Umpiring

Are they?

  • Yes

    Votes: 52 49.5%

  • No

    Votes: 17 16.2%

  • They will until this group has officially been broken, Hardwick aint Coach and Gale isn't CEO

    Votes: 36 34.3%
  • Total voters
    105

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

shaky said:
What is the ruck rule? Nominating? It looks childish but works, stopping the third man up. They could do away with it though and just make the rule that only one player per team can contest a ball up/throw in.
Click to expand...
What was wrong with third man up ??

It was the natural way to clear congestion at ball ups around the ground. Nat Fyfe or Nathan Broad would jump over the ruckman (only occasionally if their opponents were weak enough to stop them. It was a skill, one of so many, now removed from the game) and knock the ball forward, and hey presto, open up play. Why do you think they did it. I did it as often as I could when I played. It was a great tactic.

You've listened to the Whateley's of the world who never played the game and only ever viewed the game from the sterility of the commentary box through their binoculars. All they want is perfect skills every single time. They have no appreciation for the nuances of battle. The craft of football. These jokers are the chief destroyers of the game.

There never needed to be a "ruck nomination rule". How it came in is an anomaly and the thin end of the wedge into the destruction of the best game on the planet.

I hope you read your post again and perhaps rethink your "looks childish (it sure bloody does because it IS childish) but it stopped the third man up" because it was change for the sake of change and has been a disaster, causing more congestion than ever.

Third man up wasn't a problem, it was a solution.

The rule change was and is the problem.
 
awesome. just had a post deleted for the 2nd time this week. this time for saying i hope a man would act like a man, not a woman.

No idea how that equates to "mild sexism" but whatever.


I would hope that if a male got fat-shammed in public, the male would act maturely about it instead of making it a massive whooo-harrr in the media & "all about them".

The place really needs to think harder why it NEEDS to delete a post. Was anyone really that triggered by someone saying that? We all don't have to follow the same trends with this shit. I think people need to actually go back and re-evaluate what "sexism" actually is.
 
YeOldTiger said:
What was wrong with third man up ??

It was the natural way to clear congestion at ball ups around the ground. Nat Fyfe or Nathan Broad would jump over the ruckman (only occasionally if their opponents were weak enough to stop them. It was a skill, one of so many, now removed from the game) and knock the ball forward, and hey presto, open up play. Why do you think they did it. I did it as often as I could when I played. It was a great tactic.

You've listened to the Whateley's of the world who never played the game and only ever viewed the game from the sterility of the commentary box through their binoculars. All they want is perfect skills every single time. They have no appreciation for the nuances of battle. The craft of football. These jokers are the chief destroyers of the game.

There never needed to be a "ruck nomination rule". How it came in is an anomaly and the thin end of the wedge into the destruction of the best game on the planet.

I hope you read your post again and perhaps rethink your "looks childish (it sure bloody does because it IS childish) but it stopped the third man up" because it was change for the sake of change and has been a disaster, causing more congestion than ever.

Third man up wasn't a problem, it was a solution.

The rule change was and is the problem.
Click to expand...
You make some fair points, but my problem with the third man up is it was happening at nearly every contest apart from the centre bounce and was part of the death of the true ruckman
 
YeOldTiger said:
View attachment 2023561

And so at long last the great slumbering giant that is the AFL media dragon begins to open it's eyes.

Like Smaug sitting on his pile of gold, his gilded heavy eyelids begin to seperate and let the light in...

Now he awakes and asks himself...wtf is going on !!
Click to expand...
I can guarantee you that tomorrow, Jon Ralph will have an article out about how the game has never looked better. He Is a gun for hire by the AFL and they will be on the phone.
 
shaky said:
You make some fair points, but my problem with the third man up is it was happening at nearly every contest apart from the centre bounce and was part of the death of the true ruckman
Click to expand...
Also the 3rd man up stuck his knee into the back of the ruckman, these injuries have now slowed down
 
shaky said:
You make some fair points, but my problem with the third man up is it was happening at nearly every contest apart from the centre bounce and was part of the death of the true ruckman
Click to expand...
I really just don't understand why they don't just piss the nomination thing off.

If more than 1 player from each side contests the ruck then it's a free against.
If a player blocks the ruck it's a free against.

Pretty bloody simple I would have thought. The ruck nomination and current rules are complete garbage.
 
Mr Unbelievable said:
We are one betting scandal away from absolute chaos in the AFL.

If there have been huge bets placed during games and then umpire bias during the same game, then the house of cards falls down.

I'm almost hoping it will come out.

I've also noticed that sometimes second half umpiring has heavenly favored one team, they would be the games I would see the betting numbers.

