AFL Announces New Ruck Rules

[Matty10]

Players are no longer allowed to engage in contact prior to the ball being thrown up. Not sure that this will help teams that like to play two ruckman (unless they are particularly tall or can leap high), mobile players (e.g. ruck-rovers) might end up doing the ruck work.

AFL tackles stoppages with changes to ruck rules (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-tackles-stoppages-with-changes-to-ruck-rules-20121016-27oll.html)

I liked the test of strength that the ruck rule provided - this rule sucks.

[dimelb]

I don't think we have much to worry about. Our two at present are tall, can leap high enough (when they have two good legs each) and are pretty mobile. Bring it on.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I suspect there aren't many ruckmen on that committee.

If ruckmen aren't allowed to even maintain touch, I reckon it will make ball ups and throw in's much more like centre square bounces, and without the protective restrictions in that area (centre circle and line).

So I expect lots more injured ruckmen.

[stellation]

It sounds dumb at first, but when you read it they're basically saying you can't start the ruck wrestle until after the ball is thrown up, so big guys will still be able to bash into opponents. It's not too bad.

[firsty]

I thought the trial in the NAB cup went well this year
I liked that it made the rucking more skilful and not just a show of strength

[Lucky Knickers]

Will this eliminate the tactics that we used to great effect against West Coast in taking and blocking Nic Nat's run and jump?

[i'm-uninformed2]

Keep the bounce

[Swansongster]

Keep the bounce

Bring back the white coats for goal umpires.

[BillyRayCypress]

The rumour currently out there is that Coles are going to give Status Quo a month off. They can then record a new song for the AFL in 2013 to introduce this new rule.

Its called............................................ ............................Ruckin all over the Ground.

For you youngsters who wonder who the old blokes are in the Coles commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHM9HqCLqB8&feature=relmfu

[baskin]

Will this eliminate the tactics that we used to great effect against West Coast in taking and blocking Nic Nat's run and jump?

I thought the same thing Lucky. We were the first team to beat WestCoast in Perth this year and it was on the back of using muscle against Nic Nat & Cox. When I read about the new rule, my first thought was, here we go again another rule change to counter the Swans clever play.

I just wish they would stop making changes, leave the game alone.

[AnnieH]

I thought the same thing Lucky. We were the first team to beat WestCoast in Perth this year and it was on the back of using muscle against Nic Nat & Cox. When I read about the new rule, my first thought was, here we go again another rule change to counter the Swans clever play.

I just wish they would stop making changes, leave the game alone.

All the recent changes they've made to the game (well, at least since 2005/06) have been made in an attempt to throw our game plan.
Lucky our coaches are smarter than the AFL.
They'll just think of something else.

[Rod_]

So we are back to the future again. If my memory is correct, when Adam Goodes was rucking, the rules were similar to this and why he was so dominate at the time. His run up and leap was clearly very good and an advantage at the time.... (and why he did his knees in... colliding knee to knee on the leap when rucking..)

I know that the circle was introduced to restrict the run up, and then it has been a free for all around the ground.. Holding and wrestling for position was the norm. Now what is not to like when two big ruckmen going for it gladiator style... Face to face barrel chested to the tall and the big clash... With no holding on. It is going to be very interesting the interpretation of this rule by the umpires.. (BTW I can see why we have chased another ruckman... all the teams are going to need plenty of them..!~)

this should be good for the tall ruckman - Aaron Sandilants is now worth double now.. Or nothing with a third man up..

(This will be the play of the year! - third man up and that is why we need so many talls)

Rod_

[Matimbo]

Its the "No Nic Nat Paddy Wack Rule"

[dimelb]

Its the "No Nic Nat Paddy Wack Rule"
:rofl:

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Its the "No Nic Nat Paddy Wack Rule"
Thanks Dennis :clap:

[mcs]

Its the "No Nic Nat Paddy Wack Rule"

(five) for that one!

[Ajn]

Mumford will have some difficulties with this...you may see Starling play round 1

[liz]

It is going to have no effect on centre square bounces, which is where the primary tactic our rucks applied against the West Coast had an effect, There is already no contact at centre square bounces between rucks before the ball is bounced.

[BillyRayCypress]

Other rule changes:



The following rule interpretations have also been tightened to help alleviate congestion and encourage quick ball movement and genuine marking contests:

?Stricter enforcement of protected area around the player with the ball - a) if in protected area, opposition player must remain passive and b) can only enter protected area if within two metres of opponent (amended from five metres);
?Protect ball player by awarding a free kick for 'in the back?'or 'high contact' against a player who sits or lies on top of a tackled opponent (having an arm across is permitted);
?Stricter interpretation of holding the ball where a player is tackled but doesn?t make a genuine attempt to kick or handball (including throwing/dropping/placing the ball);
?Free kick against a player for dragging or pushing the ball back under their opponent (as per previous NAB Cup trials);
?Paying free kicks for blocking infringements that interfere with marking contests and umpires to review their positioning to achieve a better balance between detecting infringements at stoppages and infringements occurring within the end zones;
?Reduce time allowed for kick ins to 5-6 seconds (from when flags are waved) to be consistent with kicks around the ground.

[Matty10]

Some of the these rule changes on their own look quite good, but I am still confused about the overall strategy of the AFL and the Laws of the Game Committee. What game are they trying to reproduce exactly? Did it ever exist? Was there a time when all games played were of the standard that they think can be reintroduced or reinvented?

