now don't they? The only change is now they can't have someone jump over the top of them.


So at every ball up around the ground, the players nominate to the umpire who is going up?


I was told this earlier in the year and I'm assuming it's correct.

As I have an earpiece in listening to the umpires, I can tell you that at every field bounce the umpire asks who is in the ruck so that they can make sure they keep 1m (??) apart.

[Webby]

I can't help but feel a bit targeted by this 3rd up rule change. However:
1. We've got the smartest coach in the game & he'll adapt
2. We got the best tap ruckman in the draft
3. If the rule change was announced prior to the draft, I reckon he'd have gone top 7 or so

Our luck is in at present.

[Twodogs]

As I have an earpiece in listening to the umpires, I can tell you that at every field bounce the umpire asks who is in the ruck so that they can make sure they keep 1m (??) apart.


What about when there is a melee and the umpire throws the ball up to get the players apart? Or is that why you said field bounce?

[bornadog]

As I have an earpiece in listening to the umpires, I can tell you that at every field bounce the umpire asks who is in the ruck so that they can make sure they keep 1m (??) apart.

Thanks A39, I wasn't sure. To counter the ruck could just do what the 3rd man up does and that is to tap the ball over the pack and not try and find his midfielder at his feet.

[GVGjr]

As I have an earpiece in listening to the umpires, I can tell you that at every field bounce the umpire asks who is in the ruck so that they can make sure they keep 1m (??) apart.

Thanks for confirming. I'm surprised that it's seems to have been a quiet rule as such with not many knowing.

Do you know if it's been in for a couple of seasons now?

[aker39]

Thanks for confirming. I'm surprised that it's seems to have been a quiet rule as such with not many knowing.

Do you know if it's been in for a couple of seasons now?

2013

[Go_Dogs]

A friend of mine has a theory that when teams win a flag that they weren't rally expect to typically (not all the time) they have done it because they exploited the rules better than other sides and he told me straight after the GF that rules would be changed to curb our success or at least test it further.

He cited 3 rules that the AFL would explore.
1) Our quick handballs that appear to be more of a throw
2) The 3rd man up role that Bontempelli and Jong exploited better than most
3) Players dropping to their knees and getting free kicks and in his words specifically highlighted McLean

He mentioned that the coaches will speak to the AFL and sow the seeds for a review and I think he's probably close to being right on the money and it has me concerned on if we will be be quick enough to adapt.



Lets hope we make the necessary changes.

Really interesting insight, thanks.

I think these are changes which may benefit us, as whilst I expected we'd make improvements to what we do to stay ahead of the pack, this forces our hand to review and adapt our game plan. From what little we've heard about our pre-season so far, it seems a focus on quick ball movement through the corridor is going to be the cornerstone.

Given our improvements in the forward half with our marking capabilities, our defensive ability to zone as a team and versatile players, along with the expectation other teams may be liking to implement similar plans, we'll maintain our competitive edge.

[Sedat]

We're not the first premiership team to be targeted in the following year's rule changes. Hawthorn were the master of the deliberate rushed behind in 2008 so that they could reload and use their superior foot skills to slice up the opposition - from memory they conceded over 10 rushed behinds in that GF, and the following year the deliberate rushed behind rule came into operation.

I'm sure we already have adjusted and adapted to make allowances for the new changes. Our drafting and trading in the post-season certainly reflect that.

[bornadog]

As I have an earpiece in listening to the umpires, I can tell you that at every field bounce the umpire asks who is in the ruck so that they can make sure they keep 1m (??) apart.

'Third man up' rule means no more ruck surprises (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-01-27/no-more-ruck-surprises)


TEAMS will need to nominate a ruckman at each contest to allow umpires to adjudicate the new 'third man up' rule introduced this season.New AFL umpires boss Peter Schwab said getting a player to raise their hand might be the simplest way for each ruckman to indicate his intention to contest the hit-out, but the practicalities were still being resolved.

