HOW DANGEROUS?? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact admin@puntroadend.com // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

HOW DANGEROUS??

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
The issue is that a pure ruckman like Natanui or Gawn can't perform their skills because they have an 85kg midfielder on their back at every ball-up. Personally, I think a pure hitout to a midfielder who bursts away is a great part of the game, and I'd like to see it protected.
Yeah, get your point of view Bigs. Centre bounces, no issue. Only rucks should compete. But for throw ins/ball ups its absurd we say "only you two blokes can compete, and you've got to let me know in advance who will compete. and if you don't, you can't compete".

The beauty of our game is that anyone can do anything - go anywhere, kick a goal, spoil, a rover can take a speccy, Daniel Rioli can go in the ruck if he wants. (team rules aside).

The nomination rule is contrived and frankly bizarre. You want pure ruck contests but you are quite happy for the farce of a team not nominating and you get no contest at all. If you really want to insist only one player from each team contests the ruck, ok do that. No nominations. If a team allows two to contest through accident or design, free kick. Make it simple.

The support on here for deliberate OOB makes me laugh - "rule is good but needs to adjudicated more consistently". Hello, that will never happen because it requires umpires to be mind readers (they aren't) or guess, they are pretty good at doing that - the act not the result anyway.

Anyway enough grumping from me :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
antman agree that the nomination rule is awkward, though Baloo is right that its mostly working.
the proposal to go back to no-nominations "a free for all" doesnt address the problem of unfair/restricted access.
It was particularly bad as coached by c scott.

There are 2 unfair scenarios - the first is the hodge/gibson as 3rd man up. In this case the primary ruckman engages the opposition to keep him from contesting. This is essentially holding/sheparding with no intent to contest.

The second is using a decoy ruckman who either blocks the opp or draws a free kick.
Again there is no intent to contest
It results in a lot of free kicks when the opp ruck engages the decoy ruck, doing what would be acceptable if it was a normal ruck contest.
It is near impossible for umpires to know who is rucking and who is blocking.


In sport we want the competitors to meet on level terms, not to have players blocked from competing.
The nomination rule is childish but something is needed
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
No nominations. If a team allows two to contest through accident or design, free kick. Make it simple.
Officiating this is not simple.
Blicavs stands next to Soldo, so Soldo pushes into him. Stanley jumps up and gets the tap...

Is it 2 up? Blicavs never jumped or went for the ball. He doesnt contest so its not 2 up.
But Soldo unfairly grappled with a non-ruck so a free to cats.

Next contest Blicavs and Stanley swap.
Free to cats again
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
Don't really like the ruck nominations but the explanations of why we have it make sense. We don't want to lose the art of ruckwork or see the demise of the big lugs. Too bad that it looks like an under 11's rule.

Still on the nominations, they could fix the rule a bit. Pretty sure I've seen instances where a team was too slow to nominate someone, so the ump wouldn't allow anyone from that team to contest. What's that about? I understand that once a bloke says he's up then you shouldn't be able to change it, but this seems over regulation.
Totally agree Quickie
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
Officiating this is not simple.
Blicavs stands next to Soldo, so Soldo pushes into him. Stanley jumps up and gets the tap...

Is it 2 up? Blicavs never jumped or went for the ball. He doesnt contest so its not 2 up.
But Soldo unfairly grappled with a non-ruck so a free to cats.

Next contest Blicavs and Stanley swap.
Free to cats again
Simple again, one from each side in the area, if another player contests, free kick. Still no need to nominate.

Overly complex solution to a simple problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.
a last touch rule will overpenalise in so many instances....
a loose ball that is bouncing around, a marking contest, tackling and forcing them over the line.
It works in other sports but will completely change the dynamic and method of play.

It will be a farce. How many times will players wait and watch the ball bounce over the line
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.
a last touch rule will overpenalise in so many instances....
a loose ball that is bouncing around, a marking contest, tackling and forcing them over the line.
It works in other sports but will completely change the dynamic and method of play.

It will be a farce. How many times will players wait and watch the ball bounce over the line?
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,323
1,783
The home of Dusty
As would I and that's why the last kick out of bounds is a disaster. Even if they allow ruck contests in each F50 and only use last touch in the main field, then ruck contests will still significantly decline. We have what about 60-80 / game at the moment, we only have an average of low 20's in terms of goals so there must be 40-50 odd ruck contests from ball ins / contests around the ground which will be severely reduced impacting the entire point of having ruckmen. Of all the rules, this is the one that I would like to come in least. I guess it reduces the need for the umpires to make a call on who meant to take the ball out and those that were accidental but I still don't like it.
Couldn't agree more on the last touch, I'd be amazed if it ever came in. In fact if I was allowed to bet on AFL, I'd put my house on it never happening.
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
Simple again, one from each side in the area, if another player contests, free kick. Still no need to nominate.

Overly complex solution to a simple problem.
so in effect it needs a clear area ( an imaginary circle around the umpire) with all other players to stand back.
As Baloo stated there will be frees given when players encroach an imaginary line.
And what of players who are "slow" to get clear the area or claim to be competing.
A free kick because Miles was on the base of the pack and hadnt cleared the ballup area before the ump tossed it up??

