Opinion 3rd Man Up Rule

[Hank Heavenly]

Just throwing this out here, but here's my opinion on the 3rd man up rule:

The rule is just wallpapering over the cracks, rather than solving the root cause. And that is Ruckmen are too interested in wrestling at a stoppage rather than actually trying to ruck. If the ruckmen weren't stationary locked arm in arm, but instead jumping for the ball, they wouldn't have to worry about getting a knee in the back and all the supposed issues with a 3rd man up.

Every ruck contest should be like the centre bounce (but being able to start wherever you like). Rule should be, no contact with the opposing ruckman until you have left the ground in the motion of trying to tap the ball. Stops this stupid wrestling, makes it hard for a third man up to even reach the pill anyway, but it will create movement at the stoppage as well.

Actually forces ruckman to ruck at all stoppages (boundary included) and would create momentum at every stoppage with the winning ruck tap.

Then there is no need to nominate and all that bullsh!t, just let two ruckmen go hammer and tongs at it all day.

 

[wart101]

I dont mind not having the 3rd man up, I'm not really sure what all the whinging was about.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Phar Ace]

Some damning commentary on the rule isn't there? Said this in another thread.

Since it was introduced I cannot for the life of me understand why Umpires feel hell bent on knowing by way of nomination who is in the Ruck. Poor little sausages. How about we just give a free kick to the lone ruckman if a secondary ruck joins in the ruck contest. If Clubs think they'll get an advantage by not rucking their best ruck and he just stands there while another does it - so what - that has been an option for 100 years. The umpires don't have to know everything - just judge it on what they see. It will soon settle down to what we've had for decades, just without the third man climbing all over a teammate.

I remember Parkin secretly practicing Rugby Union style lifts at CHF at Carlton in an attempt to revolutionise marking. AFL swiftly said we'll pay a free kick every time you do it. Parkin never did it.

We don't need nominations - just pay free kicks when two or more compete against one. You don't have to penalise the guy who is hit in the back of the head by a throw in either. That umpire was an auto-moron. Just get the Umps to throw it in again - properly this time.

Don't give the Umpires more of a presence than they need. Best umpires go unnoticed.

 

[Nostradumbass]

The nominating is embarrassing for a pro sport, it's under 10's stuff.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Some damning commentary on the rule isn't there? Said this in another thread.

Since it was introduced I cannot for the life of me understand why Umpires feel hell bent on knowing by way of nomination who is in the Ruck. Poor little sausages. How about we just give a free kick to the lone ruckman if a secondary ruck joins in the ruck contest. If Clubs think they'll get an advantage by not rucking their best ruck and he just stands there while another does it - so what - that has been an option for 100 years. The umpires don't have to know everything - just judge it on what they see. It will soon settle down to what we've had for decades, just without the third man climbing all over a teammate.

I remember Parkin secretly practicing Rugby Union style lifts at CHF at Carlton in an attempt to revolutionise marking. AFL swiftly said we'll pay a free kick every time you do it. Parkin never did it.

We don't need nominations - just pay free kicks when two or more compete against one. You don't have to penalise the guy who is hit in the back of the head by a throw in either. That umpire was an auto-moron. Just get the Umps to throw it in again - properly this time.

Don't give the Umpires more of a presence than they need. Best umpires go unnoticed.

Well posted! +1...never thought of it like you just pictured!

 

[copthat]

Some damning commentary on the rule isn't there? Said this in another thread.

Since it was introduced I cannot for the life of me understand why Umpires feel hell bent on knowing by way of nomination who is in the Ruck. Poor little sausages. How about we just give a free kick to the lone ruckman if a secondary ruck joins in the ruck contest. If Clubs think they'll get an advantage by not rucking their best ruck and he just stands there while another does it - so what - that has been an option for 100 years. The umpires don't have to know everything - just judge it on what they see. It will soon settle down to what we've had for decades, just without the third man climbing all over a teammate.

I remember Parkin secretly practicing Rugby Union style lifts at CHF at Carlton in an attempt to revolutionise marking. AFL swiftly said we'll pay a free kick every time you do it. Parkin never did it.

We don't need nominations - just pay free kicks when two or more compete against one. You don't have to penalise the guy who is hit in the back of the head by a throw in either. That umpire was an auto-moron. Just get the Umps to throw it in again - properly this time.

Don't give the Umpires more of a presence than they need. Best umpires go unnoticed.

This adds more grey area for the umps. If they players don't know who is rucking then they could very well put on a block to an opposition player who wanted to go up in the ruck. This happens a few times, there's massive uproar and we're back to square one.

