3rd Man up gets the chop...

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

1 minute ago, Maldonboy38 said:

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. 

hahaha yep. Its programed into us now, we see the words "rule change" and its instant repulsion 

[Grimes Times 1,278]

Not against the rule change and agree that it helps us and Max, but whats next, only allowing the full forward and the fullback to contest a marking contest. Outlawing a third man up to spoil or mark. Why does the ruckman get special treatment and no one else.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

AFL site was down for me this morning so only just saw in the article that the protected area has also changed 
"Umpires looking at enforcing the area once the player in possession has moved back on their mark. "
I love that change, no more 50s for a player running past right after a mark or a free, this should give the defending team a reasonable time to run back without encroaching on the area inadvertently.

[daisycutter 29,926]

no doubt the umpires will make a mess of interpreting the new rules for half a season whereupon the "interpretations' will change without notice

one day we might see full-time professional umpires

[Chook 15,026]

23 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

Not against the rule change and agree that it helps us and Max, but whats next, only allowing the full forward and the fullback to contest a marking contest. Outlawing a third man up to spoil or mark. Why does the ruckman get special treatment and no one else.

Because it's a ruck contest. At the centre bounce, two men face off against one another for superiority. Now it will (rightly) be the same everywhere else on the ground.

[beelzebub 23,390]

16 hours ago, biggestred said:

Another rule change. Yey

I see it more as FIXING the ruck as opposed a rule change. The 3rd man exploited a loophole really. Now it's shut. Good

[ManDee 7,352]

56 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

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.
.........

From The Age  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-statistics-gave-afl-the-evidence-to-ban-third-man-up-at-ruck-contests-20161221-gtg22x.html

"Revealing new statistics, which show that the "third man up" does not help ease congestion, were the reason the AFL gave the green light to ban the tactic from next season." 

The banning of the third man up will help us and improve the game. I like ruckmen and ruck duals. 

[sue 9,240]

43 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

AFL site was down for me this morning so only just saw in the article that the protected area has also changed 
"Umpires looking at enforcing the area once the player in possession has moved back on their mark. "
I love that change, no more 50s for a player running past right after a mark or a free, this should give the defending team a reasonable time to run back without encroaching on the area inadvertently.

Not sure it will really work since very often the player in possession will try to get back from the mark quickly, but  it is at least an admission that it  is impossible to apply the current interpretation/rule consistently as opponents are caught in the protected area.  Tossing a coin is the best predictor of whether 50m is paid or not at the moment and this change doesn't fix that.  

BTW, is there actually a rule which says the player moving to take position on the mark is exempt from infringing?  They often run right through the protected area without penalty.  

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

21 minutes ago, ManDee said:

From The Age  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/new-statistics-gave-afl-the-evidence-to-ban-third-man-up-at-ruck-contests-20161221-gtg22x.html

"Revealing new statistics, which show that the "third man up" does not help ease congestion, were the reason the AFL gave the green light to ban the tactic from next season." 

The banning of the third man up will help us and improve the game. I like ruckmen and ruck duals. 

I would like them to actually reveal the apparently revealing statistics. Being told by Sam Maclure that I'm wrong without any actual evidence doesnt really sway my view. If there was something that said 60% of ball ups with a 3rd man up result in a repeat stopage then yeah sure I get that. But just saying "In terms of clearance rates and scores from stoppages it doesn't provide the benefit for the game that people thought it did " doesnt tell me anything. The stats could be whatever they want and they could say that. 

Reality is I dont hate the rule entierly but im very skeptical of the idea that 3rd man doesnt help.

[bazza226 74]

How typical of the AFL to announce the ruck rule change just before Christmas and AFTER the draft so teams that have devalued ruckmen because they use a 3rd man up tactic like Geelong and Hawthorn won't have an opportunity this year to top up their ruck stocks.

Great for us as it just magnifies Maxy's advantage.

[daisycutter 29,926]

14 minutes ago, bazza226 said:

How typical of the AFL to announce the ruck rule change just before Christmas and AFTER the draft so teams that have devalued ruckmen because they use a 3rd man up tactic like Geelong and Hawthorn won't have an opportunity this year to top up their ruck stocks.

Great for us as it just magnifies Maxy's advantage.

yeah, i feel really sorry for hawthorn and geelong. 

[rjay 25,361]

40 minutes ago, bazza226 said:

How typical of the AFL to announce the ruck rule change just before Christmas and AFTER the draft so teams that have devalued ruckmen because they use a 3rd man up tactic like Geelong and Hawthorn won't have an opportunity this year to top up their ruck stocks.

Great for us as it just magnifies Maxy's advantage.

We got screwed the last time there was a major change to the ruck rules, now it's some other clubs turn.

[Little Goffy 14,806]

Does this mean Max will have to shave his beard?

Can't expect just one opponent to take on both Max and his beard.

[Adam The God 30,645]

Yep, this is very good for us. Just have to keep Max fit.

[deanox 10,059]

11 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I would like them to actually reveal the apparently revealing statistics. Being told by Sam Maclure that I'm wrong without any actual evidence doesnt really sway my view. If there was something that said 60% of ball ups with a 3rd man up result in a repeat stopage then yeah sure I get that. But just saying "In terms of clearance rates and scores from stoppages it doesn't provide the benefit for the game that people thought it did " doesnt tell me anything. The stats could be whatever they want and they could say that. 