"We will ask them to nominate," Schwab said.
"[A] show of hand might be the easiest way and if they don't then the umpires are going to have to quickly say [you and you] like the old school yard."
He conceded there might be some teething problems with issues such as two players from the same team nominating as the ruckman at the same contest, but ways to handle those matters would be clarified over time.

"We expect the clubs will be very helpful with us on that and we shouldn't have too many problems," Schwab said.
Banning the third man up at ruck contests was the most contentious rule introduced during the off-season, with senior players voicing their disapproval and some coaches questioning whether change was necessary.

However Schwab said the desire to protect the role of the ruckman and evidence that clearances from congestion weren't improving when a third man became involved in the contest was enough for the AFL Commission to approve the change.
In 2017, a player will not be penalised for high contact if the tackle is reasonable and his opponent with the ball is deemed to have initiated the high contact.
Umpires will also interpret the deliberate rushed behinds rule more strictly.
Players will be deemed to have deliberately rushed a behind if they have clear possession and the chance to dispose of it, or they are outside the goal square when rushing the behind.

"We'll work on fact," Schwab said.
"We know there is perceived pressure with players but the umpire will look at it and say 'well I think the player had a lot of time to do something and elected to take it over'."

If a player breaches during the JLT Community Series, a ball-up will occur just outside the goal square. Previously, a deliberate rushed behind led to a free kick to the opposition directly in front of goal.
Schwab said interpreting high contact was more subjective but the umpires knew the intent of the rule.
"If the player's legitimate attempt to tackle appears to be correct and the high contact is caused by the player ducking into the tackle, dropping his knees or trying to shrug it off then it will be a play-on call," he said.

[Webby]

Jungle drums are beating that the ridiculous third man up rule will be scrapped post a review following round six.

Good news for us, I'd have thought... Also a victory for common sense..

[comrade]

Jungle drums are beating that the ridiculous third man up rule will be scrapped post a review following round six.

Good news for us, I'd have thought... Also a victory for common sense..

It's a shambles. We had Libba rucking against Sandi with Tom Campbell standing there like a shag on a rock.

[Twodogs]

Its been a disaster for the game on a lot of fronts. Stupid situations like Libba Rucking against Sandilands. And in the Richmond Collingwood game the other week when Shaun Grigg got a free for blocking because he nominated for the ruck and his opponent was between him and the ruck contest. Grigg was miles away from the ruck contest at the time. Stuff like that doesn't help.

[GVGjr]

Like it or not (and I don't) but surely they AFL won't change the rule mid season?

[Rocco Jones]

Would be awesome if they changed it. Not only are we poor at ruck contests but we are also elite at using 3rd ruck.

[boydogs]

It's a shambles. We had Libba rucking against Sandi with Tom Campbell standing there like a shag on a rock.

You can't blame the rule for that. Either we weren't organised, or we did it as a surprise tactic, which we could have done under last years rules

[jeemak]

It's clear coaches have forced the issue with instruction at times for likely ruck players not to nominate at certain contests. Whether they've colluded or not is hard to tell.

This will go down as possibly the biggest *!*!*!*! up by city hall in terms of reactionary rules to curb a particular playing style ever. The stupid dickheads at AFL House saw a team they didn't want to changing the game to their benefit and they've reacted to harshly.

[comrade]

You can't blame the rule for that. Either we weren't organised, or we did it as a surprise tactic, which we could have done under last years rules

I doubt having our best defensive and contested mid at 180cm rucking against a 210cm giant was a planned move.

Like every team has experienced at least once this year, we got caught out. Libba was standing next to Sandi & didn't see Campbell, umpire asked for nominated ruckman and so Libba just stuck his hand up leaving Campbell to just be a liability on the ground. We weren't organised properly but this nomination thing is woeful.

[aker39]

The only rule I ever remember them changing mid season was an automatic 50m penalty for a report.

It was in 2000 and I think it got changed over half way through the season.

[bornadog]

I doubt having our best defensive and contested mid at 180cm rucking against a 210cm giant was a planned move.

