http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-21/afl-statement-rule-changes-for-2017
3rd man up in ruck contests to be banned. This may aid rucks in scoring more.
Couple of other minor amendments made. Would have liked the DOB rule for long kicks out of defence clarified as well. How many times last season did we see ball reefed downfield to clear and then bounce of ball eventually carried it out and was called deliberate.
Rushed behind rule tightened is a good thing as well.
Can they just stop screwing with the rules?
Quote from: Mat0369 on December 22, 2016, 12:41:21 AM
Can they just stop screwing with the rules?
this times a million
I may be on my own on this but I don't want them to be harsher on deliberate rushed behinds. to me the rule was brought in to stop, for example, situations like Hawthorn in the 2008 grand final. not iffy ones where a guy may or may not have been under a little bit of pressure
if it's obvious as flower and he had heaps of options or just kept rushing behind after behind or whatever, then pay it. I'm all for that
Another example
https://youtu.be/a9dqFsZYzQ8
(1min mark, sorry I don't know how to share a time-stamped link on mobile!)
This is the shower that nobody wants to see.
I don't mind the banning of the 3rd man up, some of the " blocking" frees paid in ruck contests this year were ridiculous. Let the rucks be rucks!
Quote from: Bill Manspeaker on December 22, 2016, 01:26:50 AM
Quote from: Mat0369 on December 22, 2016, 12:41:21 AM
Can they just stop screwing with the rules?
this times a million
I may be on my own on this but I don't want them to be harsher on deliberate rushed behinds. to me the rule was brought in to stop, for example, situations like Hawthorn in the 2008 grand final. not iffy ones where a guy may or may not have been under a little bit of pressure
if it's obvious as flower and he had heaps of options or just kept rushing behind after behind or whatever, then pay it. I'm all for that
a rushed behind should be part of the game.
As you said the ones that need to be cut out is when your so obviously on your own and stand at the line then just walk it over.
If you pick up the ball and someone is running at you from 10 metres away and you chose to rush it then this should be allowed in my books.
edit: Just watched hawks 2008 rushed back to back and wow they are terrible that what you should stop.
Joel Bowden started it all though. He rushed from memory 5 consecutive behinds at the end of a match.
I'm happy with strict rush behind rule, although it'll disappear after 5 weeks like it did when last brought in.
3rd man up is just disadvantaging teams like the Dogs, 2016 Power and whoever else went with a small ruckman. Didn't need to change that rule.
Quote from: AaronKirk on December 22, 2016, 01:04:06 PM
Quote from: Mat0369 on December 22, 2016, 12:41:21 AM
Can they just stop screwing with the rules?
Yeah and lets get the players and the coaching staff to stop trying to innovate and change their playing styles to find an edge. In fact lets find some footage from 1897 and get everyone to play exactly like that, then they won't have to change the rules ever again!
Everything thats ever existed ever changes and adapts over time, if not it generally disappears, the AFL and its clubs are are no different.
Its the players and coaching staffs fault why rule changes keep happening, not the AFL rules commitee
I've got no complaints about the rule tweaks. There should be a place for the Sandilands types.
Also "play on, ducked" will be nice to hear more often.
The rushed rule isn't even anything new
at all, it's the exact same rule but they might just enforce it properly this time around.
I still say they should bring in a rule where they release some horses into the ground in the really boring matches.
It's a never ending progression to exploit and push boundaries wherever possible to gain a edge.
The cycle of life, rules are always one step behind trying to maintain a ''fair'' state of play, just
have to be careful that certain rules don't try and leap-frog this normal trend and actually become regression.
I am happy for third man up to be stamped out, helps preserve the role big men play in a team.
Poor Blicavs though, poor poor Blicavs.
For information here is the CD Data for third man up from last year
(https://i.gyazo.com/d7db19a25212fd3e2a756f3c8b8caf70.png)
So how will that effect the SC scoring of Blicavs, Wines and Bonts, Something to consider.
A lot of these appear to be players in teams that have lower order ruckman. It would be interesting to match up against which teams /ruckman the majority of 3rd man up were against.
Quote from: rebird on December 25, 2016, 10:50:42 AM
A lot of these appear to be players in teams that have lower order ruckman. It would be interesting to match up against which teams /ruckman the majority of 3rd man up were against.
100% it would be north, dees and west coast, i.e goldy Gawn nicnat
Also those teams + Gold Coast are the only ones without a player listed in the top 20 for 3rd man up hitouts.
So can see those teams benefitting the most from the change
Sam Michael, Trent West, Sam Naismith and Max Gawn have opposition players going 3rd man up the most.
