Im happy the 3rd man up has been abolished. To often these days good ruckman are double teamed at contests and the minute they block the 3rd man they get penalised with a FA. Its horseshit really. Good for the AFL to act.
2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2
- Thread starter jaytex
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
WaynesWorld19
Moderator
- Moderator
- #9,878
DD#23
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 31, 2013
- 9,127
- 12,400
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
allowing the blocking might have been interesting.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 58,304
- 151,257
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #9,880
Banning the third man up is better than the current implementation.
But I agree with Sam Jacobs saying that the only change that actually needed to be made is allowing the blocking of third man ups. Giving away a free for blocking them is just dumb
But I agree with Sam Jacobs saying that the only change that actually needed to be made is allowing the blocking of third man ups. Giving away a free for blocking them is just dumb
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,556
- 118,382
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
This is the path I would have preferred.
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
But then you would get taggers blocking the star midfielder from getting to the contest, because they "thought he was going 3rd man up"
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,556
- 118,382
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Fair point. But that would soon stop when you hand out frees for ''illegal shepherd''
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
how do you determine the difference between an illegal shepherd and a block of third man up?
I think just banning the third man up makes it a black and white rule, which the AFL needs more of.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,556
- 118,382
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
They are both the same aren't they? Apart from the ''5m rule'' both are holding a person from the play.
I find the blocking rule ridiculous in most situations to be to be honest.
It's far too subjective and arbitrary. I am confident that in about 90% of contests, whether the ball is in the air going forward or in a ruck situation, there would be someone, somewhere that is having their path to the ball impeded thereby technically making it a free kick yet it is only plucked out as a free occasionally. The only time it makes any sort of sense is if the ball is being kicked to a forward out in front of him on a lead and you get a defender coming in from the side with absolutely no intention of contesting the ball but even then there is a whole lot of subjectivity involved.
It's far too subjective and arbitrary. I am confident that in about 90% of contests, whether the ball is in the air going forward or in a ruck situation, there would be someone, somewhere that is having their path to the ball impeded thereby technically making it a free kick yet it is only plucked out as a free occasionally. The only time it makes any sort of sense is if the ball is being kicked to a forward out in front of him on a lead and you get a defender coming in from the side with absolutely no intention of contesting the ball but even then there is a whole lot of subjectivity involved.
The easier it is to officiate the smaller the margin for error is. Keep it simple.
- Oct 16, 2011
- 15,378
- 38,241
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I wouldn't have minded the "you can tunnel anyone going third man up" being the rule change
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
1000 draft points is about pick 18
If they get forced to match on an Academy player it might end up being worth a lot less than that??
Yep AFL well run.
Amateur hour by the AFL. Knowing GWS they'll probably avoid any first round pick loss by collecting a bunch of 3rd and 4th rounders to get to the 1000 point total.
DD#23
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 31, 2013
- 9,127
- 12,400
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
conduct unbecoming?
I guess that's one grade below "bringing the game into disrepute" also known as lets try and wash away what they actually did wrong.
The AFL are ****ed
diligaf473
Club Legend
So the AFL fine themselves and have to cough up 100k. Ok.
The AFL took money out of their left pocket and put it into their right pocket.
You can't do that any more. Can only have as many picks as there are spaces on your list
Piss weak by the AFL. Only thing weaker was the penalties to Essendon. When you compare to the tippett penalties where we lost an extra first rounder and 2 second rounders it is mind boggling.
They are sending the message that it is ok to cheat or how from drug testers as you won't get much of a penalty. As opposed to the far worse crime of agreeing to trade someone to the club of their choice for a pre determined amount
They are sending the message that it is ok to cheat or how from drug testers as you won't get much of a penalty. As opposed to the far worse crime of agreeing to trade someone to the club of their choice for a pre determined amount
I get that, but this is the first time that any draft penalty has been defined in terms of a point value (as opposed to a first/second rounder etc).
1000 points = 1 late 1st rounder or 2x 3rds and a 4th based on the AFL draft valuation table.
I used an example on the MB thread (https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/gws-punishment-for-whitfield.1155073/page-2#post-48213978): Pick 41, 42 and 56 = 412 + 395 + 194 = 1001 points
In 2017 GWS already has 2 future 2nd rounders. If they trade a player for a 3rd, and bundle it with their 3rd and 4th picks to match the penalty, that still leaves them with 4 draft picks (first rounder and 3 seconds) and with little impact on their draft strategy. Essentially their penalty is to give up picks they probably wouldn't even have used in the first place.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