Like every team has experienced at least once this year, we got caught out. Libba was standing next to Sandi & didn't see Campbell, umpire asked for nominated ruckman and so Libba just stuck his hand up leaving Campbell to just be a liability on the ground. We weren't organised properly but this nomination thing is woeful.

Where was Jong when he was needed? :D

[Remi Moses]

The rule had whiskers on it from the outset .
There to be exploited with the nominating of a ruckman .

[bornadog]

Every rule change, interpretation, changes our wonderful game. The AFL are hell bent on ruining the game.

[G-Mo77]

Its been a disaster for the game on a lot of fronts. Stupid situations like Libba Rucking against Sandilands. And in the Richmond Collingwood game the other week when Shaun Grigg got a free for blocking because he nominated for the ruck and his opponent was between him and the ruck contest. Grigg was miles away from the ruck contest at the time. Stuff like that doesn't help.

It's because they're always reactive with their changes. Someone finds a tatic, ie: third man up, rushed behind. Lets ban it. They don't think what could happen next. Coaches will find an exploit so instead of changing rules why not let coaches work out a counter for it?

They're to stubborn to say we stuffed this up so we'll have to live with it.

[Topdog]

You can't blame the rule for that. Either we weren't organised, or we did it as a surprise tactic, which we could have done under last years rules

No we couldnt do that under last years rules. It was a tactic to try and win a free kick via confusion.

[Topdog]

Collingwood were using 3rd man up in 1990. Thats what staggers me, this wasnt something new.

[Axe Man]

Collingwood were using 3rd man up in 1990. Thats what staggers me, this wasnt something new.

It's the most ridiculous rule change I can recall. Third man up has been going on for donkeys years at all levels of footy and the only harm I can see from it is ruckmen copping the occasional knee in the back. If anything it helped clear congestion so I am totally confused as to the purpose of the rule change. What were they trying to achieve? There was no issue but now they have created one!

[Topdog]

It's the most ridiculous rule change I can recall. Third man up has been going on for donkeys years at all levels of footy and the only harm I can see from it is ruckmen copping the occasional knee in the back. If anything it helped clear congestion so I am totally confused as to the purpose of the rule change. What were they trying to achieve? There was no issue but now they have created one!

Yes indeed and this was very well highlighted in our final vs Hawthorn

[Webby]

The line splitting the centre circle was brought in to stop ruckmen just wrestling at the centre bounce (Dempsey & Keenan from memory) - because everyone wants to see ruckmen run and jump - not wrestle. This is a fact.

The third man up ban was brought in so as to prevent ruckmen being "picked off" or kneed in the back etc.

However by banning the third man up, ruckmen will move back to wrestling - as it was the threat of a third man up which actually encouraged them to run and jump!..... And thus, not wrestle!

There will always be ruckmen in the game as, if used properly, the 6ft 8in player is a big asset to a footy side. A crucial mismatch. There is no need to set rules for everything. Simplicity is good. Remove the rule!

[Mofra]

The problem is the rolling maul banning the third man up has created.
After multiple stoppages mids tend to cluster closer to the ruck contest, so a big third man up would belt the ball away and clear it out, reducing congestion.

Under the rules this year we are seeing much more congestion. The AFL need to admit they've screwed it up here.

[G-Mo77]

The problem is the rolling maul banning the third man up has created.
After multiple stoppages mids tend to cluster closer to the ruck contest, so a big third man up would belt the ball away and clear it out, reducing congestion.

Under the rules this year we are seeing much more congestion. The AFL need to admit they've screwed it up here.

The day that happens you'll see pigs flying around in the sky.

[Twodogs]

The line splitting the centre circle was brought in to stop ruckmen just wrestling at the centre bounce (Dempsey & Keenan from memory) - because everyone wants to see ruckmen run and jump - not wrestle. This is a fact.

The third man up ban was brought in so as to prevent ruckmen being "picked off" or kneed in the back etc.

However by banning the third man up, ruckmen will move back to wrestling - as it was the threat of a third man up which actually encouraged them to run and jump!..... And thus, not wrestle!

