3rd Man Up Banned

[Vindicater]

Oh please.

You don't want to analyse anything, this is just an excuse for you to fap about the Bulldogs.

I agree it won't change a lot but it will stop the ruckman that are actually good at their job getting molested by two people at a time and take away the stupid free kick that the third man up was getting for being blocked.

Bulldogs whole gameplan revolves around getting the ball into a maul and pushing/throwing it forward. Having a big ruckman tap down to a player will hurt them so of course manofclay does not like this rule change.

 

[The 747]

Oh please.

You don't want to analyse anything, this is just an excuse for you to fap about the Bulldogs.

I agree it won't change a lot but it will stop the ruckman that are actually good at their job getting molested by two people at a time and take away the stupid free kick that the third man up was getting for being blocked.

Look at GFC fortunes since Brad Ottsens retired.

 

[Janus]

This shows who will be most affected by the change. St Kilda with Holmes and Hickey, Geelong with Stanley and Smith, Fremantle with Hannath, Clarke and Griffin (luckily they've got Sandilands coming back), Western Bulldogs with Boyd and Roughead and Carlton with Kruezer.

And this shows how successful third man up actually was. 75% or so was the AFL average. And yet you've got people thinking it's not going to make a difference?

If, in the 800 ruck contests that Jordan Roughead competed in this season, 80 of those were successful third man attempts, with 60 of those ending up as clearances for the Bulldogs, that's an extra 2-3 clearances per game. Remove that from the equation and add it to the opposition (because Roughead now has to facilitate those clearances himself through his tapwork which isn't that good), and you're looking at a 4-6 clearance swing in favor of any team with a decent ruck playing the Dogs.

For Geelong, it's even worse - you're talking about a 8-10 clearance swing in favor of opposition teams now that Blicavs can't go third man up.

So you can talk about how it's not going to affect teams all you want. The facts are that it will, and more significantly than you might think.

 

[ManOfClay]

Oh please.

You don't want to analyse anything, this is just an excuse for you to fap about the Bulldogs.

I agree it won't change a lot but it will stop the ruckman that are actually good at their job getting molested by two people at a time and take away the stupid free kick that the third man up was getting for being blocked.

Stop projecting on me. You just want to fap over Gawn and how now he can ruck one on one instead of maybe against two every now and then.

All those instances are still rare. This rule change isn't going to fix anything.

Bulldogs whole gameplan revolves around getting the ball into a maul and pushing/throwing it forward. Having a big ruckman tap down to a player will hurt them so of course manofclay does not like this rule change.

How often do big ruckmen tap it down clean and not into a maul of players? Not often. Looks good when it does but often a tap is a tap and the midfielders still need to win the ball.

If you think taking away two or three third man up hitouts a game will stop players like Bontempelli and liberatore winning the ball you are mistaken.

 

[Dez!]

Stop projecting on me. You just want to fap over Gawn and how now he can ruck one on one instead of maybe against two every now and then.

All those instances are still rare. This rule change isn't going to fix anything.

Except I haven't mentioned Gawn.

Also "every now and then"? Piss off, just about every contest around the ground has the third man up.

 

[2006_Eagles]

Good change. I hated the stupid free for all where any campaigner could jump at the ball

 

[Catsnlakers]

The only bloke really happy about this absurdity is this turkey!...

What a damn shame Sandi has maximum 2 years left and the dockers are out of flag contention then

 

[Jugada]

Best rule change for years

It makes ZERO sense to have to nominate a ruck to go up and then anyone can just come over the top of them anyway. If the rule wasn't changed then eventually clubs would all just nominate mid sized players as their ruck and then have the actual ruck go up uncontested as the 3rd man

Common sense decision

 

[2006_Eagles]

Also why is Blicavs complaining?

He roams around the ground a lot and can get to packs quickly with his speed. Can't he just be the nominated ruck in those cases?

 

[quotemokc]

I also hated seeing the 3rd man up be the other ruckman so it was 2 ruckmen on 1

 

[Randomizor]

What a damn shame Sandi has maximum 2 years left and the dockers are out of flag contention then

What a shame the cats are too. Can't duck, can't go third man up. No tricks left.