Reality is I dont hate the rule entierly but im very skeptical of the idea that 3rd man doesnt help.

There were stats published a couple of weeks ago, maybe on afl.com.au? They were pretty damming.  In redirect of repeat stoppages the third man up made ~1-2% difference but that statistic didn't reflect who won the stoppage indicating there was actually no advantage to either side to go up or stay down, it didn't statistically change the outcome.

13 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

Not against the rule change and agree that it helps us and Max, but whats next, only allowing the full forward and the fullback to contest a marking contest. Outlawing a third man up to spoil or mark. Why does the ruckman get special treatment and no one else.

There is already a rule that says you cannot Sheppard in the ruck. If two designated rucks are competing body on body and a third man comes up, to me that means the original ruck had shepparded to provide access for his 3rd man team mate

 Sometimes this is paid.  But not consistently. This just clears it up. 

[monoccular 17,701]

21 hours ago, Redbeard said:

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.

I would certainly be hugely in favor of penalizing any player who deliberately drives himself head down into a pack or an opponent.  Sometime tragedy will strike and there will be another Neil Sachke (?sp) case of quadriplegia if this is encouraged by rewarding with a free kick.  More than just "play on" it should be a free. Against.  

I still await a definition of "third man up" in the context of an errant bounce or throw in. No doubt something will be made up on the run.  

Edited December 22, 2016 by monoccular

[rjay 25,361]

11 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I would certainly be hugely in favor of penalizing any player who deliberately drives himself head down into a pack or an opponent.  Sometime tragedy will strike and there will be another Neil Sachke (?sp) case of quadriplegia if this is encouraged by rewarding with a free kick.  More than just "play on" it should be a free. Against.  

I still await a definition of "third man up" in the context of an errant bounce or throw in. No doubt something will be made up on the run.  

I've thought for a while now that it should be a suspension....

...better a week or so now than a lifetime.

[ManDee 7,352]

10 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I would certainly be hugely in favor of penalizing any player who deliberately drives himself head down into a pack or an opponent.  Sometime tragedy will strike and there will be another Neil Sachke (?sp) case of quadriplegia if this is encouraged by rewarding with a free kick.  More than just "play on" it should be a free. Against.  

I still await a definition of "third man up" in the context of an errant bounce or throw in. No doubt something will be made up on the run.  

I presume if the ruckmen cannot get to the errant bounce or throw in then the scenario of third man up is not possible (no penalty). If the ruckmen can get to the contest then a third man up is penalized. My question, what if there are two third man ups one from each side?

[The Chazz 4,077]

On 21 December 2016 at 8:23 PM, Bitter but optimistic said:

No third man up !! This is one of the the few rule changes in recent history that actually appears considered, useful and will improve the game.

 

FMD . It's taken a while.

Thought you'd be a big fan of having a 3rd man "up", Bitty...

Must be mellowing in your old days.

[sue 9,240]

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

I presume if the ruckmen cannot get to the errant bounce or throw in then the scenario of third man up is not possible (no penalty). If the ruckmen can get to the contest then a third man up is penalized. My question, what if there are two third man ups one from each side?

An earlier post suggested that the solution to the problem of short boundary throw-ins etc is that the umpire calls play on at which point it is no longer a ruck contest and anyone can be third, fourth of tenth man up without penalty.  Sounds reasonable to me and who knows, it may be the AFL's position.  But it would be nice if the AFL detailed these sorts of things when making announcements since most supporters are smart enough to immediately ask the 'what if' questions.

[Mickey 4,757]

21 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

I would like them to actually reveal the apparently revealing statistics. Being told by Sam Maclure that I'm wrong without any actual evidence doesnt really sway my view. If there was something that said 60% of ball ups with a 3rd man up result in a repeat stopage then yeah sure I get that. But just saying "In terms of clearance rates and scores from stoppages it doesn't provide the benefit for the game that people thought it did " doesnt tell me anything. The stats could be whatever they want and they could say that. 

Reality is I dont hate the rule entierly but im very skeptical of the idea that 3rd man doesnt help.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-players-who-will-be-most-affected-by-afl-banning-thirdman-up/news-story/4b990201f722bf6bbff949231c5d274e

Here you go. 76% clearance rate with 2 ruckman, 75% with a Third Man Up

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

33 minutes ago, Mickey said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/the-players-who-will-be-most-affected-by-afl-banning-thirdman-up/news-story/4b990201f722bf6bbff949231c5d274e

Here you go. 76% clearance rate with 2 ruckman, 75% with a Third Man Up

Much more usefull article thanks.

[stuie 7,374]

Gonna reserve judgment on this one until we see the effect during the season.

If Gawn gets injured I think a few might change their minds on this rule, particularly given we only just recruited one of the most prolific third man up options. It likely also means one or two more players in the pack.

However, should Gawn enjoy another injury free year it could be a gift for us.

Will wait and see before going either way.

 

[dino rover 714]

On 22/12/2016 at 9:51 AM, sue said:

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. 

Indeed - you get tackled you either dispose of the ball legally (play on) or dont (free kick against). It isnt tag. What is the statute of limitations on the period of prior opportunity?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,088]

4 hours ago, ManDee said:

I presume if the ruckmen cannot get to the errant bounce or throw in then the scenario of third man up is not possible (no penalty). If the ruckmen can get to the contest then a third man up is penalized. My question, what if there are two third man ups one from each side?

I think the answer to your question is obvious. One is a fourth man up.