Two ruckmen at centre bounces?

[GOALden Hawk]

I was at the game Friday night (yes, I flew up for that debacle) and I thought Brisbane were very clever in the way they were blocking one of our two ruckmen in the centre square. I wasn't so impressed however when they blocked both our ruckmen, giving Keating a free run at the ball.

I watched the replay later and apparently the umpires said Hawthorn HAD to nominate the ruckmen who would be contesting the centre bounce, and if they didn't both could be blocked.

This seems strange to me when 2 weeks ago "Comb over" Gieschen said it didn't matter what the ruckmen did so long as only one ruckmen actually contested. Yet the umpire was saying whoever Hawthorn nominated had to compete and the other had to stand there and was allowed to be blocked by the Lions player.

That doesn't seem right because Brisbane were not asked to nominate to the umpires who their ruckmen was. A couple of times around the ground Voss jumped over the top and won the tapouts, an occurrence that happens every week. Yet he wasn't the "nominated" ruckmen, so according to the umpires that was a free kick??

Can anyone explain what the rule is here? Does it mean if Hawthorn (or Collingwood or essendon or whoever) have 2 ruckmen in the centre they have to tell everyone who is going to contest so the other ruckmen can be blocked? That defeats the whole purpose of having 2 ruckmen! What happens if the ump bounces it, it's a shocker and goes straight to the 'other' ruckmen? Does he have to stand there and not touch it because he wasn't nominated? It seems like no one is actually sure what the rule is.

Anyway, Friday night showed we could have 5 ruckmen and we still couldn't win a bloody tapout!!!

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
I was at the game Friday night (yes, I flew up for that debacle) and I thought Brisbane were very clever in the way they were blocking one of our two ruckmen in the centre square. I wasn't so impressed however when they blocked both our ruckmen, giving Keating a free run at the ball.

I watched the replay later and apparently the umpires said Hawthorn HAD to nominate the ruckmen who would be contesting the centre bounce, and if they didn't both could be blocked.

This seems strange to me when 2 weeks ago "Comb over" Gieschen said it didn't matter what the ruckmen did so long as only one ruckmen actually contested. Yet the umpire was saying whoever Hawthorn nominated had to compete and the other had to stand there and was allowed to be blocked by the Lions player.

If a player doesn't nominate as ruckman then he can be treated the same as any othe midfielder. ie have his path to the ball blocked. My understanding is that Brisbane didn't nominate becuase it was obvious who their ruckman was (ie they only had one in the square). I thought it was a damn smart move.

That doesn't seem right because Brisbane were not asked to nominate to the umpires who their ruckmen was. A couple of times around the ground Voss jumped over the top and won the tapouts, an occurrence that happens every week. Yet he wasn't the "nominated" ruckmen, so according to the umpires that was a free kick??

Around the ground is another matter alltogether, teams often have a second player come over the top at a boundary throw in to belt the ball clear.

Can anyone explain what the rule is here? Does it mean if Hawthorn (or Collingwood or essendon or whoever) have 2 ruckmen in the centre they have to tell everyone who is going to contest so the other ruckmen can be blocked?

It's not so that the other CAN be blocked, it's because, as I understand it, there's no rule to say you can't block a midfielder's run at the centre bounce, and if a player doesn't nominate as ruck (which he doesn't have to do) then he's considered simply another midfielder, and thus CAN be blocked. If it's obvious from who is in the square and where they are positioning themselves that a player is going to contest the ruck then the nomination isn't necessary, but if there are TWO then it is.

That defeats the whole purpose of having 2 ruckmen!

Last time I looked there was no rule that said you were allowed two.

What happens if the ump bounces it, it's a shocker and goes straight to the 'other' ruckmen? Does he have to stand there and not touch it because he wasn't nominated?

When the ball is not bounced straight up then the umpire is supposed to call play on and then anyone can contest it or take possesion, not just the "nominated" ruckman.

 

[Pessimistic]

Is blocking the real blight on our game ?