I remember Kevin Bartlett once saying that in order to create more contests (not stoppages, but one-on-one contests) the game needed to be slowed down - and the best way to slow the game down was to speed it up. I was confused then, and I am confused now.

This is one area of the AFL that really frustrates me. Why can't they just let the game evolve naturally. Every decade since the game began (over 150 years ago) has been played a little bit differently.

Half the rules in the list above are not really changes to the laws of the game anyway, they are just directions for their enforcement, which essentially means that there are always two forces at work in any given AFL game: the rules of football as written in the Laws of the Game - and how umpires are directed to apply them. No wonder fans get frustrated.

[aardvark]

The most important rule change is the new 10 meter Big AL exclusion zone around the Powerade girl.....:frown

[mcs]

The most important rule change is the new 10 meter Big AL exclusion zone around the Powerade girl.....:frown

:rofl

[ItsAllGoodes]

I would like them to have a look at one additional aspect of the ruck contests. That is the third man up . LRT was attempting to be the third man up in the last 1/4 of the GF and almost every time a Hawthorn player (Isaac Smith) was blocking his run

Being 3rd man up is totally legal...but you shouldnt be able to block that player if your intention is not to also go for the ruck contest.

As for the Rules Committee...I have so little time for Kevin Bartlett...who complains about the number of stoppages in the GF and how it detracts from the game (makes it like Under 9 football...the same game that has been lauded by many as one of the greatest GFs of all time

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Some of the these rule changes on their own look quite good, but I am still confused about the overall strategy of the AFL and the Laws of the Game Committee. What game are they trying to reproduce exactly? Did it ever exist? Was there a time when all games played were of the standard that they think can be reintroduced or reinvented?

I remember Kevin Bartlett once saying that in order to create more contests (not stoppages, but one-on-one contests) the game needed to be slowed down - and the best way to slow the game down was to speed it up. I was confused then, and I am confused now.

This is one area of the AFL that really frustrates me. Why can't they just let the game evolve naturally. Every decade since the game began (over 150 years ago) has been played a little bit differently.

Half the rules in the list above are not really changes to the laws of the game anyway, they are just directions for their enforcement, which essentially means that there are always two forces at work in any given AFL game: the rules of football as written in the Laws of the Game - and how umpires are directed to apply them. No wonder fans get frustrated.

All true. One wonders whether the "Laws of the Game" Committee's existence isn't the primary necessity for fiddling with the "Laws of the Game." It wouldn't be the first committee to justify it's existence in such a way.
And frankly having Bartlett making pronouncements on contested football is a little like asking a fish about it's opinion of bicycles.

[dimelb]

All true. One wonders whether the "Laws of the Game" Committee's existence isn't the primary necessity for fiddling with the "Laws of the Game." It wouldn't be the first committee to justify it's existence in such a way.
And frankly having Bartlett making pronouncements on contested football is a little like asking a fish about it's opinion of bicycles.
I also have my doubts about the function of the Rules Committee and I have griped about their continual meddling and tinkering, e.g. the substitute rule and especially talk about extending it. But this time I found myself thinking "That's not a bad idea" in reference to the ruckmen grappling and attempts to prevent the stacks-on-the-mill that follows almost every tackle. They're obviously trying to reduce the number and length of stoppages, and I'm in favour of that, but I'd like to see it done gradually and with a good solid tryout in the NAB Cup for a year or two before any changes in the main season.
One change I'd like them to consider is the rules about when the clock is stopped. I don't think we need quarters that run for over 30 minutes and I wonder why there seem to be so many occasions when the clock is stopped and restarted. Others will know, but do the same rules apply in the NAB, or is the clock stopped less often?
But I do believe that generally speaking it's better to let the game evolve and allow players and coaches to change their approach of their own accord. Talk of restricting players' locations on the ground, perhaps by making them wear netball-type bibs, makes me see red.

[BillyRayCypress]

I think from memory, there is 17 minute quarters in the NAB apart from the Grand Final which is 20 minutes.

Bibs ??????? They going back to Auskick rules now. That's forward thinking.

It would have to bring back the Tony Lockett "dinosaur" full forward back in style.

[Matty10]

One change I'd like them to consider is the rules about when the clock is stopped. I don't think we need quarters that run for over 30 minutes and I wonder why there seem to be so many occasions when the clock is stopped and restarted.

I suppose if the other AFL rule changes work they won't have to worry about the clock, or length of games (less stoppages will mean less ball-ups, which will result in the clock being stopped less).

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I also have my doubts about the function of the Rules Committee and I have griped about their continual meddling and tinkering, e.g. the substitute rule and especially talk about extending it. . . . .

While Tim Lane isn't my favourite AFL journo, I thought this article made some very worth while and thought provoking point.

He notes that the umpires are playing fewer free kicks and doing more ball-ups in grand finals. That the philosophy of "letting the game flow" and the positive desire to avoid mistakes (and escape opprobrium) means the umpires are less likely to make decisions, opting instead for a ball-up. And that it is the increase in the number of these stoppages that is clogging up the game. He suggests that all the rule/interpretation changes in the world won't fix things when it's not the rules but the umpires that are the problem.

Lane blames putting a former player in charge of umpires as the cause of the problem . . . . I on the other hand blame the umpires abandonment of the traditional color of neutrality, that is to say white, in their clothing. How can you make a couragious decision when your dressed up like a failed Wiggle?


AFL follows bouncing ball (http://www.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-follows-bouncing-ball-20121020-27yil.html)