Brett Rosebury-Umpire

[DavidSSS]

I suppose you could have a small zone where each team is only allowed one player each and they ruck, I don't know but ruck nomination takes time and makes congestion inevitable.

There has to be a better way.

All the talk about less stoppages is partly because stoppages now take so long with ruck nomination and all the other p1ss farting around we used to be able to do without.

DS

 

[TheUmpire]

It was only simple because it didn't matter who jumped for the ball. The ruckman had no status when it came to a ball-up, they were equal to everyone else on the ground and fair game.

Now you can't do that so the ruckman has a status. They have to have space and time to compete for the ball up. They stand a metre apart and no-one can touch them apart from the other ruckman in contesting the ball.

The two things can't mix without nominations. You either have to say anything goes again or nominate. It can't work both ways.

Only an idiot would defend the current setup.

The AFL allegedly want to speed up the game yet every (literally every) boundary throw-in takes at least 15 seconds.

These guys are corrupt, incompetent numbskulls.

Of course, it's always interesting to see who defends them.

I assume the defenders of the current regime have never played the game themselves and have no idea how happy the current AFL "powers that be" are to bastardize the game for their benefit.

 

[AngryAnt]

I assume the defenders of the current regime have never played the game themselves and have no idea how happy the current AFL "powers that be" are to bastardize the game for their benefit.

Dude, TBR has more knowledge of the game in his little finger than you have in your whole body.

 

[tigerdell]

David the one problem I see with the"pay the free" theory is that it requires minimal contact to be paid as a free.
"Pay holding the man" results in every little touch/partial scrag/half-shove given as a free.
You say players adapt. They will, but do we want it to become more like netball with no contact except for tackles?
If you pay frees for shepherding outside of 5m then you are paying frees 60-70m away where the forwards and backs are jostling. Off the ball and soft frees aren't a good look.
The players adapt. But do we want frees paid if a backman stands in front of a leading forward?
There has to be a subjective line that allows for body contest and jostling.

 

[tigerdell]

The ruck nomination rule is stupid.

But to allow the rucks to go up at each contest, without other players blocking, it needs understanding of who are the rucks.
Its open to confusion about rucks and others going up. And blocking the potential ruckman.
All players are blocking/jostling to get body position. When is it blocking the ruckman?
Super hard for umps to adjudicate

 

[DavidSSS]

David the one problem I see with the"pay the free" theory is that it requires minimal contact to be paid as a free.
"Pay holding the man" results in every little touch/partial scrag/half-shove given as a free.
You say players adapt. They will, but do we want it to become more like netball with no contact except for tackles?
If you pay frees for shepherding outside of 5m then you are paying frees 60-70m away where the forwards and backs are jostling. Off the ball and soft frees aren't a good look.
The players adapt. But do we want frees paid if a backman stands in front of a leading forward?
There has to be a subjective line that allows for body contest and jostling.

No touches would be paid holding the man because a touch is not a hold. If by scrag you mean grab the player for a second as they attempt to gain possession, then, yes, that would be a free kick and so it should be. Why should a player attempting to gain possession of the ball be grabbed? You can bump them but you cannot grab them, this is how it was for the first 150 years of the game. You have always been able to bump, but not grab. If you allow a player in pursuit of the ball to be grabbed, why not allow a push in the back? If you wonder why we get so many stoppages, part of the reason is that the player who is attempting to gain possession has no chance of disposing of the ball because they are grabbed before they even get the ball.

The forwards and backs jostling is fine, it has always been fine, but holding is not fine, it has never been fine. If a backman is in front of the forward then they just have to go for the ball when it gets there. Shepherding has always been an interesting one, but being in front of a leading forward is fine, blocking their path when you are not going for the ball has never been fine. Are you saying that a defender should be able to run into the path of a leading forward to a position where there is no chance they can contest for the mark?

Plus, why make the interpretations even worse by not paying all free kicks observed by the umpires? Are you proposing that some rules be enforced differently to others, some are strict and others not strict? Recipe for inconsistent adjudication.

If they want to do what you suggest then the rules need to be changed. At least they can attempt to be honest.

DS

 

[spook]

How do you then stop other mids from bodying the ruckman and stopping them getting at the ball?

Exactly. Just throw it up and let anyone and everyone go for it.

Just get the thing moving again asap. That's what a ball-up's for.

 

[MD Jazz]

It would be illegal on a ruckman but it's not illegal to put body on another player around a stoppage.

And if you don't nominate then how do you tell?

The only way it could possibly work would be to change the rules so that no player was allowed to make contact with anyone around a stoppage, and that would be a very strange rule.

Rubbish.

 

[tigerdell]

No touches would be paid holding the man because a touch is not a hold. If by scrag you mean grab the player for a second as they attempt to gain possession, then, yes, that would be a free kick and so it should be. Why should a player attempting to gain possession of the ball be grabbed? You can bump them but you cannot grab them, this is how it was for the first 150 years of the game. You have always been able to bump, but not grab. If you allow a player in pursuit of the ball to be grabbed, why not allow a push in the back? If you wonder why we get so many stoppages, part of the reason is that the player who is attempting to gain possession has no chance of disposing of the ball because they are grabbed before they even get the ball.