Obviously Geelong rucks have players from their own team going 3rd up the most, along with Freo rucks.
Source: Check Champion Days Twitter. 2 days so they posted two graphs, naming those that lie outside the 2 sigma level on a normal distribution (the outliers to those that don't stats)
Quote from: PowerBug on December 25, 2016, 01:13:06 PM
Sam Michael, Trent West, Sam Naismith and Max Gawn have opposition players going 3rd man up the most.
Obviously Geelong rucks have players from their own team going 3rd up the most, along with Freo rucks.
Source: Check Champion Days Twitter. 2 days so they posted two graphs, naming those that lie outside the 2 sigma level on a normal distribution (the outliers to those that don't stats)
My man 8)
Quote from: nrich102 on December 26, 2016, 12:02:12 AM
Quote from: PowerBug on December 25, 2016, 01:13:06 PM
Sam Michael, Trent West, Sam Naismith and Max Gawn have opposition players going 3rd man up the most.
Obviously Geelong rucks have players from their own team going 3rd up the most, along with Freo rucks.
Source: Check Champion Days Twitter. 2 days so they posted two graphs, naming those that lie outside the 2 sigma level on a normal distribution (the outliers to those that don't stats)
My man 8)
People go 3rd up against him as Caleb Daniel can probably beat him in a ruck contest.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/afl-umpires-told-to-be-stricter-with-ducking-into-tackles-rushed-behinds-in-2017/news-story/f2aa5486470abb623fbbbaa00e9d8cc6
Some more grey areas for umpires to interpret. Ducking and Dropping knees in tackles will be called play on. Although most people will call this the Selwood rule there are others in the competition who can draw free kicks (Hunter and Christensen come to mind). Whilst we have to protect the head of players we also need to protect them from getting into dangerous positions so hence the rule has merits but will be open to interpretation. Consistency will be the key.
On another note great to see another former player getting umpiring gig in the JLT. Well done David Rodan.
Shuey and Murphy are two others that tend to get a lot of head high frees as well. Murph doesn't tend to drop into them as much as a few other guys, he tends to get them because he isn't a tall guy and they get him across the head.
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-secret-trials-have-the-potential-to-revolutionise-the-game-20170201-gu36uv.html
It's not for this year but ffs why can't they leave it alone
Quote from: LF on February 02, 2017, 09:58:34 AM
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-secret-trials-have-the-potential-to-revolutionise-the-game-20170201-gu36uv.html
It's not for this year but ffs why can't they leave it alone
Agree 100% All this tinkering is ruining a great game. Fair enough some rules need to be tightened eg rushed behinds and head contact but some do not.
So is JJK the best GA in the league?
Quote from: Ringo on February 02, 2017, 10:09:08 AM
Quote from: LF on February 02, 2017, 09:58:34 AM
http://www.watoday.com.au/afl/afl-news/afls-secret-trials-have-the-potential-to-revolutionise-the-game-20170201-gu36uv.html
It's not for this year but ffs why can't they leave it alone
Agree 100% All this tinkering is ruining a great game. Fair enough some rules need to be tightened eg rushed behinds and head contact but some do not.
In 4 years the game will be dead imo. Guys who come into the AFL 2 years ago trained and attempted to perfect skills for their whole junior footy career, which some are no longer useful as they are playing nearly a completely different game
What does everyone think of the umpires calling for the bounce to be removed from the game?
I'm all for it if it, I think its ridiculous that the best decision making umpires aren't getting a go because they can't bounce properly. I understand that we need to keep some traditions in the modern day but with the scrutiny the umps are under these days I think having the best of the best out there is important.
Quote from: Gigantor on February 22, 2017, 11:06:40 AM
What does everyone think of the umpires calling for the bounce to be removed from the game?
I'm all for it if it, I think its ridiculous that the best decision making umpires aren't getting a go because they can't bounce properly. I understand that we need to keep some traditions in the modern day but with the scrutiny the umps are under these days I think having the best of the best out there is important.
In two minds here - Bounce has been traditional to the game. The Uncertainty the bounce brings is great but far too often the bounce goes outside the centre circle where bounce is recalled. However if a bounce is screwed in other area there is no recall so maybe only have the bounce for centre circle and ball up in other areas as a compromise. Alternately only use bounce at start of each quarter.
With a ball up ruckman will know where the ball is going so will be a true ruck contest especially now with no third man up.
I'd be happy for a bounce to start each quarter, and throw up for the rest of the time.
