3rd Man up gets the chop...

[Chook 15,023]

3 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Bit silly to go with a 3rd man up, if you have a 16 feet tall dominant ruckman.

Melbourne (Gawn)

West Coast (Nic Nat)

Norf (Goldy)

Gold Coast (dunno)

Seems reasonable those teams would prefer one ruckman at each contest.

See my avatar. I'm well aware of Max Gawn's existence and importance.

[faultydet 7,623]

1 minute ago, Chook said:

See my avatar. I'm well aware of Max Gawn's existence and importance.

My favourite avatar on Demonland.

 

In addition to almost any girl that @ProDeeuses

[hells bells 2,023]

We benefit from this rule change.

We suffered from the rule change that limited the run up in the ruck, that one reduced Jeff White's effectiveness.

I feel for the list managers who are trying to put together a premiership list and the AFL make a rule which instantly changes the effectiveness of a "type" of player. 

[deanox 10,045]

The third man up rule is good even if simply because of the screw aound with  paying/ not paying shepparding in the ruck. It is ridiculous that you can be physically battling with one ruckman while their team mate jumps over you and a free is not paid. The question about "what is a third man and when can someone else touch it?" is easily answered; the umpire already currently calls play-on after every ruck contest,  after that it is fair game. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by deanox

[daisycutter 29,892]

1 minute ago, deanox said:

The third man up rule is good even if simply because of the screw aound with  paying/ not paying shepparding in the ruck. It is ridiculous that you can be physically battling with one Richman while their team mate jumps over you and a free is not paid. The question about "what is a third man and when can someone else touch it?" is easily answered; the umpire already currently calls play-on after every ruck contest,  after that it is fair game. 

and when the boundary umpire throws it in short (as often happens) and a midfielder happens to be standing there?

[deanox 10,045]

I'm very disappointed with the rushed behind rule change.  Rushing a behind is a legitimate tactic in our game.  The rule was only brought in to prevent players wasting time by continuing to rush behinds. 

This should only ever be played when the player is wasting time or when the player has had options but has chosen to rush the behind with little pressure.  I think thr benefit of the doubt should always go to the defender.

Players should not be forced to play a % game between "will i risk conceding a goal by trying to clear this?" vs "am I under enough pressure for the umpire to allow me to rush this?"

[deanox 10,045]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

and when the boundary umpire throws it in short (as often happens) and a midfielder happens to be standing there?

The field umpire calls play on immediately to signify the end of the ruck contest (brought on by the poor throw) OR blows the whistle to throw it in again. This already happens at all ruck contests!

[SaberFang 7,151]

4 minutes ago, deanox said:

I'm very disappointed with the rushed behind rule change.  Rushing a behind is a legitimate tactic in our game.  The rule was only brought in to prevent players wasting time by continuing to rush behinds. 

 

Unfortunately though, we can't have good things because someone always comes in and exploits it, forcing it to be changed.

[Go the Biff 3,457]

4 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Another rule change also announced today is no high free when the player with the ball is responsible for high contact. A very welcome change.

It covers ducking, slipping down through a tackle and driving the head into the tackler.

Should take it a step further and have a free paid AGAINST a player who causes contact to his head.

That will soon eradicate a blight on the game

[monoccular 17,642]

4 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Another rule change also announced today is no high free when the player with the ball is responsible for high contact. A very welcome change.

It covers ducking, slipping down through a tackle and driving the head into the tackler.

 

1 hour ago, Bay Riffin said:

that is a superb improvement. running into a stationary player with your head should never be free, but they are given.

Great idea - discourages cheating and may actually also reduce the risk of neck injury by the player going head down into a pack or into an opponent's midriff. 

Wont hold my breath however waiting to see how the umpires (and MRP for that matter) "interpret" it. 

[old55 23,833]

9 hours ago, Chook said:

This list of the AFL's top 20 players for 3rd man up hitouts in 2016 shows that we're one of only four clubs (Melbourne, West Coast, North Melbourne, Gold Coast) not to have had a player in the Top 20 for this stat.*

Even though we've now got Jordan Lewis (5th on this list), I'd say we're definitely massively advantaged by this rule change.

*Champion Data says so

Whoa Blicavs.  Career ending.

[old55 23,833]

12 hours ago, sue said:

 

I don't like the idea that a bloke kicking out from a behind is considered to have had prior opportunity.  If he stuffs up kicking it to himself and is then under immediate pressure, I see no reason why the opposition should be almost gifted a goal because he rushes a behind under pressure.   It's not in the spirit of why the rule was introduced. No one would deliberately muck up a kick-to-self because the probability of a goal being scored is too high.

Disagree.  That has to be definitive PO. Kicking to yourself was never an intention of the behind kick in, if anything they should tighten that to say that the player who first touches the ball has to have his feet outside the square otherwise it's an invalid kicking in and bounced at the top of the square like when the kicker goes over the line.  This would make the kicker kick out of the square to himself, the dinky kick to self in the square is a joke and a perversion of the rule.

[Moonshadow 17,678]

What about the double fister over the boundary from a marking 'contest' as compared to a deliberate paddle? I think at some point they will further trial a variation of the last person who touched it rule

[Mickey 4,756]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Whoa Blicavs.  Career ending.