 

[Clems Knee]

What a shame the cats are too. Can't duck, can't go third man up. No tricks left.

I'm sure they'll find a new way to cheat.

 

[Catsnlakers]

What a shame the cats are too. Can't duck, can't go third man up. No tricks left.

Well I have already stated in the past that we are 0% chance at the flag next year.... But I sit here content at what I have seen... Can you say the same?

 

[Catsnlakers]

I'm sure they'll find a new way to cheat.

Surely you have something better then that?... I mean if you blokes had of done the world a favour in 2013 and beat the hawks I would never speak ill of yas. But no you ruined it for everyone.... That QF win against us proved pointless in the end.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

What a shame the cats are too. Can't duck, can't go third man up. No tricks left.

We'll finish higher than your lot even in spite of this. Not that it'll affect Selwood. He'll still make BF melt on game days

 

[Catsnlakers]

We'll finish higher than your lot even in spite of this. Not that it'll affect Selwood. He'll still make BF melt on game days

He makes the recruiters of all 6 clubs who looked past him melt every single game.... I mean I shutter to think of where we would be if hawthorn took him instead of mitch thorp.

 

[TiAn_]

This shows who will be most affected by the change. St Kilda with Holmes and Hickey, Geelong with Stanley and Smith, Fremantle with Hannath, Clarke and Griffin (luckily they've got Sandilands coming back), Western Bulldogs with Boyd and Roughead and Carlton with Kruezer.

And this shows how successful third man up actually was. 75% or so was the AFL average. And yet you've got people thinking it's not going to make a difference?

If, in the 800 ruck contests that Jordan Roughead competed in this season, 80 of those were successful third man attempts, with 60 of those ending up as clearances for the Bulldogs, that's an extra 2-3 clearances per game. Remove that from the equation and add it to the opposition (because Roughead now has to facilitate those clearances himself through his tapwork which isn't that good), and you're looking at a 4-6 clearance swing in favor of any team with a decent ruck playing the Dogs.

For Geelong, it's even worse - you're talking about a 8-10 clearance swing in favor of opposition teams now that Blicavs can't go third man up.

So you can talk about how it's not going to affect teams all you want. The facts are that it will, and more significantly than you might think.

The CD data is fine, but your interpretation of it and attempts at extrapolation are fundamentally idiotic. For a start, you don't even take into account that the teams that use the third man up more often also play each other. I mean, ffs.

There is little correlation, much less causation, between the Dogs' dominance at clearances for the last few years and hitouts. Additionally, our rucks rarely get dramatically beaten, and when they do we generally win the clearances anyway.

Here are some examples, just from this year, against the premier rucks and the teams that used the third man up the least:

Goldstein

Rd 6, v North: Dogs lose hitouts -16 (3rd man hitouts Dogs +0), Dogs win clearances +13, Dogs lose by 16
Rd 20 v North: Dogs lose hitouts -26 (+1), Dogs lose clearances -4 (Dogs missing Liberatore, Wallis and Macrae), Dogs win by 14

Jacobs

Rd 7, v Crows: Dogs win hitouts +8 (+2), Dogs win clearances +15, Dogs win by 15

Gawn

Rd 8, v Dees: Dogs lose hitouts -8 (+5), Dogs win clearances +4, Dogs win by 32

Mumford

Rd 9, v GWS: Dogs lose hitouts -8 (+2), Dogs lose clearances -2, Dogs lose by 25
PF, v GWS: Dogs lose hitouts -18 (+3) (Roughead misses entire second half), Dogs win clearances +15, Dogs win by 6

Grundy

Rd 10, v Pies: Dogs lose hitouts -4 (+2), Dogs win clearances +8, Dogs win by 21
Rd 21, v Pies: Dogs lose hitouts -14 (+5), Dogs win clearances +7, Dogs win by 3

Naitanui

Rd 11, v Eagles: Dogs lose hitouts -14 (+4), Dogs win clearances +5, Dogs win by 8

Sandilands

Rd 23, v Freo: Dogs lose hitouts -25 (+3), Dogs lose clearances -1 (Dogs missing Liberatore, Wallis and Macrae), Dogs lose by 20

Tippett

GF, v Swans: Dogs lose hitouts -2 (+5), Dogs win clearances +5, Dogs win by 22

Martin

Rd 5, v Lions: Dogs win hitouts +10 (+5), Dogs win clearances +19, Dogs win by 53

Hampson

Rd 16, v Tigers: Dogs lose hitouts -30 (+9) (Dogs didn't play a second ruck with Roughead), Dogs win clearances +4, Dogs win by 10

So the Dogs won the hitouts in 2/13 games against the best rucks, but still won the clearances in 10/13 games, winning 10/13 games overall.

