Opinion 3rd Man Up Rule

[Wallaby]

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.

Agree with what everyone says about nominations etc. However, I disagree about 'stopping wrestling' I'm in favour of ruckmen using their body to position themselves for a tap-out - that's how we had small ruckmen like John Nicholls, Roy Wright etc who were barely over six feet tall. I don't really think the centre ball-up now, which consists of finding a giant ex-basketballer and giving him a free run-up, is a good thing. In 1960, they surveyed the 'tallest men in the VFL' and Geoff Leek was it - 6-4. Nank is taller than that, and we are all a bit concerned that he is too short.

Ok - the wrestling can get out of control - but the umps can pay frees there. It's no different to a full-forward/full-back wrestling for a mark - there are rules re wrestling, the umpire pulls one out at random now and then, 50% of the fans whinge about it, and we move on. It's been like that for 100+ years and it should stay.

But yes - have a ruck contest - anyone can jump. If 2 from your team jump - that's 2 men up. Free against. Not complex.

However - we don't stop '3rd man up' in marking contests. We don't care about the Centre-half forward's kidneys. If he wears one - tough. Why should we protect ruckmen?

 

[partycorolla]

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.

Not saying I agree with it. Came to a head after a Richmond v Freo game where Sandilands copped it from Griff and TV I think it was, possibly Hampson. I think one of our guys hurt themselves at the same time...

 

[partycorolla]

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.

This already happens. The ruckman don't wrestle until the ball is thrown in but it is in the air for considerable time allowing time to wrestle. If they need to change it, maybe they need to change it to rucks can't make contact until the ball is on the way down??? Again, further interpretation the required as you have the umpire looking at the ball instead of the contest.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

This already happens. The ruckman don't wrestle until the ball is thrown in but it is in the air for considerable time allowing time to wrestle. If they need to change it, maybe they need to change it to rucks can't make contact until the ball is on the way down??? Again, further interpretation the required as you have the umpire looking at the ball instead of the contest.

Goes back to my original statement, cant make contact until they are in the air in the motion of attempting to tap the ball.

Hard for two blokes to wrestle two feet in the air.

 

[tiggywigs]

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.

But its this nominating business that is gumming up the works.
Just leave it to the teams to work out who their own ruck is.
If they stuff it up it's their problem.
Blocking a player trying to contest a throw in/ball up has always been a free.
And wasn't one of the main reasons for the rule change bringing it back to a pure contest between the specialist rucks?
Pretty clear who that is in most cases.

 

[partycorolla]

Goes back to my original statement, cant make contact until they are in the air in the motion of attempting to tap the ball.

Hard for two blokes to wrestle two feet in the air.

Don't mind it but then what happens if one doesn't fly and just takes up the space where the ball is going to land? It's not blocking all the time but sometimes it is.... What if neither of them jump? What if one jumps early into the other? Back to the old injury issue we used to have with PCL issues caused by blokes jumping into each other knee on knee.

If there was a particularly easy and simple solution, we'd already have it....

 

[partycorolla]

But its this nominating business that is gumming up the works.
Just leave it to the teams to work out who their own ruck is.
If they stuff it up it's their problem.
Blocking a player trying to contest a throw in/ball up has always been a free.
And wasn't one of the main reasons for the rule change bringing it back to a pure contest between the specialist rucks?
Pretty clear who that is in most cases.

This is actually the issue. The free kick to Grigg and the one to Dunkley actually should have been paid not because they were in the ruck but because they were being impeded by a player who had their back to the ball.... It's actually a free kick that could be paid around most stoppages in every game, particularly inside 50 but because it happens by both teams, is usually ignored.

Reward ball players. The effective stoppers need to be able to impede their man while still watching the ball.

 

[Livonski]

Not saying I agree with it. Came to a head after a Richmond v Freo game where Sandilands copped it from Griff and TV I think it was, possibly Hampson. I think one of our guys hurt themselves at the same time...

Yep. Sandi crunched Griffo and used the excuse that he couldn't see him coming in as 3rd man up. So sandi is wrestling the ruck then drops his shoulder into the 3rd man up to protect himself. Of course Griffo was ko'd. Sandi copped a couple.
But there was some validity in the argument imo.

 

[Phar Ace]

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.

Didn't suggest I liked the protected zone idea, but rather suggested if it couldn't be made simpler then perhaps that's where it might be headed as an alternative. I think most agree:

• Third Man up has to be removed (for a variety of reasons)
• Any ONE player from each team must have the opportunity to compete
• It shouldn't add to congestion

Agree with much of what you said, but would add that we probably need to see Umpires rattle the frees out for a short while where there is any hint of a block. It's such a pity it currently sounds like an U10 game with Umpires nominating Ruckman. How soon might we hear a player say "No I'm not, I don't want to - pick him!" I think the more curious ones are going to be when near goals.

