Rule changes

[Alexander323bc]

According to Dermie what Sydney were doing playing two ruckman against Jolly is against the spirit of the game and technically a free kick. He indicated that the AFL might look in to it in the off season and start to enforce it next year including third man up! I certainly thought it was against the rules but what did others think and do you think third man up can potentially be banned next season?!

 

[carndapies]

With the way the rules commitee likes to change the rules with knee jerk reactions i wouldnt say anythings out of the realms of possibility

 

[cleomenes]

Many years ago, there were two rucks and a rover on the ball. Later one of them became a ruck rover, and is now just an on baller. There is nothing in the rules or spirit of the game against using two rucks, or "third man up". It doesn't cause any harm either, it is just an available tactic.
The changes needed to rucking rules are to remove all of the restrictions introduced lately (can't take the ball out of the ruck, can't knock it through for a point or knock it out, can't push the opposing ruck, except when you can) and just let them play. Removing all of this rubbish would be a great advance.

 

[qqaaxx]

Won't be surprised to see it changed.

Sydney isn't the only team to do this but while we have two above average rucks, why not?

 

[SuperSub17]

Cox and Naitanui are the masters of it...one jostles with the other ruckman while the other climbs over unopposed. Needs to be changed.

 

[loki04]

According to Dermie what Sydney were doing playing two ruckman against Jolly is against the spirit of the game and technically a free kick. He indicated that the AFL might look in to it in the off season and start to enforce it next year including third man up! I certainly thought it was against the rules but what did others think and do you think third man up can potentially be banned next season?!

Said that to my partner on the night, only 1 ruckman is allowed to contest the throw ins and centre bounce otherwise its shepherding the ruck out of the contest like Pyke was doing with mumford.

Jolly should of been paid multiple free kicks for interference.

3rd man up is a bit different as it doesn't impede the ruckman.

what they did to jolly does get paid and has been paid other years seems Sydney noticed it has been enforced much the last few seasons and took a gamble that paid off.

 

[mattys123]

Surely the rule that has to be changed, or at least defined better is the holding the ball rule.

There were two absolute shockers in our prelim, and there were at least 2-3 a week where you simply thought "How could an umpire not pay that for incorrect disposal?".

If you watch any replay pre 2000 if a player had prior opportunity, was tackled legally and then dropped the ball or didn't get rid of it holding the ball was paid, yet the rule has clearly changed over the years, and has got to the point where it's infuriating for fans of the game.

The holding the ball rule needs to be simplified, if you have prior opportunity and you do not dispose of the ball by foot or hand it's holding the ball, simple.

 

[EXNICKS]

And i thought that you had to bounce the ball every 15m, or is it 30m if you play for anyone BUT Collingwood?
Jett's 3 Bounces over 90 metres was absolute BS, Rules are Rules!
Imagine the uproar if it was a pies player!
AFL= Anti (Collingwood) Football League.

 

[mark121]

You would need to ban the third man all together which is what Pyke would be in this occasion just because his main position is a ruck / forward and about 2m tall really doesnt change a thing.

As already stated West Coast have been doing this most of the year and fairly in my opinion. Teams taking the risk of only using one genuine Ruckman and using a forward part time in the ruck leave themselves vulnerable in the ruck but have other advantages.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Surely the rule that has to be changed, or at least defined better is the holding the ball rule.

There were two absolute shockers in our prelim, and there were at least 2-3 a week where you simply thought "How could an umpire not pay that for incorrect disposal?".

If you watch any replay pre 2000 if a player had prior opportunity, was tackled legally and then dropped the ball or didn't get rid of it holding the ball was paid, yet the rule has clearly changed over the years, and has got to the point where it's infuriating for fans of the game.

The holding the ball rule needs to be simplified, if you have prior opportunity and you do not dispose of the ball by foot or hand it's holding the ball, simple.

Surely the rule that has to be changed, or at least defined better is the holding the ball rule.

There were two absolute shockers in our prelim, and there were at least 2-3 a week where you simply thought "How could an umpire not pay that for incorrect disposal?".

If you watch any replay pre 2000 if a player had prior opportunity, was tackled legally and then dropped the ball or didn't get rid of it holding the ball was paid, yet the rule has clearly changed over the years, and has got to the point where it's infuriating for fans of the game.

The holding the ball rule needs to be simplified, if you have prior opportunity and you do not dispose of the ball by foot or hand it's holding the ball, simple.