He did joke on twitter that he was retiring, effective immediately ?

[Ted Lasso 19,549]

This is going to in my opinion make max even more dangerous

[ManDee 7,317]

7 minutes ago, Abe said:

This is going to in my opinion make max even more dangerous

Another upside is that it may open the door for having a real 2nd ruckman. Spence better polish his boots.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,015]

Two points about the Tweet below 

1. Not language I'd usually expect from the ABC

2. I can see why Jordan Lewis left Hawthorn. Anything to get away from some truly weird jumper designs.

 

ABC News Melbourne Retweeted

ABC Grandstand ‏@abcgrandstand  15m15 minutes ago

The #AFL has outlawed the third man up at ruck contests, and some big-name players are spewing http://ab.co/2ie9pSb  (Pic: AAP)

0 replies2 retweets0 likes

Reply

 

 

 

Retweet

 

2

 

 

 

Lik

 

 

 

More

[Ouch! 2,269]

It's also interesting that Geelong and Hawthorn players are the ones being vocal at this point, they used the tactic a lot more than other clubs, and when you look at their rucks you can see why they needed to. Stanley at Geelong is more a ruck forward, and Ceglar is an honest tryer for the Hawks. McEvoy is a bit better than that to be fair, but hasn't really ever set the world alight.

I am also interested to see the impact this might have on a player such as Watts, or Trengove @ Port in the ruck as the secondary ruck option, they are not going to get crunched by the third man up, they'll be undersized but it might create less risk putting them in there than previously would have been the case.

 

[sue 9,191]

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Disagree.  That has to be definitive PO. Kicking to yourself was never an intention of the behind kick in, if anything they should tighten that to say that the player who first touches the ball has to have his feet outside the square otherwise it's an invalid kicking in and bounced at the top of the square like when the kicker goes over the line.  This would make the kicker kick out of the square to himself, the dinky kick to self in the square is a joke and a perversion of the rule.

Outlawing anything but a "real" kick-in is a separate issue to if and when a penalty applies for deliberately rushing a behind.  Fair enough if you want to call for another rule change.  But returning to the issue at hand, prior opportunity is too tough a standard in my view.  Smacks of a desire by the AFL for more goals and thus more ads on TV. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by sue

[Demon_JB 1,389]

I'm over the moon this has been made illegal. Old mate Lewis wouldn't be too happy.

[Redbeard 498]

Had a bit of a laugh whilst reading the comments on Facebook about one of these articles. A bitter Hawks fan said something along the lines of "What will Lewis be doing at the Dees now he can't do this?" To which a witty Dee piped up "Having the ball hit down his throat by  Maxy"

 

In regard to the high tackle rule do the umpires have the ability to penalise for attempting to make the tackle go high or will it just be play on? I've always thought the only way to stamp out ducking and diving is to pay a free kick against the actor.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Redbeard

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

The reason I am most happy about the no third man up rule is that it allows a different skill set to flourish. The game has been increasingly dominated by the 6'2" running midfielder. Hopefully now we can go back where two very tall unco blokes battle it out  to see who can get it down to their more talented teammates. For the same reason i like seeing Caleb Daniel succeed. Footy should be a game for everyone. 

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

And if we could somehow get back to those one-on-one CHF V CHB, Carey V Jakovich or Wing V Wing, Flower V Greig match ups that would be a very good thing

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

Third man up:
As a Dees supporter I love the change with big Maxy it is great for us. We have a pretty good record with developing very good ruckman. But as a football fan I dont like it. The 3rd man up allowed teams to break a repeat stoppage. Now if you get 2 ruckman that are equally matched the ball is going to go up and down over and over untill the ump calls a free because his arms getting sore.

High tackle:
Rule just makes sense, ugly part of the game and it will be good to see it removed. I think we knew it was coming anyway.
Side note on this: I dont have a problem with the Selwood style mainly because he doesnt so much duck as force the tackle up as he shrugs it. All the people here having a go at him might want to watch Jetta play once in a while. He does the same thing, it's just pure strength. Tackle them hard enough and it doesnt happen. Its the Matherson/Thomas style colapse and arm wrap that I have a problem with.

Rushed:
Makes sense to align it closer to the Didnt Keep it in Deliberate Out of Bounds rule. And I like the prior opportunity kind of spin they have on it. I really wish they would make it a point then a ball up at the top of the square in the event of a deliberate rushed behind. Same as if they stepped out of the square in a kick in. A free goal is faaaaaar to harsh of a punishment, particularly if they are as strict on it as they were on the out of bounds rule. Just wait until a ball is kicked or handpassed along the ground, bounces at right angles and goes through four a rushed behind and the other team gets a free goal out of it. It will happen, just hope it happens in our favor

[Maldonboy38 6,406]

My first impulive response is STOP CHANGING RULES EVERY #%$&*ING SEASON. 

But after a quick double shot of Dalmore 18yo I calmed down. Glad to see the change. As a ruckman in my younger days,  it was always a farily pure contest with some skil involved and requiring thought at each ball up or throw in. Now we get to see 1-on-1 ruck contests which will return to being a highlight of the game.