 

[Phar Ace]

But its this nominating business that is gumming up the works.
Just leave it to the teams to work out who their own ruck is.
If they stuff it up it's their problem..

Yes. Still think teams need to be in charge of who Rucks, not umpires - that becomes a huge shift and a thin edge of the wedge letting Umpires have this sort of voice.

Blocking a player trying to contest a throw in/ball up has always been a free.
And wasn't one of the main reasons for the rule change bringing it back to a pure contest between the specialist rucks?
Pretty clear who that is in most cases.

Not sure the point was to get only specialist Ruckman compete for ball ups / throw ins. It was more about the fairness and the reasonable foreseeable protection from injury - ie we insist on one practice at a Centre Bounce and now need to apply similar protections at other Bounces or Throw ups. Think the Throw ins just got roped in with it all. To me the Throw in is more like a Marking Contest and could tolerate a third man up.

It's trying to eliminate the exploitative attempts. For example, when near a goal, would-be Ruck chooses to remain out of the initial Throw up contest as he sees teammate has a heavy tag and that teammate claims he was denied access to compete in the Ruck because of the heavy tag feigning a free kick for being blocked access to Ruck, even though he probably wouldn't have competed whether tagged or not.

It might have a knock on affect of reducing tagging or at least cleaning it up a little until the ball comes into play again. It will be exploited at every turn, nature of competitive beasts

 

[Wallaby]

It might have a knock on affect of reducing tagging or at least cleaning it up a little until the ball comes into play again. It will be exploited at every turn, nature of competitive beasts

And that's the problem whenever you introduce new rules. If you have a game where the rules have been basically unchanged for 100 years or so, everyone knows every little wrinkle or trick. As soon a some 'expert' committee introduce a change, there is no way they can have foreseen all the various shady tricks coaches and players will try to work it to their advantage - and so the intent of the rule change gets lost and instead we get a few years of everyone trying to work out how best to fiddle the new rule.

You cant blame the professional players and/or coaches - that's their job.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Don't mind it but then what happens if one doesn't fly and just takes up the space where the ball is going to land? It's not blocking all the time but sometimes it is.... What if neither of them jump? What if one jumps early into the other? Back to the old injury issue we used to have with PCL issues caused by blokes jumping into each other knee on knee.

If there was a particularly easy and simple solution, we'd already have it....

what happens if one doesn't fly and just takes up the space where the ball is going to land - If he makes contact without jumping for the ball = Free kick against SIMPLE

What if neither of them jump - If they are not allowed to make contact without jumping for the ball why would they not go for the ball??? So one they are stupid... secondly, player who initiates contact first without jumping fro the ball = free kick against

What if one jumps early into the other - As long as he makes contact with the footy, no problems, thats part of the art of rucking, and this scenario is no different to what we have in the centre circle today, so would be a change to todays game at all.

Back to the old injury issue we used to have with PCL issues caused by blokes jumping into each other knee on knee - Here is where ruckman need to learn their craft better, learn to use angles, jump early etc. Plus the PCL only really happened at centre bounces in the old days because ruckman had a 20m run up to the bounce (due tot he bounce being so high). With the umpire throwing it up, ruckman would only need to take 4-5 steps, lessoning the impact etc.

The reality is, if we go to my suggestion, and the umpires are red hot on free kicks for anyone not jumping for the ball before making contact, anyone wanting to contest a ball up will not do the "what ifs" you suggest because they would know their team will be penalised by either a free kick or a hit out to the other team.

If there was a particularly easy and simple solution, we'd already have it- we did use to have it, but then we started to let ruckman wrestle and hold onto each other too much, which led to third man up being the solution to clear stoppages etc... instead on piling things on top to try and 'find a solution', take it back to when it wasn't broken.

You can try and come up with as many what if's as possible but the reality is, strip it back to 2 ruckman jumping for the ball, and everything else falls into place.

 

[partycorolla]

what happens if one doesn't fly and just takes up the space where the ball is going to land - If he makes contact without jumping for the ball = Free kick against SIMPLE -

What if neither of them jump - If they are not allowed to make contact without jumping for the ball why would they not go for the ball??? So one they are stupid... secondly, player who initiates contact first without jumping fro the ball = free kick against

What if one jumps early into the other - As long as he makes contact with the footy, no problems, thats part of the art of rucking, and this scenario is no different to what we have in the centre circle today, so would be a change to todays game at all.