The reason the third man up was so effective was because of the predictability of the ball ups around the ground. What if we brought back the third man up, but also reintroduced bouncing the ball around the ground (instead of throwing it up)? Bouncing the ball adds a layer of unpredictability that would stuff up a lot of third man up attempts.

 

[tiggywigs]

This adds more grey area for the umps. If they players don't know who is rucking then they could very well put on a block to an opposition player who wanted to go up in the ruck. This happens a few times, there's massive uproar and we're back to square one.

The reason the third man up was so effective was because of the predictability of the ball ups around the ground. What if we brought back the third man up, but also reintroduced bouncing the ball around the ground (instead of throwing it up)? Bouncing the ball adds a layer of unpredictability that would stuff up a lot of third man up attempts.

But I think blocking frees were being paid when a third man was being prevented from going up. (Along the same lines as not being allowed to get involved in a marking contest.)
Therefore I can't really see why the umps can't be relied upon to spot a block; should be pretty obvious when only one side contests and a player from the other side is stopped from getting to the contest.

 

[RunningBounce]

I dont mind not having the 3rd man up, I'm not really sure what all the whinging was about.

Yep, me too. I don’t understand why the need for change? No-one was getting hurt, so surely that’s not the motivation?

I’ve played a fair bit in the ruck, over my very amateur, very humble footy career. Just like Hank says in the OP, if opposition jump at you, into you, use you as a ladder, then get more mobile. Don’t stand and wrestle. That just makes you a target for a knee in the kidneys.

And, it clears the stoppage. How much tripe have we listened to about the horrors of congestion? They even trialled netball zones, FFS. A few successful teams start doing something that actually clears the congestion and AFL House decide to make it illegal. Give us a spell.

 

[copthat]

But I think blocking frees were being paid when a third man was being prevented from going up. (Along the same lines as not being allowed to get involved in a marking contest.)
Therefore I can't really see why the umps can't be relied upon to spot a block; should be pretty obvious when only one side contests and a player from the other side is stopped from getting to the contest.

What if three players from the same team all shape to go up in the ruck and all three get blocked?

 

[tiggywigs]

What if three players from the same team all shape to go up in the ruck and all three get blocked?

If more than one player from a team attempts to go up in the ruck that's an automatic free to the other side (if they both do it it's another ball up).

That means its solely the responsibility of each side to pick a single ruckman per contest - nothing to do with the umpire.

 

[Phar Ace]

This adds more grey area for the umps. If they players don't know who is rucking then they could very well put on a block to an opposition player who wanted to go up in the ruck. This happens a few times, there's massive uproar and we're back to square one.

The reason the third man up was so effective was because of the predictability of the ball ups around the ground. What if we brought back the third man up, but also reintroduced bouncing the ball around the ground (instead of throwing it up)? Bouncing the ball adds a layer of unpredictability that would stuff up a lot of third man up attempts.

Two rounds of footy will sort it out. I would pull both Captns over and say, I only want one bloke from each team going up for the ruck contest - you sort it out - I'll pay a free kick for every block I see block - the least blocks wins the free kick if you try and multiple block on me. Two rounds tops we'll be back to what we've had a for 100 years (or close to it) with no third man up.

Another way would be bring in one of the other field umpires at every stoppage and create 'prescribed' or protected zone (yes another) circle of 3m radius (6m in diameter) and only two players can be in it (The two Field Umpires stand 6 metres apart effectively). No other play can enter the prescribed area until the ball is bounced/thrown up.

Break the back of it, keep it consistent. Clubs are being smart arses in the pursuit of a so-called advantage on a stoppage by stoppage basis. They've got 3 field umpires out there and even an extra couple of boundary umpires if necessary. What do they bloody want - a committee!

 

[Konrad2709]

I'm probably totally missing the point, but why don't the umpires announce the nominations.
Ump: "OK, who's rucking?"
Nank the tank: "Me!"
Spencer: "Me!"
Ump: "OK, Nank and Spencer rucking..."

Repeating the nominations makes it clear for all umpires and players around the contest and is recorded if there are future disputes.

Requires no significant change to the game and makes it clear for everybody. What am I missing?

 

[HTT]

I'm probably totally missing the point, but why don't the umpires announce the nominations.
Ump: "OK, who's rucking?"
Nank the tank: "Me!"
Spencer: "Me!"
Ump: "OK, Nank and Spencer rucking..."

Repeating the nominations makes it clear for all umpires and players around the contest and is recorded if there are future disputes.

Requires no significant change to the game and makes it clear for everybody. What am I missing?