In those 13 games, the Dogs were +46 for third man up hitouts, an average of +3.5 per game. Remove the Richmond game where we only played Roughead, and we averaged +3 third man up hitouts per game against the best solo rucks in the league.

Mind you, that is only total third man up hitouts, and doesn't take into account how many were actually to the Dogs advantage. Accepting that around 75% are to advantage, as per the CD chart, you're looking at 2.25 hitouts to advantage from the third man up more than our opponents per game, against the best rucks in the league.

Also, the Dogs were +88 in clearances in those 13 games, or +6.8 per game. So on average, against the best solo rucks in the league, we win the clearances by nearly 7, whilst losing hitouts overall, and only averaging around 2.25 more hitouts to advantage from the third man up.

How the * do you arrive at "you're looking at a 4-6 clearance swing in favor of any team with a decent ruck playing the Dogs"?

In any event, if despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary the effect of the rule change on the Bulldogs is as dramatic as you're making out (which it won't be because your analysis is woeful), we have Tom Cambpell, who has averaged over 20 hitouts a game the last two years, waiting in the wings. Gee, tough fix.

 

[TiAn_]

Best rule change for years

It makes ZERO sense to have to nominate a ruck to go up and then anyone can just come over the top of them anyway. If the rule wasn't changed then eventually clubs would all just nominate mid sized players as their ruck and then have the actual ruck go up uncontested as the 3rd man

Common sense decision

That's probably the best explanation for why the rule was necessary that I've seen.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Any change that stops rucks having to get kneed in the back/ribs from the 3rd man up is a good change.

 

[pazza]

Common sense

 

[Janus]

The CD data is fine, but your interpretation of it and attempts at extrapolation are fundamentally idiotic. For a start, you don't even take into account that the teams that use the third man up more often also play each other. I mean, ffs.

There is little correlation, much less causation, between the Dogs' dominance at clearances for the last few years and hitouts. Additionally, our rucks rarely get dramatically beaten, and when they do we generally win the clearances anyway.

Here are some examples, just from this year, against the premier rucks and the teams that used the third man up the least:

Goldstein

Rd 6, v North: Dogs lose hitouts -16 (3rd man hitouts Dogs +0), Dogs win clearances +13, Dogs lose by 16
Rd 20 v North: Dogs lose hitouts -26 (+1), Dogs lose clearances -4 (Dogs missing Liberatore, Wallis and Macrae), Dogs win by 14

Jacobs

Rd 7, v Crows: Dogs win hitouts +8 (+2), Dogs win clearances +15, Dogs win by 15

Gawn

Rd 8, v Dees: Dogs lose hitouts -8 (+5), Dogs win clearances +4, Dogs win by 32

Mumford

Rd 9, v GWS: Dogs lose hitouts -8 (+2), Dogs lose clearances -2, Dogs lose by 25
PF, v GWS: Dogs lose hitouts -18 (+3) (Roughead misses entire second half), Dogs win clearances +15, Dogs win by 6

Grundy

Rd 10, v Pies: Dogs lose hitouts -4 (+2), Dogs win clearances +8, Dogs win by 21
Rd 21, v Pies: Dogs lose hitouts -14 (+5), Dogs win clearances +7, Dogs win by 3

Naitanui

Rd 11, v Eagles: Dogs lose hitouts -14 (+4), Dogs win clearances +5, Dogs win by 8

Sandilands

Rd 23, v Freo: Dogs lose hitouts -25 (+3), Dogs lose clearances -1 (Dogs missing Liberatore, Wallis and Macrae), Dogs lose by 20

Tippett

GF, v Swans: Dogs lose hitouts -2 (+5), Dogs win clearances +5, Dogs win by 22

Martin

Rd 5, v Lions: Dogs win hitouts +10 (+5), Dogs win clearances +19, Dogs win by 53

Hampson

Rd 16, v Tigers: Dogs lose hitouts -30 (+9) (Dogs didn't play a second ruck with Roughead), Dogs win clearances +4, Dogs win by 10

So the Dogs won the hitouts in 2/13 games against the best rucks, but still won the clearances in 10/13 games, winning 10/13 games overall.