There will always be ruckmen in the game as, if used properly, the 6ft 8in player is a big asset to a footy side. A crucial mismatch. There is no need to set rules for everything. Simplicity is good. Remove the rule!

Not unless it was an intra club practice match because Dempsey and Keenan both played for North at the time. It was Peter Moore and Gary Dempsey constantly pushing each other over and away from the ball at boundary throw ins in the 1979 (I think) Collingwood v North semi final.

It got to the really silly stage where they'd push or pull each other over and nobody would be able to contest the throw in because two huge ruckmen were lying on the ground a metre away from where the ball bounced.

And don't most defenders get picked off and kneed in the back when a forward takes a big hanger? Why don't we ban them while we are at it?

[Webby]

Not unless it was an intra club practice match because Dempsey and Keenan both played for North at the time. It was Peter Moore and Gary Dempsey constantly pushing each other over and away from the ball at boundary throw ins in the 1979 (I think) Collingwood v North semi final.

It got to the really silly stage where they'd push or pull each other over and nobody would be able to contest the throw in because two huge ruckmen were lying on the ground a metre away from where the ball bounced.

And don't most defenders get picked off and kneed in the back when a forward takes a big hanger? Why don't we ban them while we are at it?

Nah, Dempsey's move to Norf prompted Crackers being packed off to Windy Hill. When you buy a Merc, you scrap the Daihatsu! They were never teammates at Norf, but did play against each other quite a bit.

Nonetheless, Moore and Dempsey does ring a bell.

[boydogs]

No we couldnt do that under last years rules. It was a tactic to try and win a free kick via confusion.

Nothing was stopping Libba taking a ruck contest last year. Perhaps you're right about trying to get a free for shepherding the ruck though

[Topdog]

Nothing was stopping Libba taking a ruck contest last year. Perhaps you're right about trying to get a free for shepherding the ruck though

Last year there was no advantage to doing so, this year this is

[boydogs]

Last year there was no advantage to doing so, this year this is

Dunkley pulled it off this week :D

[jazzadogs]

It's not exactly good sportsmanship, but next time there's a ruck contest and someone is tagging Bont he needs to nominate for the ruck. When the player continues to block him, #freekickbulldogs.

Simples.

[aker39]

It's not exactly good sportsmanship, but next time there's a ruck contest and someone is tagging Bont he needs to nominate for the ruck. When the player continues to block him, #freekickbulldogs.

Simples.

The key is to nominate without the opposition knowing you have nominated.

[bulldogtragic]

The key is to nominate without the opposition knowing you have nominated.

You're the man to ask. The rule as I understand it is each team needs to nominate a ruckman. However, does the rule say an opposition player must nominate by making an overt act of raising a hand or yelling out for everyone to hear?

If not, what's to stop a mid of ours (say Libba) standing next to the umpire and quietly telling the umpire who the dogs are nominating? We could create a rotating baseball like physical code for our players to know who Libba nominated. The opposition would have no idea who Libba actually nominated, and create utter mayhem within the rule.

[comrade]

We should arrange for 3 players to nominate at the same time as late as possible. That'd be fun to watch.

[Twodogs]

Nah, Dempsey's move to Norf prompted Crackers being packed off to Windy Hill. When you buy a Merc, you scrap the Daihatsu! They were never teammates at Norf, but did play against each other quite a bit.

Nonetheless, Moore and Dempsey does ring a bell.


You're right. I remember that quote.

[SonofScray]

The ruck rule is a debacle. A perfect example of why they need proper trial periods and very careful consideration for bringing them in. It has really hamstrung our effectiveness at the contest too.

[comrade]

The ruck rule is a debacle. A perfect example of why they need proper trial periods and very careful consideration for bringing them in. It has really hamstrung our effectiveness at the contest too.

It is insane to make a significant change to the way the game is played over 1 off season, when trading and drafting was already completed and pre-season training already underway.

Imagine the EPL just deciding to remove the off side rule because they want more goals to be scored.