The entire process of nomination is so slow for a throw in, which should imo literally just be the ball goes out and the boundary ump tosses it back in, not even waiting for players to rock up

 

[partycorolla]

But I think blocking frees were being paid when a third man was being prevented from going up. (Along the same lines as not being allowed to get involved in a marking contest.)
Therefore I can't really see why the umps can't be relied upon to spot a block; should be pretty obvious when only one side contests and a player from the other side is stopped from getting to the contest.

Well that is the issue right there. Everyone is complaining about the Dunkley one as people believed it wasn't him that nominated, but no-one has called for a free kick on the bloke stopping him without having eyes on the ball at all. Dunkley should have received a free kick for an illegal block regardless of whether he was the ruck or not. Players who have intent to get the ball rather than just stop their man from getting the ball (by taking their own eye off the ball) should be protected.

This usually happens on at least 2 sides of a ruck contest but as the ump is on one side, he can only pings the one he sees.... Occasionally you get the non-control ump seeing one from a fair distance away but that just means that another one has gone un-penalised.

 

[partycorolla]

If more than one player from a team attempts to go up in the ruck that's an automatic free to the other side (if they both do it it's another ball up).

That means its solely the responsibility of each side to pick a single ruckman per contest - nothing to do with the umpire.

Define attempt? Can a player jump early and feign going for the ruck to put off another ruckman? Can they set themselves in a position to contest the ruck but not actually attempt to compete? Just creates more grey areas

The reason there are so many issues is because a bunch of supposedly smart footballers (ex) have tried to make the game 'simpler' to umpire by coming up with new rules and interpretations.

If you want the game to be easier to umpire, get the best umpires to come up with the rules and interpretations. They understand what is easy and hard to interpret far better than ex-players.

 

[partycorolla]

Two rounds of footy will sort it out. I would pull both Captns over and say, I only want one bloke from each team going up for the ruck contest - you sort it out - I'll pay a free kick for every block I see block - the least blocks wins the free kick if you try and multiple block on me. Two rounds tops we'll be back to what we've had a for 100 years (or close to it) with no third man up.

Another way would be bring in one of the other field umpires at every stoppage and create 'prescribed' or protected zone (yes another) circle of 3m radius (6m in diameter) and only two players can be in it (The two Field Umpires stand 6 metres apart effectively). No other play can enter the prescribed area until the ball is bounced/thrown up.

Break the back of it, keep it consistent. Clubs are being smart arses in the pursuit of a so-called advantage on a stoppage by stoppage basis. They've got 3 field umpires out there and even an extra couple of boundary umpires if necessary. What do they bloody want - a committee!

No, no, no. To make this game easier to umpire, you need fewer rules, fewer interpretations. The moment you create another zone, there will be a decision to be made about whether or not a player was inside the 6 metres or were they 6.5 or 5.8 metres etc etc.

I can see the reasons why they want to stop ruckman's kidneys from being cushions for players knees.... It's quite obvious in this world of litigation. However, if they wanted to mitigate against it, just modify ruck contests to ensure that rucks can't make contact with each other until the ball is on the way down (which is what happens at centre bounces). Then you'll have the athletic rucks looking for space while the lumbering giants try to block that space (free kicks have been paid for this in previous iterations of ruck contest rules so there is a potential issue here). You could still have a third man up but his timing would have to be bloody good as he isn't jumping over a stationary ruckman but a leaping one....

In essence though, the way they currently have it will work just fine, as long as everyone knows who is competing in the ruck and that players stop blocking others without looking at the ball (which is against the rules anyway). This didn't happen in the North game but it did in every other game for the round.

 

[tiggywigs]

Define attempt? Can a player jump early and feign going for the ruck to put off another ruckman? Can they set themselves in a position to contest the ruck but not actually attempt to compete? Just creates more grey areas

The reason there are so many issues is because a bunch of supposedly smart footballers (ex) have tried to make the game 'simpler' to umpire by coming up with new rules and interpretations.

If you want the game to be easier to umpire, get the best umpires to come up with the rules and interpretations. They understand what is easy and hard to interpret far better than ex-players.

I get the importance of minimizing the grey areas, but our game is full of them. One of them is the 'unrealistic attempt' penalty for interfering in a marking contest...

What I'm advocating is for a common sense test; put it on the two teams to provide a ruck each.

If they want to play games with that, let them, but the umpires will still be in a good position to determine whether there has been an attempt to interfere with that rucking contest.

 

[aislegi]

Just throwing this out here, but here's my opinion on the 3rd man up rule:

The rule is just wallpapering over the cracks, rather than solving the root cause. And that is Ruckmen are too interested in wrestling at a stoppage rather than actually trying to ruck. If the ruckmen weren't stationary locked arm in arm, but instead jumping for the ball, they wouldn't have to worry about getting a knee in the back and all the supposed issues with a 3rd man up.