In those 13 games, the Dogs were +46 for third man up hitouts, an average of +3.5 per game. Remove the Richmond game where we only played Roughead, and we averaged +3 third man up hitouts per game against the best solo rucks in the league.

Mind you, that is only total third man up hitouts, and doesn't take into account how many were actually to the Dogs advantage. Accepting that around 75% are to advantage, as per the CD chart, you're looking at 2.25 hitouts to advantage from the third man up more than our opponents per game, against the best rucks in the league.

Also, the Dogs were +88 in clearances in those 13 games, or +6.8 per game. So on average, against the best solo rucks in the league, we win the clearances by nearly 7, whilst losing hitouts overall, and only averaging around 2.25 more hitouts to advantage from the third man up.

How the **** do you arrive at "you're looking at a 4-6 clearance swing in favor of any team with a decent ruck playing the Dogs"?

In any event, if despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary the effect of the rule change on the Bulldogs is as dramatic as you're making out (which it won't be because your analysis is woeful), we have Tom Cambpell, who has averaged over 20 hitouts a game the last two years, waiting in the wings. Gee, tough fix.

Let me make it real, real simple for you:

1. In all the examples you give, it was possible for the Dogs to go third man up. Which means that the opposition ruck was being taken out of the ruck contest by Roughead/Campbell to facilitate this happening. You need to stop looking at just what your team is doing and start looking at what they are preventing the OTHER team from doing when they pulled this s**t. It wasn't just about hitouts, but hitouts that created a clearance.

2. If you've got two rucks wrestling, and one of them has the sole purpose of making sure that the other ruck doesn't win a tap to the advantage of his teammates...and then someone else comes in over the top and wins the tap third man...it turns what would have been a negative into a positive. The graphs that were put up only show SUCCESSFUL third man up attempts, followed by clearance rates.

3. Do you think the sides that have a decent ruck actually WANTED to go third man up against the Dogs? Or was it more of a case of trying to negate the advantage you were gaining by doing the same thing themselves? Especially when your ruck was concentrating on taking their ruck out of the contest?

When Bontempelli goes third man up 9 times in a GF, that tells you exactly how much you relied on it as a tactic. Almost a quarter of your hitouts were generated by him. But nah, it's not going to affect you at all. Again I ask, if it doesn't matter...why the * did he bother doing it in the first place?

Oh, and Campbell is as much of a spud as Matthew Lobbe is. Which is why you don't play him unless you want to work over another ruck. The stats prove it.

 

[Cadillac]

Let me make it real, real simple for you:

1. In all the examples you give, it was possible for the Dogs to go third man up. Which means that the opposition ruck was being taken out of the ruck contest by Roughead/Campbell to facilitate this happening. You need to stop looking at just what your team is doing and start looking at what they are preventing the OTHER team from doing when they pulled this s**t. It wasn't just about hitouts, but hitouts that created a clearance.

2. If you've got two rucks wrestling, and one of them has the sole purpose of making sure that the other ruck doesn't win a tap to the advantage of his teammates...and then someone else comes in over the top and wins the tap third man...it turns what would have been a negative into a positive. The graphs that were put up only show SUCCESSFUL third man up attempts, followed by clearance rates.

3. Do you think the sides that have a decent ruck actually WANTED to go third man up against the Dogs? Or was it more of a case of trying to negate the advantage you were gaining by doing the same thing themselves? Especially when your ruck was concentrating on taking their ruck out of the contest?

When Bontempelli goes third man up 9 times in a GF, that tells you exactly how much you relied on it as a tactic. Almost a quarter of your hitouts were generated by him. But nah, it's not going to affect you at all. Again I ask, if it doesn't matter...why the **** did he bother doing it in the first place?

Oh, and Campbell is as much of a spud as Matthew Lobbe is. Which is why you don't play him unless you want to work over another ruck. The stats prove it.