This proposal might be workable, but isnt without whiskers.
It needs a rule, whether its the Ant clear area or a u11 nomination rule
 

The Big Richo

Moderator
Aug 19, 2010
2,323
1,783
The home of Dusty
Simple again, one from each side in the area, if another player contests, free kick. Still no need to nominate.

Overly complex solution to a simple problem.
But if you went that way you would have to completely change the way you officiate at stoppage as well.

Midfielders would have to not be allowed to touch each other until the ball went up as ruckman are now or you would have to go back to ruckman wrestling which again allows plodders to keep athletes from jumping.

I think the nomination is a much better way, there's really no excuse for the confusion if the player is on the ball. I was at a huddle last season after a free kick had been given for someone contesting a ruck contest without nominating.
The senior coaches message (with names redacted) was: " For *smile*'s sake ................, all you have to do is put up your *smile* hand. If we can't get that right we may as well *smile* quit now".
 

BillyJean17

Tiger Superstar
Jul 27, 2009
2,314
96
melbourne
The game will be set back 20y it doesn’t have to be , killing off vfl and acedmies is short sighted and will cripple pathways
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
so in effect it needs a clear area ( an imaginary circle around the umpire) with all other players to stand back.
As Baloo stated there will be frees given when players encroach an imaginary line.
And what of players who are "slow" to get clear the area or claim to be competing.
A free kick because Miles was on the base of the pack and hadnt cleared the ballup area before the ump tossed it up??

This proposal might be workable, but isnt without whiskers.
It needs a rule, whether its the Ant clear area or a u11 nomination rule
It needs a rule if you think there was a problem in the first place.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
Midfielders would have to not be allowed to touch each other until the ball went up as ruckman are now or you would have to go back to ruckman wrestling which again allows plodders to keep athletes from jumping.

I think the nomination is a much better way, there's really no excuse for the confusion if the player is on the ball. I was at a huddle last season after a free kick had been given for someone contesting a ruck contest without nominating.
The senior coaches message (with names redacted) was: " For *smile*'s sake ................, all you have to do is put up your *smile* hand. If we can't get that right we may as well *smile* quit now".
Players will always make mistakes and coaches will always swear and belittle, that's their job. The rule is still anathema to me though in two ways - it means everyone else must stand around and watch (well not exactly but you know what I mean) and it also leads to these bizarre non-contests occasionally. But hey, the rule is there so I have to deal with it. And I'm outvoted here :)

As I said, the great thing about our game is anyone can go anywhere (no offside) and do anything. Adding additional regulation and complexity may solve one problem but usually causes another unforeseen one.

And still hate the deliberate OOB as it will never be "adjudicated better" as umpires will still be making judgement calls on the perceived intent of players.
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
It needs a rule if you think there was a problem in the first place.
yeah I do.
Footballers from either side should be able to compete without being held or blocked by someone with no intention of going for the ball.

Same problem with forwards
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
yeah I do.
Footballers from either side should be able to compete without being held or blocked by someone with no intention of going for the ball.

Same problem with forwards
So if someone is held or blocked pay a free. There's already rules for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
36,247
3,457
So if someone is held or blocked pay a free. There's already rules for that.
You really want these umpires to have to try and police another difficult subjective rule when the infringement could be happening in a 300deg arc around them?

You obviously rate the umpires as highly as TBR
 

tigerdell

Hope springs infernal
Mar 29, 2014
1,132
369
So if someone is held or blocked pay a free. There's already rules for that.
not unless you want the rucks to not hold or block at all.

ruckmen wrestle with each other.
Bump push jostle to get position. I like there to be plenty of physicality to make it a contest of strength and technique, and also a jumping show.

But it was subverted from a mano et mano duel, with teams stopping the opp ruck from contesting fairly.

It can be difficult for umpires to pay a block, holding free when its 2 rucks both engaged... and then a 3rd jumps over the top.
Was the 1st one competing fairly or simply blocking for his teammate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
You really want these umpires to have to try and police another difficult subjective rule when the infringement could be happening in a 300deg arc around them?

You obviously rate the umpires as highly as TBR
I'm more of a "play-on" kind of guy anyway.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
17,641
1,910
not unless you want the rucks to not hold or block at all.

ruckmen wrestle with each other.
Bump push jostle to get position. I like there to be plenty of physicality to make it a contest of strength and technique, and also a jumping show.

But it was subverted from a mano et mano duel, with teams stopping the opp ruck from contesting fairly.

It can be difficult for umpires to pay a block, holding free when its 2 rucks both engaged... and then a 3rd jumps over the top.
Was the 1st one competing fairly or simply blocking for his teammate?
Yeah I'll concede this one TD. But it doesn't mean I have to like it!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Superstar
Dec 11, 2017
2,061
1,433
Melbourne
a last touch rule will overpenalise in so many instances....
a loose ball that is bouncing around, a marking contest, tackling and forcing them over the line.
It works in other sports but will completely change the dynamic and method of play.

It will be a farce. How many times will players wait and watch the ball bounce over the line?
Or push a player into the ball so they get the last touch. Would be very stupid, the game is better with boundary throw ins.

The interpretation of holding the man has pissed me off for years, players get held all over the place and no frees. I realise the interpretation has changed but I don't like it. If a player is not in possession of the ball they can be shepherded but not held.

DS
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user