Once upon a time disposing of the ball by hand when tackled, and having a prior opportunity counted as "holding the ball"? The only way to legally dispose of it when tackled is by foot.

When did that change?

 

[mattys123]

Interesting that the AFL have admitted that Jetta ran too far also;

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)

League umpiring boss Jeff Giechen has confirmed the Sydney star ran too far without a bounce in his explosive run away from Magpie Nathan Brown.

The offending section of the run was between the first and second bounces.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)

And yet all three umpires were rewarded with the Grand Final.

 

[Ketchup]

I thought it was against the rules at the time aswell. But then i thought of two things,
Does anyone really know when anything is a free kick in a ruck contest?

and secondly, there isn't really a difference between what they were doing and having a third man up, which is apparently within the rules of the AFL.

Can't say I think it's a big deal personally.

 

[Alexander323bc]

Interesting that the AFL have admitted that Jetta ran too far also;

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)

And yet all three umpires were rewarded with the Grand Final.

Sydney will need all the help they can get to get over the Hawks. ;-) personally wouldnt mind one bit! Hate the cheating Hawks.

 

[loki04]

I thought it was against the rules at the time aswell. But then i thought of two things,
Does anyone really know when anything is a free kick in a ruck contest?

and secondly, there isn't really a difference between what they were doing and having a third man up, which is apparently within the rules of the AFL.

Can't say I think it's a big deal personally.

there is a difference 1 is blocking jolly from contesting while the other wrestles to the front, 3rd man in doesn't stop impede him from competing at the contest.

 

[mocamagic]

The "rule" for bouncing every 15 metres has been a joke for years. When you are running into an open goal you can run virtually any distance you like. I can't recall a single instance of a player being penalised. If Jetta had done the same length run starting from full back he would have been penalised every time.

 

[jmac70]

If it benefits us and penalises West Coast & Sydney there is no way the AFL will change it.

 

[Bay Pie]

The AFL wants to break up congestion. A 3rd man in the ruck to knock the ball away get's the ball out of the congestion.

The rule will not be changed. Dermis is saying this as a hint to the umps for the GF against his team because the Swans will kill them in the ruck contests.

 

[Alexander323bc]

Good point Bay Pie.

 

[OniAu]

Surely the rule that has to be changed, or at least defined better is the holding the ball rule.

There were two absolute shockers in our prelim, and there were at least 2-3 a week where you simply thought "How could an umpire not pay that for incorrect disposal?".

If you watch any replay pre 2000 if a player had prior opportunity, was tackled legally and then dropped the ball or didn't get rid of it holding the ball was paid, yet the rule has clearly changed over the years, and has got to the point where it's infuriating for fans of the game.

The holding the ball rule needs to be simplified, if you have prior opportunity and you do not dispose of the ball by foot or hand it's holding the ball, simple.

Agree 100% add to that , they will ping a guy who stands up in the tackle and disposes of it before a 360 motion.

Yet they wont ping a guy thats had an eternity and doesnt dispose of it at all properly

No consistency in that rule , they need to stop the rule changes and make it clear cut

 

[SuperSub17]

Interesting that the AFL have admitted that Jetta ran too far also;

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...ampaign=Feed:+HeraldSunAfl+(Herald+Sun+|+AFL)

And yet all three umpires were rewarded with the Grand Final.

They also admitted that the umps in the Hawthorn-Adelaide PF stuffed up quite a few decisions - all against Adelaide surprisingly.

I thought the Crows were on the rough end of some horrible decisions on Saturday.

 

[Swooop]

Crows were caned I thought.

 

[TheWoodsOf72]

If you watch any replay pre 2000 if a player had prior opportunity, was tackled legally and then dropped the ball or didn't get rid of it holding the ball was paid, yet the rule has clearly changed over the years, and has got to the point where it's infuriating for fans of the game.

The holding the ball rule needs to be simplified, if you have prior opportunity and you do not dispose of the ball by foot or hand it's holding the ball, simple.

Agree, I am also annoyed at a player that is tackled, turns around 360 degrees only to pass or drop the ball to his team mate. Basically they stand too long in the tackle and are given heaps of time to pass it on.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Agree, I am also annoyed at a player that is tackled, turns around 360 degrees only to pass or drop the ball to his team mate. Basically they stand too long in the tackle and are given heaps of time to pass it on.

happens quite a lot with tackling sides (ie us)