Every ruck contest should be like the centre bounce (but being able to start wherever you like). Rule should be, no contact with the opposing ruckman until you have left the ground in the motion of trying to tap the ball. Stops this stupid wrestling, makes it hard for a third man up to even reach the pill anyway, but it will create movement at the stoppage as well.

Actually forces ruckman to ruck at all stoppages (boundary included) and would create momentum at every stoppage with the winning ruck tap.

Then there is no need to nominate and all that bullsh!t, just let two ruckmen go hammer and tongs at it all day.

If I had my way, I'd do away with boundary throw-ins altogether, which would eliminate that daft deliberate rule and just give the ball to whichever team didn't touch it last (with the proviso that you can't kick for goal if you're inside 50)

 

[partycorolla]

I get the importance of minimizing the grey areas, but our game is full of them. One of them is the 'unrealistic attempt' penalty for interfering in a marking contest...

What I'm advocating is for a common sense test; put it on the two teams to provide a ruck each.

If they want to play games with that, let them, but the umpires will still be in a good position to determine whether there has been an attempt to interfere with that rucking contest.

Always found that the easiest one to pay. Basically, if a player flies and gets hands on the pill, it was realistic. If he doesn't, it wasn't.

I agree with the ruck each thing but I think we have that with the current rules.... Everyone near the contest needs to know who, that's all.

 

[partycorolla]

If I had my way, I'd do away with boundary throw-ins altogether, which would eliminate that daft deliberate rule and just give the ball to whichever team didn't touch it last (with the proviso that you can't kick for goal if you're inside 50)

What if there is a marking contest on the wing and you don't know who touched it last?

I have no problem with the last touch part if the ball has been kicked or hand-balled but it can be thrown in inside 50 metres. Any other contests should result in a throw in, including a spoil in a marking contest.

 

[aislegi]

What if there is a marking contest on the wing and you don't know who touched it last?

I have no problem with the last touch part if the ball has been kicked or hand-balled but it can be thrown in inside 50 metres. Any other contests should result in a throw in, including a spoil in a marking contest.

I'd give it to the team whose player didn't have the last kick

 

[Konrad2709]

The entire process of nomination is so slow for a throw in, which should imo literally just be the ball goes out and the boundary ump tosses it back in, not even waiting for players to rock up

OK, how about this.

A ruck nominates by posing as a teapot. That will allow for easy identification by all parties. If the umpire spots two teapots from the same team, free kick to the opposition teapot.

I'm a problem solver. It's what I do.

 

[Grockadoc]

Either let the teams decide wo to go. Let it be 1 V 1 without nominations. If a third player involves themself in the contest, a free is awarded to the opposing side.

OR

Each club nominates players before the game to contest the ruck. If any player NOT nominated by the clubs contests, a free shall be awarded.

Say Richmond nominate Grigg, Nank and Elton prior to the game and Vlastuin contests, a free is awarded against us.

Not hard to figure out, removes any confusion about the nomination rule if the players have already pre nominated and allows play to resume at a normal pace.

 

[RunningBounce]

I can see the reasons why they want to stop ruckman's kidneys from being cushions for players knees.... It's quite obvious in this world of litigation.

You make good points and talk sense. But I don't see this as the reason for another silly rule change. Maybe I haven't followed closely enough. Did a ruckman sustain an injury from a third man up situation last season? Pretty sure the Richmond players didn't, but I couldn't say about other clubs.

Lonergan lost a kidney from a knee in the back from a marking contest not that long ago, and AFL House didn't feel the need to step in.

 

[RunningBounce]

FWIW, the Laws of Game - http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/...oach_AFL/2017_Laws_of_Australian_Football.pdf

Definition of Ruck - The designated Player from each Team who engages in the initial contest of the Football following a bounce, throw up or boundary throw in. For the avoidance of doubt, where there is uncertainty over who is the designated Ruck, the Ruck for each Team will be the Player nominated to the field Umpire by each Team

Law 15.5:

FREE KICKS – RELATING TO RUCKS
Each Team must have no more than one Ruck to contest any bounce, throw up or boundary throw in.

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where the Player:
(a) who is not a designated Ruck contests a throw up or boundary throw in;
(b) unduly pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is the
Ruck contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by
a boundary Umpire; or
(c) who is contesting the football as the Ruck at any bounce, throw up
or boundary throw in makes contact with the opposition Ruck prior
to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand.

Paying free kicks according 15.5c would have been a better solution, IMO, than opening this Pandora's Box. Don't let 'em wrestle. Make 'em jump at the ball. Let's see a third man up jump over a trained ruckman, getting a hand to the footy 4 metres in the air.