The Ruck - Why?

[Snag Breac]

The Ruck is such a strange and thrilling component of footy - a very odd way to start a game. Who thought of it, and what possessed them? Was it always there, or did it develop gradually?

It's great as spectacle and challenge, but will it disappear from the game? I've heard commentators on radio suggest that it serves no useful purpose, and that the umpire should just ball it up. But I see it as a great and distinctive ornament of the game. What do you say yourselves?

 

[Barwick17]

If the umpires just ball it up, isn't that still a ruck contest?

Confusing!

 

[Mental Magpie]

Snag.

I think it's here to stay, and it needs to stay; from both a tactical sense, and as you put it; a "distinctive ornament of the game".

The role would have developed over time and is still developing. We are constantly seeing bigger and better ruckmen, who are more mobile and possess skills and co-ordination that are uncanny for men of such height. In our game anyway. Basketball has utilized them for as long as the game has existed.

Tactically, a mobile ruckman with good hands and a good kick is of immense value at both ends of the ground.
He can be used to repeatedly intercept forays from the opposition into our backline. He can rove his own footy, lay tackles and get his own clearances setting up his mids in space. He can also be used in the forward line to place pressure on defenders via his height.

The ruckman is here to stay. Even if the ball up was eliminated from our game, there will always be a spot or two in every side for a silky smooth "Big Man" who can be used in both a defensive nature and as a "strike force" up forward.

That's what I reckon Snag.

Mental.

GO PIES!!!!!!!!

 

[mattys123]

Ruckman as a whole should and probably will stay in the game, as they add just another unique aspect to our game that does not exist in any other sport.

The one thing that might change regarding ruck contests is the bounce of the ball. Eventually I can see it getting to the stage where the ball is only bounced to start each quarter, then from then on it is thrown up, no matter what the conditions or talent of the umpire involved.

The very "few" who have questioned ruckman and their importance to our game should step back and assess the greats of our game that would other wise have not played or not played as much if they werent able to be ruckman.

Plus what else would 7 foot Australians do now, basketball is almost dead in this country, and they have to work out their frustrations at being "different" somehow.

 

[King Woodie]

The Ruck is such a strange and thrilling component of footy - a very odd way to start a game. Who thought of it, and what possessed them? Was it always there, or did it develop gradually?

It's great as spectacle and challenge, but will it disappear from the game? I've heard commentators on radio suggest that it serves no useful purpose, and that the umpire should just ball it up. But I see it as a great and distinctive ornament of the game. What do you say yourselves?

The ruck will stay as long as the ball is thrown up at stoppages and thrown in after it crosses the boundary line.

The nab cup trialled a rule where the last team to touch the ball before it went out of bounds would give away the free kick, and this rule, as well as a no stoppage rule would need to come in before there is no ruck in the game.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I think you're referring to a centre bounce, rather than the actual ruck, from what you're saying.

I don't think there's any need for them to bounce the ball any more, given the high rate of failure, and the specific rule in place to combat that failure. If they could change the length of kick needed for a mark, or completely eliminate the rushed behind from the game, both of which make a significantly bigger impact on the game, then they should be able to get rid of the bounce, and just throw the ball up at all ruck contests.

Nobody has successfully been able to explain to me exactly why a bounce is better than balling it up.

 

[unplugged]

Nobody has successfully been able to explain to me exactly why a bounce is better than balling it up.

It's all about that loud 'thump' sound to start things off IMO. But that doesn't explain why they continue to do it after the start of the quarters.

 

[FuManchu]

It is an interesting question.

I think the ruck contest is a throwback to the original rules being an amalgamation of a number of games and this particular aspect being borrowed from Union and the line out. I could be wrong, but its funny how basketball also starts out with something similar. Not that i believe any aspect of our game is borrowed from basketball.

I wonder how you could start the game from stoppages with the ball supposedly being nuetral.

 

[smiddaz123]

It was a huge conspiracy against us leading up to the Grand Final against Brisbane. Over a century in planning.

 

[Pie eyed]

I don't think basketball would have figured much in the development of the Ruck.
Basket ball itself was an evolving game, the first very, very rudimentary game being played December 1891 at the Springfield (go Homer) YMCA. This game and it's rules were concocted more or less "on the spot" and featured "peach crates" not baskets, a soccer ball and no dribbling.
It si not clearly stated whether a "centre Jump" was employed to start the game but the "Centre Jump" was later eliminated from general play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Naismith

 

[Quicky]

I think you're referring to a centre bounce, rather than the actual ruck, from what you're saying.

I don't think there's any need for them to bounce the ball any more, given the high rate of failure, and the specific rule in place to combat that failure. If they could change the length of kick needed for a mark, or completely eliminate the rushed behind from the game, both of which make a significantly bigger impact on the game, then they should be able to get rid of the bounce, and just throw the ball up at all ruck contests.

Nobody has successfully been able to explain to me exactly why a bounce is better than balling it up.

I disagree. I like the original bounce. I think the way they've set up the rules are perfect. It keeps the tradition, while preventing any unfair advantage from a bad bounce. No need to change it at all.

 

[piespies1995]

Keep it in the game! Its our tradition!!

 

[Bonuspoints]

Its probably something added into the game at the beginning to prevent favourably throws, but given you can manipulate the bounce anyways it seems pointless. I like the bounce myself and hope it stays, but do believe that it should be optional for umpires that way if they do suck at it they can just throw it up instead of wasting time with having to recall bad bounces.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I disagree. I like the original bounce. I think the way they've set up the rules are perfect. It keeps the tradition, while preventing any unfair advantage from a bad bounce. No need to change it at all.

But what is GOOD about it? What's the value of the tradition?

"I don't want to change it" isn't a point in favour of it.

 

[Quicky]

But what is GOOD about it? What's the value of the tradition?

"I don't want to change it" isn't a point in favour of it.

Its uniqueness is its value. Similar to goal umpires, our scoring system or the handball - its one facet of the game that distinguishes the sport apart from others. I know you can argue that the original bounce can disadvantage one ruckman over another if it is bad but the new rules adress that. It's the ruck contest - and the ensuing centre contest - that the whole game is set up on. I just don't think the game would be the same without the original ruck contest. I think the current rules juggle the problems of the original ruck contest and the uniqueness it brings to the game perfectly and should be left how they are.

 

[Snag Breac]

I think you're referring to a centre bounce, rather than the actual ruck, from what you're saying.

I'm referring to the ruck and all its appurtenances, including the center bounce.

I don't think there's any need for them to bounce the ball any more, given the high rate of failure, and the specific rule in place to combat that failure. If they could change the length of kick needed for a mark, or completely eliminate the rushed behind from the game, both of which make a significantly bigger impact on the game, then they should be able to get rid of the bounce, and just throw the ball up at all ruck contests.

Nobody has successfully been able to explain to me exactly why a bounce is better than balling it up.

It's just the vibe. It looks good.

 

[Soul_Pie]

The actual bounce itself is something that I don't think serves any useful purpose. I feel like it puts unnecessary pressure on the umpire and the amount of technique and practice that goes into something that could quite easily be replaced by a simple ball up is ridiculous.

I'm all for tradition but not simply for tradition's sake, it has to have some kind of redeeming feature or positive side to it and I just don't see why the bounce should be favoured to a ball up.


The ruck contest itself, however, is one of the great parts of our game in my view. It just seems very fitting that in such a physical, athletic, high flying sport as footy the first contest should be decided by two aerial combatants.