The forwards and backs jostling is fine, it has always been fine, but holding is not fine, it has never been fine. If a backman is in front of the forward then they just have to go for the ball when it gets there. Shepherding has always been an interesting one, but being in front of a leading forward is fine, blocking their path when you are not going for the ball has never been fine. Are you saying that a defender should be able to run into the path of a leading forward to a position where there is no chance they can contest for the mark?

Plus, why make the interpretations even worse by not paying all free kicks observed by the umpires? Are you proposing that some rules be enforced differently to others, some are strict and others not strict? Recipe for inconsistent adjudication.

If they want to do what you suggest then the rules need to be changed. At least they can attempt to be honest.

DS

#netball

Do I want to see a free kick if the player has momentarily held but not impeded ?
A jostle can quickly be a small hold, it might be slight.
No way do I want every "hold"
the AfL went down this path with the hands in the back being given as a push in the back. We saw how that resulted in soft by frees.

The point is that its interpretation. In reality its not a fixed situation, the players are constantly moving and grappling at the edge of the line.

If you give everything it makes it too soft

 

[tigerdell]

Exactly. Just throw it up and let anyone and everyone go for it.

Just get the thing moving again asap. That's what a ball-up's for.

This ignores the idea that clubs will use it to advantage.
Ump throws it up, players are blocked from contesting. Who gets the free?

 

[HR]

It was only simple because it didn't matter who jumped for the ball. The ruckman had no status when it came to a ball-up, they were equal to everyone else on the ground and fair game.

Now you can't do that so the ruckman has a status. They have to have space and time to compete for the ball up. They stand a metre apart and no-one can touch them apart from the other ruckman in contesting the ball.

The two things can't mix without nominations. You either have to say anything goes again or nominate. It can't work both ways.

Morning BR, I'm late to the conversation but very interested in it ever since its inception as a rule set.
I think you have actually answered the issue in this statement.
"It was only simple because it didn't matter who jumped for the ball."
Why does it actually matter who rucks the ball now? Because the AFL made a stupid rule to say so.
The centre bounce has the protectionof the circle, the rest I couldn't care less. If they are worried about 3rd man up pay a free against it everytime it happens.
Throw the ball up quickly, the tallest and strongest will have the status of ruck and anyone who is not playing the ball but plays the man gives away a free kick. If the rover gets in the way of the ruck good luck, I'm pretty sure the team will sort it out.
We already have the rules, they just need to be enforced.
This last sentence actually is the issue.

 

[TigerMasochist]

#netball


the AfL went down this path with the hands in the back being given as a push in the back. We saw how that resulted in soft by frees.

At least it made things very easy for the maggots to interpret, player puts hands in the back, free kick. Simple rule keep your hands out of the contest n use your hips n body strength at the contest, as it was for years and years.
*smile* changed the rule back again to allow players from behind to " use their hands " to maintain position and there's constant pushing in the back to unbalance players in marking contests. Only the most blatant shunts are paid now, so a player maintaining front position is disadvantaged nearly every time.

 

[spook]

This ignores the idea that clubs will use it to advantage.
Ump throws it up, players are blocked from contesting. Who gets the free?

If the ball is within 5 metres, no one.

 

[MD Jazz]

It’s simple as DS pointed out. One man up each. No nominations, umps pay the first block they see. It’s not a big pool that will contest the ruck. Eg if a guy like Baker stages for a block you know it’s not genuine. Players will quickly stop blocking once they are penalised. It’s very simple.
umpires need to start paying the first infringement and stop letting stuff go. In all areas of the ground.

 

[TT33]

My solution, only 2 players to contest in the ruck, if a third player contest or a Ruckman is blocked or shepherded out a free kick is paid. You'll pretty quickly see there'd be no infringements in those contests.

It seems to me that the games rules are now far too complicated for the umpires to adjudicate properly & the supporters to "understand"

 

[TT33]

It’s simple as DS pointed out. One man up each. No nominations, umps pay the first block they see. It’s not a big pool that will contest the ruck. Eg if a guy like Baker stages for a block you know it’s not genuine. Players will quickly stop blocking once they are penalised. It’s very simple.
umpires need to start paying the first infringement and stop letting stuff go. In all areas of the ground.

Sorry MDJ I didn't see your post

 

[tigertim]

There was an umpire last night in the Hawks/Crows game last night that whenever there was a ball up he’d get in there quick and just throw it up, none of this poncing showboating “ok, Jim and Tom, you’re up. No third man up. Clear the space behind me” and generally wasting time.

 

[DavidSSS]

#netball

Do I want to see a free kick if the player has momentarily held but not impeded ?
A jostle can quickly be a small hold, it might be slight.
No way do I want every "hold"
the AfL went down this path with the hands in the back being given as a push in the back. We saw how that resulted in soft by frees.

The point is that its interpretation. In reality its not a fixed situation, the players are constantly moving and grappling at the edge of the line.

If you give everything it makes it too soft

Gee it must have been netball premierships I saw in the 1970s, they would pay holding back then when a player was grabbed going for the ball.

What I am proposing, actually enforcing the rules, is what has changed. It used to happen, it no longer happens.

DS

 

[MD Jazz]

Lazy whoever was on Koladj

 

[MD Jazz]

Oh my god