Haha what a melt.

 

[Clems Knee]

Haha what a melt.

You have a curious definition of melt. Well reasoned explanation = melt?

Bulldogs will be okay, even though one of their main tactics is to be banned. Liberatore and little Daniel will continue to provide great ground level clearances.

It's the tall midfielders such as Bonrempelli and Blakely, Mundy and Fyfe from my team who will have one string to their bow removed.

 

[Cadillac]

You have a curious definition of melt. Well reasoned explanation = melt?

Bulldogs will be okay, even though one of their main tactics is to be banned. Liberatore and little Daniel will continue to provide great ground level clearances.

It's the tall midfielders such as Bonrempelli and Blakely, Mundy and Fyfe from my team who will have one string to their bow removed.

You really don't think he melted not even just a little bit? Writing out five paragraphs, a ****, and writing words in full capitals is the definition of a melt.

FWIW I'm not worried at all about the rule change. Yes, Bont did do it a fair bit. Particulary in the grand final. But it's not like we constantly relied on it throughout the year like the Cats did. It just means that Bont now gets to spend more time time on his feet getting the taps from ruckman instead of going up. Take into account we've got Libba who's one of the best clearances players in the game at reading an oppositions ruckman and we are looking fairly set.

 

[TiAn_]

Let me make it real, real simple for you:

1. In all the examples you give, it was possible for the Dogs to go third man up. Which means that the opposition ruck was being taken out of the ruck contest by Roughead/Campbell to facilitate this happening. You need to stop looking at just what your team is doing and start looking at what they are preventing the OTHER team from doing when they pulled this s**t. It wasn't just about hitouts, but hitouts that created a clearance.

2. If you've got two rucks wrestling, and one of them has the sole purpose of making sure that the other ruck doesn't win a tap to the advantage of his teammates...and then someone else comes in over the top and wins the tap third man...it turns what would have been a negative into a positive. The graphs that were put up only show SUCCESSFUL third man up attempts, followed by clearance rates.

3. Do you think the sides that have a decent ruck actually WANTED to go third man up against the Dogs? Or was it more of a case of trying to negate the advantage you were gaining by doing the same thing themselves? Especially when your ruck was concentrating on taking their ruck out of the contest?

When Bontempelli goes third man up 9 times in a GF, that tells you exactly how much you relied on it as a tactic. Almost a quarter of your hitouts were generated by him. But nah, it's not going to affect you at all. Again I ask, if it doesn't matter...why the **** did he bother doing it in the first place?

Oh, and Campbell is as much of a spud as Matthew Lobbe is. Which is why you don't play him unless you want to work over another ruck. The stats prove it.

lol, I can't be bothered holding down the 'F' key long enough to produce a 'pffft' befitting that excrement.

1. We averaged 3 more hitouts from third man up than our opponents with the best ruckmen and/or that use the tactic the least in the league. So were our ruckmen just wrestling and taking out the other ruckman the other 60-80 times per game when a ruckman or the opposition won a hitout? Your argument here is incomprehensibly stupid.

2. You're presuming that the opposition ruckman would have won every single hitout that wasn't a third man up from our team. Again, that is incomprehensibly stupid. How are unsuccessful third man up attempts even relevant? If a third man up attempt wasn't successful, it would invariable mean one of the the designated ruckmen or another player going third man up, possibly from the opposition, won the hitout. You're talking in circles.

3. What does it matter whether sides with good rucks wanted to use a third man? They weren't prohibited from doing so or required to do so. They either elected to send a third man up or rely on their ruckman. And, no matter what they did, even if they smashed us in hitouts, we would still almost always win the clearances. Like we have for years.

4. You're ignoring completely the opportunity cost to the Bulldogs. Every time Bontempelli went up for a hitout it meant literally our best clearance player wasn't able to win the clearance. That applies not only to each hitout Bontempelli won, but each time he went up and didn't win the hitout. Now our best clearance player will be exclusively focused on winning clearances. What a punishment. lol, you egg.

5. The stats prove that your head is so far up your arse that you're wearing your anus as a belt.

This rule change will barely affect the Dogs and we'll keep dominating contested ball and clearances as per usual.