Make a new rule, and people will come up with strategies to exploit it. This is not new.
Autopsy Nominate a ruck.
- Thread starter BallaratBulldog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Nov 23, 2016
- 10,558
- 7,069
- AFL Club
- GWS
Not sure I see the problem. If a side doesn't nominate a ruck only one player can touch the ball before it hits the ground. Ie free hit.
Hope the Bulldogs use this tactic against us in a few weeks, no doubt Mummy will miss the physical clash but he'll just have to think of the team.
Hope the Bulldogs use this tactic against us in a few weeks, no doubt Mummy will miss the physical clash but he'll just have to think of the team.
Except that's not correct because sandilands was still able to belt the ball despite not nominating.
- Nov 23, 2016
- 10,558
- 7,069
- AFL Club
- GWS
I have no idea what your trying to say here, and based on my previous experience I'm not convinced you do either. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, care to explain?
Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
Agree or at least water it down to prior opportunity. Overall I don't particularly see an issue with a team not nominating a ruckman.
Seriously how hard is it to develop a set play where if you're the unopposed ruckman you clear the congestion with the hitout. The opposition are giving you free passage just have runners on the outside clued in and your away. Do that twice and I bet the team not nominating starts to either nominate or sets up differently themselves which allows the ruckman to grab it!
Instead of whinging about it use your noggins and develop a counter strategy it isn't difficult. The better teams will work with it whilst the others get left behind. Is it little coincidence that the better ruckman such as Gawn, Ryder, Grundy, Jacobs and Sandilands are becoming more influential?
I explained what happened on the first page. No freo player nominated and the umpire yelled out mutiple times "no freo" and they let sandilands hit the ball anyway. So I don't understand the point of nominating if you don't have to. Or maybe sandilands is the only player who doesn't have to nominate because it's obvious he's the ruckman.
- Apr 11, 2002
- 34,060
- 35,367
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Iggles, Georgia.
Libba nominated against Sandilands. Looked all sorts of wrong (not that I care) but the AFL does like itself a rule change.
- May 16, 2014
- 12,163
- 15,984
- AFL Club
- Carlton
We just don't need a rules committee permanently. Bring them in when there is genuine indication action is necessary (concussion rule - evidence suggested AFL needed to act). But to have a permanent rules committee means a bunch of old pricks sit around the table and think "how can we make ourselves have work to do"...
_Mike_
Super Moderator
- Aug 10, 2009
- 33,679
- 32,593
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Tottenham, Montreal Canadiens
- Moderator
- #35
We had no one in a particular ruck contest which Sandi ended up smashing the ball, it went over the boundary and he was pinged for deliberate.
I can't say that is the spirit of the new ruck rule, changes need to be made quickly to amend the farce that it has become.
I can't say that is the spirit of the new ruck rule, changes need to be made quickly to amend the farce that it has become.
- Oct 9, 2014
- 12,302
- 21,713
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
AFL didn't think about the consequences of a rule change. Who would have thought that would ever happen?
Dumb rule hastily introduced with little thought.
The ruckmen were doing fine even with 3rd men up. Goldstein, Gawn and Sandiliands hold 3 of the top 4 "hitouts in a season" records and they all occurred within the last 3 years where 3rd men up were prevalent. Ruckman was as important as ever before the rule change. This rule has probably made ruckmen even more redundant as some teams don't even bother putting a ruckman up for some contests and instead prefer to just have another midfielder in the scrum. Very few teams have gone back to playing 2 dedicated ruckmen.
This rule was brought in to protect rucks and yet two of the premier ruckmen in the league (Gawn and Goldstein) have both gone down with injuries in the first month. Basically, injuries happen, and bringing in a dumb rule like this to combat a problem that didn't exist was an extremely narrow-minded decision. I'm not exactly sure what this rule change has achieved other than adding far more confusion for players.
The ruckmen were doing fine even with 3rd men up. Goldstein, Gawn and Sandiliands hold 3 of the top 4 "hitouts in a season" records and they all occurred within the last 3 years where 3rd men up were prevalent. Ruckman was as important as ever before the rule change. This rule has probably made ruckmen even more redundant as some teams don't even bother putting a ruckman up for some contests and instead prefer to just have another midfielder in the scrum. Very few teams have gone back to playing 2 dedicated ruckmen.
This rule was brought in to protect rucks and yet two of the premier ruckmen in the league (Gawn and Goldstein) have both gone down with injuries in the first month. Basically, injuries happen, and bringing in a dumb rule like this to combat a problem that didn't exist was an extremely narrow-minded decision. I'm not exactly sure what this rule change has achieved other than adding far more confusion for players.
- Sep 13, 2013
- 31,411
- 28,204
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Juventus
Can't they just let two players contest without nominating and pay the free when the third man comes in?
Anyways this is something under 18's have no problem with why can't AFL players get it right?
Anyways this is something under 18's have no problem with why can't AFL players get it right?
Similar threads