If they looked at the blocking/shepherding rules would flooding be negated ?

Plus I look at brisbane - thy have a clear advantage when the ball is thrown up. One game (2 years ago) hawthorn were doing well with bunces and then they switched to throw ups - brisbane were dominant after that.

 

[Hit The Boundary Saints]

It took Brisbane 1 week to come up with a tactic to beat the 2 ruckmen.

The same will happen with flooding eventually. Let the game evolve.

 

[Dave]

Well said HTBS. Pess, the real blight on our game IMO is all the change that people seem to want all the time. Leave the damn game alone!

 

[topdon]

Originally posted by Dave
Well said HTBS. Pess, the real blight on our game IMO is all the change that people seem to want all the time. Leave the damn game alone!

Those who are pushing for all this change...some doing so in order to suit themselves...others a hidden agenda.

I must admit though...it's the media that seem to ignite and fuel the call for rule changes. Some are gullable and fall for their propaganda. I'm sure that you'd find that close to 95% of the players would be against further rule or cosmetic changes.

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk

Can anyone explain what the rule is here? Does it mean if Hawthorn (or Collingwood or essendon or whoever) have 2 ruckmen in the centre they have to tell everyone who is going to contest so the other ruckmen can be blocked? That defeats the whole purpose of having 2 ruckmen! What happens if the ump bounces it, it's a shocker and goes straight to the 'other' ruckmen? Does he have to stand there and not touch it because he wasn't nominated? It seems like no one is actually sure what the rule is.

Only one ruckmen can contest a straight centre bounce that was positioned in the defensive half before the bounce. Anyone can contest an unsatisfactory centre bounce that the umpire deems uncontestable and calls 'play on'. Anybody can contest the ruck around the ground.

Rule 11.3.5 Contesting the Centre Bounce

(a) The centre bounce or throw up shall be contested by one Player from each Team. The Player contesting the centre bounce shall be positioned in his or her Team’s defensive half of the Playing Surface and may only enter the Team’s attacking half after the football touches the ground, in the act of bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being thrown up.

(b) Where a Player contravenes Law 11.3.5(a), the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick to the Player on the opposing Team who is nearest to the Centre Circle.

(c) Unless otherwise determined by the Controlling Body, where the field Umpire bounces the football off line, the field Umpire shall immediately call "Play On" and the football may be contested by any Player.


As for blocking, no-one can block anyone that wants to get near the ball until the ruckmen have tapped, no matter how close they are to the ball. This is called 'shepherding while out of play'. After the ruckmen have tapped, anybody can shepherd within five metres. One must be careful because there is a difference between holding your ground and blocking another player, deliberately.

Rule 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player.

A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she :-

(e) pushes, bumps or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play;

The only trouble at ruck contests, this is very hard to police because 'the umpire' is bouncing or throwing up the ball, while the other 2 umpires are too far away to tell. That's why these kinds of infringements are often picked up at boundary throw-ins.

Bob

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Thanks for clearing that up, although I'm still not entirely sure how they are going to police that rule. I agree, it showed that flooding will be beaten, all it needs is a coach to come up with some clever ploy, not a rule change.

 

[joshhem]

That was a clever move by lethal.....he made a call during the week clearing up that rule with the umpires and it worked to perfection....I was at the ground and i didn't actually notice it, but i watched the game again on Sat. and the Lions were actually pretty clever...

GREAT WIN LIONS!

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Well it seems Lethal cleared up the rules, but no one bothered to tell anyone else! I watched Talking Richmond last night and UDC said Brisbane were told one thing regarding the rule, and Hawthorn another.

This would explain why Hawthorn assistant coach Chris Connolley looked so confused at quarter time and why there was a discussion about it at the start of the 2nd quarter.

It appeared that Voss and Crawford were arguing over what was allowed and what wasn't, and both probably thought they were right because the AFL had told each of their clubs different things!

Watching the replay of the incidents on Talking Richmond, the rule doens't look any clearer to me. Brisbane had a free kick given against them for shepharding only one Hawthorn ruckmen, yet 5 minutes later BOTH ruckmen were shepharded and it was play on!

