16 a side - what do you think?

[Vader]

How can you dispose of it (by tapping/palming it) when you havent got posession of it?
That point there is what is wrong with the rule.

Not at all. The purpose of the ruckman, in the ruck contest, is to tap the ball to a teammate. By choosing to grab it instead, they have already had prior opportunity.

 

[Vader]

What's the point of contesting the ruck then? Why not just let your opponent jump, and you have one extra man on the ground? He can't take possesson without being pinged immediately, so why bother competing? Let him tap it to the ground where you have an extra man.......

By failing to jump, the opponent has uncontested access to the ball and is able to direct it where he wants it to go - straight onto the chest of one of his teammates. What a silly suggestion.

 

[Slippery Pete]

By failing to jump, the opponent has uncontested access to the ball and is able to direct it where he wants it to go - straight onto the chest of one of his teammates. .

Who are now outnumbered.

 

[FR0GGY]

Not at all. The purpose of the ruckman, in the ruck contest, is to tap the ball to a teammate. By choosing to grab it instead, they have already had prior opportunity.

Dont agree, the purpose of a fullforward is to kick goals, if he is 50m out and short passes to a team mate should he be penalised for not kicking a goal when he had the opportunity?

 

[Vader]

Who are now outnumbered.

Best case scenario, the midfielder gets tackled as soon as they take possession. Result: a second ball-up.

Worst case scenario, the midfielder clears the ball and the opposition take it away.

There's no scenario here where Adelaide come out winners by failing to contest the ruck. Any ruckman who was in position to contest the ruck, but failed to do so, would be dragged by the coach - and rightly so. Failure to contest the ball is a hanging offence, whether its someone who shirks a marking contest because they hear footsteps coming behind them, or a ruckman who refuses to contest a ball-up. The result is the same - conceding the ball to the opposition when it should have been (at worst) 50-50.

 

[Vader]

Dont agree, the purpose of a fullforward is to kick goals, if he is 50m out and short passes to a team mate should he be penalised for not kicking a goal when he had the opportunity?

Depends on the context. If the team mate is 20m out and clear on his own, then that's great. If the team mate is in surrounded by opponents, making it a low percentage option, then yes - the forward should be penalised for not taking responsibility for kicking the goal himself.

 

[crowman86]

It is still possible to take it and handball into space. Nic Nat did it 2x the other night vs GC. If there is only 1 ruck contesting the situation things will turn south for the side not competing pretty darn quick. You only have to watch the Essendon final of 2009 to see that. From memory the crows hold the record of my tap to advantage and clearances as a direct result from the ruck.

 

[rooboy]

Any ruckman who takes the ball out of the ruck contest has already had prior opportunity to dispose of it (by tapping/palming it). They're penalised for being caught holding the ball, having had prior opportunity. It is their failure to dispose of the ball which results in them being pinged. I fail to see what the problem is here.

This rule was introduced to combat the number of knee injuries which were being suffered by ruckmen who jumped into each other, creating a clash of knees which often left one player injured. The number of ruck-related knee injuries has plummeted since its introduction.

The downside of the rule is that it's almost eliminated the shorter ruckman from the contest - and the AFL were always cognisant that this would be the case. However, there is no argument that the rule has achieved it's primary objective.

I understand the rule, I just don't agree with it. As I said ,would you rather a Polly Farmer or a Sandilands? I have nothing against Sandilands, wish we had him, but there is no contest about the skill of the two players.

Why isn't a player in general play who taps the ball along to himself, treated in the same manner? He has had prior opportunity to take control of the ball.

As to the knee injury matter, again I agree, that having the ruckmen in a smaller circle has softened the collision aspect, but why can't the ruckmen come across that line and use their body in the ruck contest? By doing that it would take the collision of knees completely out.

What it has also done is to allow more options when drafting, as in giant basketballers, Rugby players etc. which again I understand, but again the rules are enhancing the opportunity to draft athletes not footballers.

 

[Vader]

I understand the rule, I just don't agree with it. As I said ,would you rather a Polly Farmer or a Sandilands? I have nothing against Sandilands, wish we had him, but there is no contest about the skill of the two players.

The other part of the equation is the quality of the midfielders working at the ruckman's feet. For most of his career, Sandilands has been forced to work with midfielders who would be described as "sub-standard" at best.

I never saw Polly Farmer in action, so I can't make a valid comment about the way he played or the teammates he had around him.

Why isn't a player in general play who taps the ball along to himself, treated in the same manner? He has had prior opportunity to take control of the ball.

FWIW, I agree that someone who taps the ball should be deemed to be in control - and therefore susceptible to a HTB decision.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Best case scenario, the midfielder gets tackled as soon as they take possession. Result: a second ball-up..

Which is exactly what the AFL were trying to avoid by bringing in that rule - stoppages. Like most of their rules designed to reduce stoppages, it is hairbrained, shows a lack of understanding of the game and eventually exacerbates the problem they're trying to address.

 

[crowman86]

What it has also done is to allow more options when drafting, as in giant basketballers, Rugby players etc. which again I understand, but again the rules are enhancing the opportunity to draft athletes not footballers.

Yet the game is way better now than what is was 10 years ago IMO. Love the athletes in our game, they make it so exciting. You might not see the most pure football talent running around but you definitely see a better sceptical imo.