Back to the old injury issue we used to have with PCL issues caused by blokes jumping into each other knee on knee - Here is where ruckman need to learn their craft better, learn to use angles, jump early etc. Plus the PCL only really happened at centre bounces in the old days because ruckman had a 20m run up to the bounce (due tot he bounce being so high). With the umpire throwing it up, ruckman would only need to take 4-5 steps, lessoning the impact etc.

The reality is, if we go to my suggestion, and the umpires are red hot on free kicks for anyone not jumping for the ball before making contact, anyone wanting to contest a ball up will not do the "what ifs" you suggest because they would know their team will be penalised by either a free kick or a hit out to the other team.

If there was a particularly easy and simple solution, we'd already have it- we did use to have it, but then we started to let ruckman wrestle and hold onto each other too much, which led to third man up being the solution to clear stoppages etc... instead on piling things on top to try and 'find a solution', take it back to when it wasn't broken.

You can try and come up with as many what if's as possible but the reality is, strip it back to 2 ruckman jumping for the ball, and everything else falls into place.

Well nothing changed in the rules to stop this from happening. The coaches changed it, no-one else. Unfortunately, the coaches have no care for the look of the game, they care (rightly) about winning. It ain't going to be fixed simply I'm afraid although I love your optimism.

I love the way you have discriminated in the laws against anyone who chooses not to jump or mistimes their jump.... It simply isn't that simple There will always be what-ifs, always and it is the people that try to legislate against them, that actually create more of them. So many examples in the last decade or so - deliberate out of bounds, blocking, hands in the back (as opposed to push in the back), dangerous tackle versus normal tackle, incidental contact, prior opportunity, reasonable time to dispose of the ball, unrealistic attempt to mark.... All of these created by those 'experts' to make it simpler to umpire.... Would anyone say it is easier to umpire now? Not one umpire would tell you that it is.... not a single one.

As I've said, if you want to sort it out, let the people who have to adjudicate it, tell them what is easy to judge and what isn't. Time for footballers and administrators to step out of it. Most players make lousy umpires (Jordan Bannister I'm looking at you). Fisher is the best example of a player who has transitioned well to umpiring and guess what, he umpired junior football for years prior to his AFL career.

 

[partycorolla]

Didn't suggest I liked the protected zone idea, but rather suggested if it couldn't be made simpler then perhaps that's where it might be headed as an alternative. I think most agree:

• Third Man up has to be removed (for a variety of reasons)
• Any ONE player from each team must have the opportunity to compete
• It shouldn't add to congestion

Agree with much of what you said, but would add that we probably need to see Umpires rattle the frees out for a short while where there is any hint of a block. It's such a pity it currently sounds like an U10 game with Umpires nominating Ruckman. How soon might we hear a player say "No I'm not, I don't want to - pick him!" I think the more curious ones are going to be when near goals.

This is the key. Any player impeding another without looking at the ball around a stoppage should be pinged (it's in the bloody rules for a start). It always takes a McCaffer-type mauling one week for anything to be done about it.

 

[RunningBounce]

I can't believe it's this hard.

Over 35's have always had a rule for no third man up. I've only ever seen one free kick paid, and that was when a player new to Superules went third man up. Little juniors, from maybe u11's down, have the same rule. Never seen a free paid there.

Old farts and little kids can sort it out, FFS.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

Well nothing changed in the rules to stop this from happening. The coaches changed it, no-one else. Unfortunately, the coaches have no care for the look of the game, they care (rightly) about winning. It ain't going to be fixed simply I'm afraid although I love your optimism.

I love the way you have discriminated in the laws against anyone who chooses not to jump or mistimes their jump.... It simply isn't that simple There will always be what-ifs, always and it is the people that try to legislate against them, that actually create more of them. So many examples in the last decade or so - deliberate out of bounds, blocking, hands in the back (as opposed to push in the back), dangerous tackle versus normal tackle, incidental contact, prior opportunity, reasonable time to dispose of the ball, unrealistic attempt to mark.... All of these created by those 'experts' to make it simpler to umpire.... Would anyone say it is easier to umpire now? Not one umpire would tell you that it is.... not a single one.

As I've said, if you want to sort it out, let the people who have to adjudicate it, tell them what is easy to judge and what isn't. Time for footballers and administrators to step out of it. Most players make lousy umpires (Jordan Bannister I'm looking at you). Fisher is the best example of a player who has transitioned well to umpiring and guess what, he umpired junior football for years prior to his AFL career.

I love the way you have discriminated in the laws against anyone who chooses not to jump or mistimes their jump - Two things with this, and the first and easiest one is, I never said penalise people who mistime their jump. If they jump at the ball before making contact thats fine, no penalty. However if they impede that player and don't touch the ball, then free kick, but that is the rule now anyway.