I think the AFL need to release a statement this week CLEARLY stating what the rule is regarding this law.

 

[Fat Red]

GOalden one, if you were watching closely you would have heard that the Combover had admitted that the umpires had made a mistake about the first free you mentioned.

Quote from Dave: If a player doesn't nominate as ruckman then he can be treated the same as any othe midfielder. ie have his path to the ball blocked. My understanding is that Brisbane didn't nominate becuase it was obvious who their ruckman was (ie they only had one in the square). I thought it was a damn smart move.

Dave, if the rule is that if a player doesn't nominate he can be blocked, then could Hawthorn have blocked the Bears ruckman, even though it was obvious who it was, b/c he hadn't nominated?

 

[Dave]

Fat Red,

I wasn't all that clear in what I said (and it's been contradicted by someone else anyway). What I meant was if you have only one player who is obviously going to contest the ruck then he doesn't have to nominate, but as it's obvious he's the ruckman he can't be blocked. If there are two talls, either of whom could contest then they do have to nominate. That's what I understood from fridays game but that's not quite what the rules Bob_vic posted seem to say.

 

[gPhonque]

originally posted by Hit The Boundary Saints
It took Brisbane 1 week to come up with a tactic to beat the 2 ruckmen.

The same will happen with flooding eventually. Let the game evolve.

Now i'm all for that!

 

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Dave
Fat Red,

I wasn't all that clear in what I said (and it's been contradicted by someone else anyway). What I meant was if you have only one player who is obviously going to contest the ruck then he doesn't have to nominate, but as it's obvious he's the ruckman he can't be blocked. If there are two talls, either of whom could contest then they do have to nominate. That's what I understood from fridays game but that's not quite what the rules Bob_vic posted seem to say.

That's why I think the AFL need to come out and state what the rule is. I'm sure originally Combover said you didn't have to nominate a ruckmen, and it was only a free kick if both ruckmen contest a bounce. But at that stage we hadn't had the problem of players blocking the ruckmen.

The way I understand the rule, if a team blocks BOTH ruckmen, regardless of whether they have nominated someone or not - then it is a free kick for shepharding as neither opposition ruckmen was able to get a clear run at the ball.

 

[Bob_vic]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk


That's why I think the AFL need to come out and state what the rule is. I'm sure originally Combover said you didn't have to nominate a ruckmen, and it was only a free kick if both ruckmen contest a bounce. But at that stage we hadn't had the problem of players blocking the ruckmen.

The way I understand the rule, if a team blocks BOTH ruckmen, regardless of whether they have nominated someone or not - then it is a free kick for shepharding as neither opposition ruckmen was able to get a clear run at the ball.

That's correct, nobody has to be nominated. If the team wants to nominate someone, then someone else goes up in the ruck that was on the defensive side, there's nothing in the rules stopping them from doing that. That blocking situation would be a free kick, but that rule

"pushing, bumping, or blocking while the football is out of play"

applies to everyone, not just the ruckmen. For the purposes of that law, the ball is out of play when:

there is a bounce (anywhere)
boundary throw-in (out of bounds)
Goal/Behind
Someone is kicking for goal

This has nothing to do with time-on. Of course, there is no need to be "technical" with this rule because players niggle each other behind play all the time. Like I said before, if someone is going for the ball around a ruck contest (ruckmen going for tap or midfielders moving to make position), they aren't allowed to be blocked, until the ball is tapped. Then, they can be blocked within 5 metres.

The spirit of the law for ruck contests is:

"The player whose prime objective is to contest the ball shall be permitted to do so."

Where an infringement is observed, a free kick must be awarded.

Where there is incidental contact (no infringement) when the ball is the prime objective (eyes on the ball) - play on.
The laws are to be interpreted to provide every opportunity for players who are legitimately attempting to contest the ball to do so.

This (spirit of the law) is straight out of the umpires manual. All of the umpires should know this.

Bob