Quote from: Purple 77 on February 22, 2017, 12:59:13 PM
I'd be happy for a bounce to start each quarter, and throw up for the rest of the time.
Initially I was up in arms about changing something that is fundamentally unique and a cornerstone of the game, but I have softened a little bit.
Mainly when I heard the argument that there are possibly some better umpires around who cant get a game because they cant bounce the ball.
The other thing not many people have mentioned is are we comfortable with the people who are supposed to be umpiring the game looking to change the rules?
Quote from: Nige on February 22, 2017, 09:10:49 PM
Quote from: nas on February 22, 2017, 08:59:15 PM
Quote from: RaisyDaisy on February 22, 2017, 01:25:08 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on February 22, 2017, 12:59:13 PM
I'd be happy for a bounce to start each quarter, and throw up for the rest of the time.
And a bounce late in the 4th quarter of a close grand final.
There's just a feel about a bounce that I really like which a throw up doesn't have.
I think it'd be kind of pointless having only 4 bounces a game... either get rid of it or don't, if you still have it a couple of times a game then it's still a skill that needs to be perfected, just almost never used.
From an umpire's perspective, bouncing is difficult to do good (and consistently) and requires a lot of practice - which is why it should be at least partially removed (4 per game). Wouldn't we all prefer umpires who are the best at making decisions, or ones who can bounce it good but make average decisions? shower decisions are the difference in at least a few matches every year- the 'appeal' of bouncing it rather than throwing it up doesn't mean much at all. Keep them at the start of quarters for that dramatic effect and to keep bounce lovers happy
A pet peeve of mine is that (especially at the start of a quarter), when the bounce is recalled, the time counts down and doesn't reset. I really think it should be brought back up to the time of the first attempt.
But anyway, a minor thing.
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 06, 2017, 02:58:14 PM
A pet peeve of mine is that (especially at the start of a quarter), when the bounce is recalled, the time counts down and doesn't reset. I really think it should be brought back up to the time of the first attempt.
But anyway, a minor thing.
agree 1000000%
Quote from: Bill Manspeaker on March 06, 2017, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: Purple 77 on March 06, 2017, 02:58:14 PM
A pet peeve of mine is that (especially at the start of a quarter), when the bounce is recalled, the time counts down and doesn't reset. I really think it should be brought back up to the time of the first attempt.
But anyway, a minor thing.
agree 1000000%
Cost the hawks a game a couple of years ago -.-
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies
Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous
Quote from: LF on March 07, 2017, 01:34:00 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies
Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous
Yep that was ridiculous - shows what can happen though if a throw in falls short as no one can touch it until a ruckman has.
Quote from: LF on March 07, 2017, 01:34:00 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies
Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous
The only thing that needs fixing with this is some common sense by the umpire
Quote from: LF on March 07, 2017, 01:34:00 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-03-06/afl-writes-to-clubs-over-third-man-up-anomalies
Definitely needs to be fixed,giving a team a free kick because the ball hit someone unintentionally is bloody ridiculous
No doubt if they dont change the rule , it will cost a team a goal and maybe even a match.
Just dont like this 3rd man up rule at all ::)
The next challenge would be how to define a passive player - Obviously a player hit in the head was passive, but can see occasions where the midfielders are awaiting the tap and the ball accidentally touches one and umpire does not consider them passive.
As shaker says all it needs is common sense to decide if it was an attempt to play the ball before Ruckman touched it.
Yet another rule which turn from clear cut into umpires interpretation! (See: Shot Clock Rule) Have to do one of two things, either the two ruckmen are the only two that touch the ball until it bounces, if it hits anyone else then bad luck, free kick against. Or teams are allowed to go third man up (legitimate tactic which I see no reason for outlawing in the first place)
But things like umpires "using common sense to decide" is not going to work and only create confusion, like every other interpretation rule does in every sport in existence.
Surely this one is simple to interpret?
If a player not nominated as the contesting ruckman tries to tap the ball, free kick. If it's a bad bounce/throw in that the ruckmen can't get to, it should be probably recalled anyway.
Surely it will be easy to tell if a player is "trying" to get a hitout and shouldn't be ???
Quote from: Rusty00 on March 08, 2017, 04:59:09 PM
Surely this one is simple to interpret?
If a player not nominated as the contesting ruckman tries to tap the ball, free kick. If it's a bad bounce/throw in that the ruckmen can't get to, it should be probably recalled anyway.
Surely it will be easy to tell if a player is "trying" to get a hitout and shouldn't be ???
I'm sure the same was said for the Shot Clock ;) Something will pop up haha