[ratsmac]

The ruck rule is a debacle. A perfect example of why they need proper trial periods and very careful consideration for bringing them in. It has really hamstrung our effectiveness at the contest too.


It is insane to make a significant change to the way the game is played over 1 off season, when trading and drafting was already completed and pre-season training already underway.

Imagine the EPL just deciding to remove the off side rule because they want more goals to be scored.

I couldn't agree more and I think 99% of the footy world agree also. The AFEL need to get off their high horse, grow some balls and say this rule change hasn't worked and has actually made the game worse in the process so we are removing the rule change effective immediately. But we all know that won't happen.

[aker39]

You're the man to ask. The rule as I understand it is each team needs to nominate a ruckman. However, does the rule say an opposition player must nominate by making an overt act of raising a hand or yelling out for everyone to hear?

If not, what's to stop a mid of ours (say Libba) standing next to the umpire and quietly telling the umpire who the dogs are nominating? We could create a rotating baseball like physical code for our players to know who Libba nominated. The opposition would have no idea who Libba actually nominated, and create utter mayhem within the rule.

Great minds think alike.

I actually said the same thing to a mate after the game.
The only requirement is that the umpire knows you nominate. I often hear the umpire actually say the names of the 2 nominated ruckman, but not always and the opposition may not hear him.
Your Libba example is a good one, but I would take it a step further and have a more likely player that is going to take the ruck actually put their hand up to confuse the opposition further.
That is what happened yesterday, the umpire said that dunkley had nominated 1st so he had to take him as the ruckman. With the bont then putting his hand up, North assumed he was the nominated ruckman.

[bulldogtragic]

Great minds think alike.

I actually said the same thing to a mate after the game.
The only requirement is that the umpire knows you nominate. I often hear the umpire actually say the names of the 2 nominated ruckman, but not always and the opposition may not hear him.
Your Libba example is a good one, but I would take it a step further and have a more likely player that is going to take the ruck actually put their hand up to confuse the opposition further.
That is what happened yesterday, the umpire said that dunkley had nominated 1st so he had to take him as the ruckman. With the bont then putting his hand up, North assumed he was the nominated ruckman.

Hopefully someone from the club is reading our stuff.

[comrade]

Hopefully someone from the club is reading our stuff.

I would both love and hate it if we deliberately did something like that in a game. Love it because it would cause chaos and drive opponents insane. Hate it because it just highlights what a backwards authority this great sport has.

[GVGjr]

The competition pays a high price because of the shortsighted way the AFL changed the rules.

This should have been trialed in the JLT and once worked out allowed the teams to work out if they needed to draft or trade for specific players and it would have given the umpires more of a chance to see if it could be adjudicated correctly.
The AFL is guilty of kicking an own goal here

[boydogs]

That is what happened yesterday, the umpire said that dunkley had nominated 1st so he had to take him as the ruckman. With the bont then putting his hand up, North assumed he was the nominated ruckman.

Bont wasn't throwing shade, he didn't know Dunkley had nominated and did try to contest the ruck. We're lucky the free wasn't North's for a non-ruck (Bont) contesting the ruck

I can definitely see now however where this could turn from confusion to strategy

[bornadog]

The competition pays a high price because of the shortsighted way the AFL changed the rules.

GVGjr, it is the same with every rule change. As I have said before we have a bunch of ex1980s playes on the rules committee who want to change rules to make the game look like their own glory days.

It will never ever happen so don't change what we have.

[GVGjr]

GVGjr, it is the same with every rule change. As I have said before we have a bunch of ex1980s playes on the rules committee who want to change rules to make the game look like their own glory days.

It will never ever happen so don't change what we have.

I'm not sure I agree fully with this. Some changes are good. In this instance they should have tested things more and given the clubs 12 months to potentially rework their playing list.

At the moment it's genuinely become confusing to the players on the ground and the umpires are getting the decisions wrong. The intention was probably pretty good but it's been implemented way too quickly.