SECONDLY, Tell me why someone wouldn't want to jump in a ruck contest, as the aim is to reach the ball before the opposition ruckman, the aim is to get to the ball at the highest point possible. So how on earth can get to a higher point by standing rather than jumping... Answer is No-One. So lets look into it more. The reason someone decides not to jump in a ruck contest is because their FIRST thought is to impede the other ruckman from jumping at the ball. Hence their First priority is not to tap the ball but to block/impede/hinder someone else's attempt to ruck. This in my opinion should be a free kick. If you did this at the centre bounce it's a free kick, so why should it be different around the ground????

I'm not discriminating anyone who is playing by the rules, the aim is take away people who try and get around the rules because their objective is to stop the other player first rather than go for the ball.

And another thing, don't try and role my opinion on the ruck rules into other rules. I am purely making a point on this rule only, Not once in my argument did I say I was trying to make it easier for umpires in the same mould as other rules.... Long Bow to draw to try and win a discussion.

 

[partycorolla]

I love the way you have discriminated in the laws against anyone who chooses not to jump or mistimes their jump - Two things with this, and the first and easiest one is, I never said penalise people who mistime their jump. If they jump at the ball before making contact thats fine, no penalty. However if they impede that player and don't touch the ball, then free kick, but that is the rule now anyway.

SECONDLY, Tell me why someone wouldn't want to jump in a ruck contest, as the aim is to reach the ball before the opposition ruckman, the aim is to get to the ball at the highest point possible. So how on earth can get to a higher point by standing rather than jumping... Answer is No-One. So lets look into it more. The reason someone decides not to jump in a ruck contest is because their FIRST thought is to impede the other ruckman from jumping at the ball. Hence their First priority is not to tap the ball but to block/impede/hinder someone else's attempt to ruck. This in my opinion should be a free kick. If you did this at the centre bounce it's a free kick, so why should it be different around the ground????

I'm not discriminating anyone who is playing by the rules, the aim is take away people who try and get around the rules because their objective is to stop the other player first rather than go for the ball.

And another thing, don't try and role my opinion on the ruck rules into other rules. I am purely making a point on this rule only, Not once in my argument did I say I was trying to make it easier for umpires in the same mould as other rules.... Long Bow to draw to try and win a discussion.

How do you win a discussion? I've been doing discussions wrong all this time I just have them.

As for telling you why someone wouldn't want to jump to win a ruck contest... I don't need to. Just watch a game of football, lots of rucks, just wrestling.... That's why we are having this discussion isn't it? Rucks sometimes don't jump because it means the other ruck will mistime his jump (expecting to jump into the ruck) not just to impede other rucks from jumping at the ball. That shouldn't be a free kick imo (either way), that's just tactical.

I'm all for having just two ruckmen in a contest... I think that is the purest way of doing it. I honestly don't think the wrestling is huge issue, it should just become a tactical issue for athletic rucks versus solid lumbering rucks. Provided each has an opportunity to go for the pill, let them play. I think the 3rd man up isn't great because it encourages rucks to just wrestle, not in a contest for the ball but as a way of stopping the other ruck from jumping at the pill. It's essentially a block. Then to counteract it, you have players who 'block' the third man up and then players blocking a player to stop him from blocking the third man up.... It just gets ridiculous. Saying you were discriminating may have been a bit misdirected as I meant to point out that the rules (new ones) can have unintended consequences. In some cases this can be discrimatory against certain players/actions.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

**** it off and bring back the traditional ruck rover.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

How do you win a discussion? I've been doing discussions wrong all this time I just have them.

As for telling you why someone wouldn't want to jump to win a ruck contest... I don't need to. Just watch a game of football, lots of rucks, just wrestling.... That's why we are having this discussion isn't it? Rucks sometimes don't jump because it means the other ruck will mistime his jump (expecting to jump into the ruck) not just to impede other rucks from jumping at the ball. That shouldn't be a free kick imo (either way), that's just tactical.

I'm all for having just two ruckmen in a contest... I think that is the purest way of doing it. I honestly don't think the wrestling is huge issue, it should just become a tactical issue for athletic rucks versus solid lumbering rucks. Provided each has an opportunity to go for the pill, let them play. I think the 3rd man up isn't great because it encourages rucks to just wrestle, not in a contest for the ball but as a way of stopping the other ruck from jumping at the pill. It's essentially a block. Then to counteract it, you have players who 'block' the third man up and then players blocking a player to stop him from blocking the third man up.... It just gets ridiculous. Saying you were discriminating may have been a bit misdirected as I meant to point out that the rules (new ones) can have unintended consequences. In some cases this can be discrimatory against certain players/actions.

hahaha I fukked that up a bit I admit, didn't want to write argument, but thought I needed to make it stronger than just get a point across hahaha oh well.