**** the campaigner AFL and ALL the sycophants in the media.
Click to expand...
No way ... Wilkie tabled all his evidence around drugs and it didn't even last a week in the news ... Gill is CEO of TabCorp now ... AFL gets three slices of the pie with Sportsbet ... the AFL answers to no-one ... which is the way supporters want it if their team is winning tbh
 
Growapair said:
No way ... Wilkie tabled all his evidence around drugs and it didn't even last a week in the news ... Gill is CEO of TabCorp now ... AFL gets three slices of the pie with Sportsbet ... the AFL answers to no-one ... which is the way supporters want it if their team is winning tbh
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not

Drugs are one thing but betting scandals and match fixing is a whole other thing
AFL cannot continue its incompetence indefinitely … they have so much arrogance and hubris at the moment, its the perfect time for things to crumble

**** the AFL campaigners
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

YeOldTiger said:
What was wrong with third man up ??

It was the natural way to clear congestion at ball ups around the ground. Nat Fyfe or Nathan Broad would jump over the ruckman (only occasionally if their opponents were weak enough to stop them. It was a skill, one of so many, now removed from the game) and knock the ball forward, and hey presto, open up play. Why do you think they did it. I did it as often as I could when I played. It was a great tactic.

You've listened to the Whateley's of the world who never played the game and only ever viewed the game from the sterility of the commentary box through their binoculars. All they want is perfect skills every single time. They have no appreciation for the nuances of battle. The craft of football. These jokers are the chief destroyers of the game.

There never needed to be a "ruck nomination rule". How it came in is an anomaly and the thin end of the wedge into the destruction of the best game on the planet.

I hope you read your post again and perhaps rethink your "looks childish (it sure bloody does because it IS childish) but it stopped the third man up" because it was change for the sake of change and has been a disaster, causing more congestion than ever.

Third man up wasn't a problem, it was a solution.

The rule change was and is the problem.
Click to expand...
The third man up is good in theory, but those with short memories have forgotten exactly why the nomination rule was introduced.

It was because other campaigners at the contest who were not even the ruck (yes Patrick Dangerfield, I'm looking squarely at you!) would feign that they were taking the ruck contest, and deliberately run into their own opponent, as if being blocked. The ump had no choice but to award the free kick to Dangerfield, often inside his own forward 50, for being impeded in a ruck contest.

It was a complete farce.

So the ruck nomination rule was introduced so that each team identified one single player that could not be impeded in contesting the ball-up, and everyone else could man up accordingly without being penalised for the most trivial contact.

tigersnag said:
I really just don't understand why they don't just piss the nomination thing off.

If more than 1 player from each side contests the ruck then it's a free against.
If a player blocks the ruck it's a free against.

Pretty bloody simple I would have thought. The ruck nomination and current rules are complete garbage.
Click to expand...
You've just signaled the exact problem - how do you know which one's the ruck if he doesn't nominate?
 
tigersnag said:
And so it begins, 2 years after RFC supporters pointed it out. This is what happens when you favour some teams over others and have more grey areas in the rules than a retirement village.

View attachment 2023014
They could start by replacing the incompetent Laura Kane and ump boss McBurney. Both ridiculously inept. While we're at it may as well sack the useless sack MRP boss Christian. His decisions are baffling at best.

Not sure about McBurney but 2 of those 3 are Collingwood supporters. Just wow.
Click to expand...
images
 
GhostofJimJess said:
The third man up is good in theory, but those with short memories have forgotten exactly why the nomination rule was introduced.

It was because other campaigners at the contest who were not even the ruck (yes Patrick Dangerfield, I'm looking squarely at you!) would feign that they were taking the ruck contest, and deliberately run into their own opponent, as if being blocked. The ump had no choice but to award the free kick to Dangerfield, often inside his own forward 50, for being impeded in a ruck contest.

It was a complete farce.

So the ruck nomination rule was introduced so that each team identified one single player that could not be impeded in contesting the ball-up, and everyone else could man up accordingly without being penalised for the most trivial contact.


You've just signaled the exact problem - how do you know which one's the ruck if he doesn't nominate?
Click to expand...
And I think you've signaled the solution.
If you feign that you are taking the ruck contest it's a free against.

While we're at it... If you feign for head high contact a free against.
If you feign a push in the back a free against.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Umpiring

Similar threads

lizard man
  • Poll
Best Afl umpire poll
2
Replies
27
Views
915
SunshineBoy
SunshineBoy
beema limapep
😲 Umpire appointments & discussion - Rounds 0, 1,2 and beyond
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
387
Views
11K
beema limapep
beema limapep
Groupie_
Grant Thomas and Wayne Carey are the only media campaigners that call out biased umpiring against Richmond
2 3
Replies
57
Views
2K
Groupie_
Groupie_
RoaringTiger
Umpires - is the tide turning?
Replies
19
Views
716
Danw0w
Danw0w
Groupie_
  • Locked
No Oppo Supporters 2023 afl grand final umpirewood vs brisbane bears 2:30 pm
49 50 51 52 53
Replies
1K
Views
24K
tugga
tugga
Back
Top