[aker39]

At today's game at the MCG the umpires were making a concerted effort to make the players aware as to who had nominated for the ruck, calling their names out loudly 2 to 3 times.

[bornadog]

I'm not sure I agree fully with this. Some changes are good. In this instance they should have tested things more and given the clubs 12 months to potentially rework their playing list.

At the moment it's genuinely become confusing to the players on the ground and the umpires are getting the decisions wrong. The intention was probably pretty good but it's been implemented way too quickly.

Name one change that is good and was not already in the rule book

[GVGjr]

Name one change that is good and was not already in the rule book

The centre square and the centre circle. Chopping of the arms, concussion rule, recalling bad bounces in the centre square, the automatic play on from a point scored rather than waiting for the umpire to finishes waving the flags, deliberate tripping, tripping laws

Not every rule change is a bad one. We do way too many but some of them do fix problems and make the game safe.

[bornadog]

The centre square and the centre circle. Chopping of the arms, concussion rule, recalling bad bounces in the centre square, the automatic play on from a point scored rather than waiting for the umpire to finishes waving the flags, deliberate tripping, tripping laws

Not every rule change is a bad one. We do way too many but some of them do fix problems and make the game safe.

I have no problem with enforcing rules that protect players, especially the head, however, those laws have always been there, but not enforced in the past. Concussion one is also very good. I will concede the Centre square was a good idea, however, Chopping arms, automatic play on after a point are debatable. Tripping has always been against the rules, and in fact has been softened. I remember Jimmy Krakouer getting suspended for many weeks for a deliberate trip.

There are changes in the past 10 years that are just ridiculous, like deliberate out of bounds. Yesterday a player in the Melb v Freo match had a shot for goal and missed completely, and it was deemed deliberate. Many times there is a mis kick and the ball goes out and the umpire gives a free kick. The reason the deliberate OOB came in is now lost. We may as well get rid of boundary umpires, which some are pushing for.

I see nothing wrong with deliberately conceding a point, although the Joel Bowden stepping over the line several times was not a good look and the knee jerk reaction by the AFL was the catalyst for the rule change. This year they have gone too far with the interpretation.

I didn't see anything wrong with the ruckman taking the ball out of the air in a ball up, but once that was stopped, 3rd man came into play, and now that is also a farce.

The taking out of the legs has also changed the game, all due to one unfortunate incident. Many of the frees are just pure farcical, when you see some one at the bottom of the pack going for the ball and the player falls over them. The Scotty Wests, The Williams, and Terry Wallaces would not have survived if that rule was in play in their day.

I could go on and on, and all those rules do is to change the game, and frustrate supporters, players and make the umpires job very difficult.

[boydogs]

A lot of the rule changes are related to time wasting tactics. 50 years ago it was bad sportsmanship and dishonourable, nowadays any advantage a team can take they will

This goes for rushed behind, dragging the ball in holding the ball, deliberate out of bounds, minimum kicking distance for a mark, ruck taps out of bounds on the full, kickout out of bounds without being touched, 30 second shots for goal

I'm waiting for them to bring in play on from a mark when it's kicked backwards next

[bulldogtragic]

A lot of the rule changes are related to time wasting tactics. 50 years ago it was bad sportsmanship and dishonourable, nowadays any advantage a team can take they will

This goes for rushed behind, dragging the ball in holding the ball, deliberate out of bounds, minimum kicking distance for a mark, ruck taps out of bounds on the full, kickout out of bounds without being touched

I'm waiting for them to bring in play on from a mark when it's kicked backwards next

That was trialled in the VFL for a season or two. Didn't really seem to work. So on that basis, the AFEL will do it.

[bornadog]

10 metre exclusion Zone out the window - really the AFL has no credibility.

[comrade]

10 metre exclusion Zone out the window - really the AFL has no credibility.

I'm glad that has eased off. Hate that rule.

[Go_Dogs]

Has there been a formal announcement or just based on what you see being called?

[comrade]

Has there been a formal announcement or just based on what you see being called?

