3rd Man up - Goneski!

Remove this Banner Ad

Kimbo said:
On a serious note, while I think this looks to be a positive rule change and made before, not during, the season I would rather the AFL focus on issues like this, and possible penalties (Whitfield, previously Dees tanking) prior to the draft.

The rule change potentially disadvantages teams who have been both recruiting and planning with the previous rules in place. Of course, in practice, they may well have been aware it was possible, even likely, to change, but certainty prior to the draft would surely be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Ideally it would be nice to have more advance notice. Although I think this is orders of magnitude less intrusive than say, the substitute rule, which also played havoc with teams. It completely changed the type of ruckman teams could carry and also what type of ruckman it was.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If Shannon Motlop was still around I'd say him.
 
Reagan Smash said:
Thank you AFL.

Now if you can look at the blatant throwing of the ball, especially over the head bs
Click to expand...

That doesn't need a rule change. Just needs then to actually enforce the rule as its been for 150+ years.
 
Gasometer said:
Who will be the first noob to go up Third Man on our team?
Click to expand...

Has to be Hrovat... It's a Bulldogs thing.

Plus, he'd want to equal Boomer's hit-out stats.
 
LT Smash said:
Once again, I don't think they should ban the practice, just make it legal to put the bloke in hospital. If you want to stand in the blind spot of the man on the mark then you should cop the elbow to the head without any chance of a free kick.
Click to expand...

As long as the team manning the mark can also have a bloke to come in and protect the man on the mark. It's for squibs n snakes hitting up the man on the mark. WAP.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Has Redpath announced his retirement yet?
 
Twinkletoes said:
Shhhhhhh............

Very happy with this change but, as others have pointed out, being cleared to murder the opposition's 3rd man up would have been good also.

C'mon Goldy, expand that Toddpiece of yours with your 12 schlongs once again thanks champ!
Click to expand...


IMO the protection of the third man up was possibly one of the most frustrating things/laws in football. It just seemed so wrong.

I would have been happy with dumping it but I'm really looking forward to this rule change now. It might make the game more enjoyable and fun to watch. Also might make that preference swap for Hrovat look pretty damn smart.
 
ferball said:
IMO the protection of the third man up was possibly one of the most frustrating things/laws in football. It just seemed so wrong.
Click to expand...

Hard to even comprehend really why it was there. Mabo, the vibe etc
 
Don't like the rule but it should favour us.

Hope it doesn't increase congestion as the 3rd man up was regularly used for this purpose.
 
ferball said:
IMO the protection of the third man up was possibly one of the most frustrating things/laws in football. It just seemed so wrong.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Coupled with the fact that the 3rd (and occasionally FOURTH) man up could jump into the ruckmen? Such a dumb rule as it was.

Would have preferred they eliminated the protection for the 3rd man (other than the protections all players have at stoppages, holding etc) and that they would be penalised for making contact with the designated oppo ruck before contact with the ball. Would have the true rucks flourish a bit more, while also allowing those that truly excel at being third up be able to have an impact.

Overall though, scrapping third up is simpler. Back to black and white instead of a dozen shades of grey.
 
Exactly, if the ruckman came in and went over the top of the other ruckman he would be pinged for it. Yet a guy could run from CHB to CHF and jump over both ruckmen without infringing, how was that in anyway fair.
 
Saintly35 said:
Don't like the rule but it should favour us.

Hope it doesn't increase congestion as the 3rd man up was regularly used for this purpose.
Click to expand...
The AFL looked into doing this a few years back, but didn't as they too were concerned about congestion. They got two years evidence which suggests there is no discernible difference between a contest involving a third man up, and one that doesn't.
 
ferball said:
IMO the protection of the third man up was possibly one of the most frustrating things/laws in football. It just seemed so wrong.

I would have been happy with dumping it but I'm really looking forward to this rule change now. It might make the game more enjoyable and fun to watch. Also might make that preference swap for Hrovat look pretty damn smart.
Click to expand...

I read someone whining that rucks should not be given protection when no-one else on the field is exempt from being double teamed. It's a valid point, but even more valid is the point that third man up should not be given protection that no-one else around the contest receives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gokangas
Pre-season games (Pies Feb 21st 10am at Arden St, Saints March 3rd 2.10pm at RSEA Park Moorabbin)
Replies
8
Views
531
Mr north man
M
Roostorm
2024…HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY…Onwards and up 🍺🍺
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Ashley B
Ashley B
Event Horizon
Who’s queuing up to buy the new Carlton polo?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
apollo_creed
apollo_creed
scottywiper
List management 101 (69?)
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
253
Views
9K
ohmygewd
O
Blightys Barrel
List Mgmt. 17 decisions required by EOY for the list management team
Replies
7
Views
368
Flawed Genius
Flawed Genius
giantroo
List Mgmt. 2024 Trade & List Management Thread
72 73 74 75 76
Replies
2K
Views
104K
roos 10
R
Flawed Genius
Autopsy Loss to Sydney - quite literally no words will adequately sum this up
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
775
Views
29K
Outtatym
O

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top