No formal announcement I'm pretty sure, it just rarely gets called anymore. Remember when it was first introduced? Some of the stupidest 50m penalties you'll ever see.

[bornadog]

No formal announcement I'm pretty sure, it just rarely gets called anymore. Remember when it was first introduced? Some of the stupidest 50m penalties you'll ever see.

Yep that is what is happening. The AFEL change things then don't enforce it. No wonder supporters get pissed off with umpiring and stupid rule changes.

[SonofScray]

I don't mind the rule changes re: interchange v substitutes etc. Rules that force attrition and the use of the entire squad are palatable to me. Its the stuff relating to actual skills of the game, or trying to predetermine the look of a contest that really irritate me.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

One thing that has left me bewildered after the good friday game has been how media commentators and, even harder to believe, AFL coaches (Scott brothers) who are so shot sighted and unaware of how ruck contests work. There has been so many suggestions to fix the 3rd man up rule by simply removing the nomination process and awarding a free kick against any player who jumps 3rd man up at a ruck contest. It bewilders me how someone in charge of coaching an AFL team cannot think of the problems this would cause. Removing the nomination process would mean players having no idea who can be blocked at the ruck contest. This would lead to potential ruckmen being blocked and either a free kick at every ruck contest, or if no free for obstruction is called, dead ruck contests at every ball-up or throw-in. I heard this as a potential fix so many times i began to question whether i knew the rules of the game anymore! But thankfully Alan Richardson came out and spoke of the exact same problem with this so called 'fix'. Sometimes you expect that those in the game know more about what's going on than us couch experts. But lately it hasn't felt like this at all.

For mine, the rule should just be binned. I never saw an issue with the 3rd man up. But if you are going to recommend fixes, have the foresight to know the exact repercussions of it.

[Topdog]

For mine, the rule should just be binned. I never saw an issue with the 3rd man up. But if you are going to recommend fixes, have the foresight to know the exact repercussions of it.

come on now that would require actually thinking and not just acting on the spur of the moment.

And to the rest of your post, yes that would be a huge problem. The only "fix" if they must stick with the stupid rule is that they treat every ball up and throw in like the centre bounce where the umpire slows down the game to require that the 2 ruckmen are directly opposed to each other.

[soupman]

The third man up rule was fine, this fix is flawed, although tbf it does achieve what it sets out to do. Just rather clumsily.

I've never seen the issue with the third man up impacting the ruck contest as such, they aren't dangerous and they can help clear congestion. The only annoying part of having them is when they get bullshit frees.

I would allow third men up again, but if you are doing it then the opposition can block or push you so that you don't impact the contest. The worst part of third man up has always been the pathetic frees they get because their run is impeded. Remove that penalty and it works I think.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

The third man up rule was fine, this fix is flawed, although tbf it does achieve what it sets out to do. Just rather clumsily.

I've never seen the issue with the third man up impacting the ruck contest as such, they aren't dangerous and they can help clear congestion. The only annoying part of having them is when they get bullshit frees.

I would allow third men up again, but if you are doing it then the opposition can block or push you so that you don't impact the contest. The worst part of third man up has always been the pathetic frees they get because their run is impeded. Remove that penalty and it works I think.

Yes. This is absolutely the way to go.

[comrade]

The third man up rule was fine, this fix is flawed, although tbf it does achieve what it sets out to do. Just rather clumsily.

I've never seen the issue with the third man up impacting the ruck contest as such, they aren't dangerous and they can help clear congestion. The only annoying part of having them is when they get bullshit frees.

I would allow third men up again, but if you are doing it then the opposition can block or push you so that you don't impact the contest. The worst part of third man up has always been the pathetic frees they get because their run is impeded. Remove that penalty and it works I think.

Agreed. I'd go one step further and stop paying any infringements in the ruck completely. Just let the two big men go at it, and if a 3rd man up also tries to influence the contest, his direct opponent can block/defend.

I ****ing hate ruck free kicks.

[bornadog]

Well the AFL met and surprise surprise, there is nothing wrong with the banned 3rd man up or the deliberate OOB rules.