 

[Vader]

Which is exactly what the AFL were trying to avoid by bringing in that rule - stoppages. Like most of their rules designed to reduce stoppages, it is hairbrained, shows a lack of understanding of the game and eventually exacerbates the problem they're trying to address.

I suppose I should have specified..

That's the best case scenario for the team with the ruckman who fails to contest the ruck. It's the worst case scenario for the team which does contest the ruck.

There is no downside for the team which contests the ruck, with a draw the worst possible result. There is, however, a large downside for the team which fails to contest the ruck, with a high probability that the opposition will clear the ball regardless of them having 1 more player at ground level.

 

[Slippery Pete]

There is no downside for the team which contests the ruck, with a draw the worst possible result. .

Not really. My argument just gives a new take on the "roving to the opposition's ruckman" which has been a tactic for 100 years when your own ruckman is being comprehensively beaten.

Now you can take it a step further and not contest the ruck altogether. Not only are you roving the opposition's tap (which you may be doing anyway), you have an extra man on the ground to do it. Advantage - you.

 

[rooboy]

The other part of the equation is the quality of the midfielders working at the ruckman's feet. For most of his career, Sandilands has been forced to work with midfielders who would be described as "sub-standard" at best.

I never saw Polly Farmer in action, so I can't make a valid comment about the way he played or the teammates he had around him.

FWIW, I agree that someone who taps the ball should be deemed to be in control - and therefore susceptible to a HTB decision.

I also never saw Polly play other than in film clips.

And of course heard men who played with and against him. Widely regarded as one of the most skilled players to play the game, and one who changed the game. But of course rule changes have killed that type of ruckman. Rick Davies types also. I just don't see what harm a long handball out of congestion, by a ruckman can do.

 

[Vader]

Not really. My argument just gives a new take on the "roving to the opposition's ruckman" which has been a tactic for 100 years when your own ruckman is being comprehensively beaten.

Now you can take it a step further and not contest the ruck altogether. Not only are you roving the opposition's tap (which you may be doing anyway), you have an extra man on the ground to do it. Advantage - you.

Yes, it's been a tactic for 100 years and by and large it's been a losing tactic for 100 years.

Roving to the opposition's ruckman only works if a) the opposition ruckman is inept and/or b) your mids are significantly better than the oppositions.

In the case of Fremantle/Sandilands, b) was almost inevitably true. Conversely, the 2009 final vs Essendon showed how difficult it can be to rove the opposition's ruckman when the the ruck is competent and the opposition's midfield is as good or better. Alternatively, you could look at how poorly we did in the R1 game vs Freo last year - when Griffin was doing a passable impression of an inanimate carbon rod and Freo's midfielders ran riot at the feet of Sandilands.

If the ruck is competent and the midfield isn't awful, then trying to ruck the opposition's tap will fail 9 times out of 10 (maybe more).

 

[Vader]

I also never saw Polly play other than in film clips.

And of course heard men who played with and against him. Widely regarded as one of the most skilled players to play the game, and one who changed the game. But of course rule changes have killed that type of ruckman. Rick Davies types also. I just don't see what harm a long handball out of congestion, by a ruckman can do.

There's no law preventing them from doing this in 2011. They just have to dispose of the ball before someone applies a legal tackle.

 

[Drakescoffeecake]

Stop ruining the game!

If it aint broke, don't fix it!

 

[Vader]

Honestly, this rule (catching the ball being deemed as prior opportunity) was introduced in 2003. It's been in place for 8 years. Do you not think that the coaches would have adopted your suggested tactic long ago, if it actually had any merit? The coaches don't think that your tactic has any merit - for a very simple reason, it doesn't.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Yes, it's been a tactic for 100 years and by and large it's been a losing tactic for 100 years.).

Because the opposing ruckman was forced to compete to at least stop the dominant ruckman taking possesion!

Roving to the opposition's ruckman only works if a) the opposition ruckman is inept and/or b) your mids are significantly better than the oppositions..).

Proving my point again. Having an extra man on the ground doesnt give your midfield a significant edge, or at least ability to create another stoppage?

If the ruck is competent and the midfield isn't awful, then trying to ruck the opposition's tap will fail 9 times out of 10 (maybe more).

But it might only be 7 or 8 times out of ten if you exploit that rule and have an extra man on the ground.....So why give the team with an inferior ruckman this opportunity?

 

[beartoo]

We played 16 a side in the old Victorian Football Association (now VFL) years ago. No wingmen. It did mean less congestion around the packs, but increased the workload for everyone on the ground, especially the flankers. VFA players were certainly nowhere near the fitness levels of current AFL players. Everyone finished a game absolutely stuffed. Remember this was in the days of 19th and 20th men who only came on in case of injury or to provide fresh legs halfway through the last quarter.
Would this improve the game at AFL level? I doubt it, although wouldn't mind seeing it trialled in the next NAB cup if there is one.
The congestion in the modern game is its worst aspect, especially when you get all 36 players in the same 50 metre arc all scrummaging for the ball and scragging one another. I wish there was some simple way to stop this, but apart from no-go zones--and they would be horrible to police and would add more stoppages and more free kicks--I am at a loss to see a way.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Honestly, this rule (catching the ball being deemed as prior opportunity) was introduced in 2003. It's been in place for 8 years. Do you not think that the coaches would have adopted your suggested tactic long ago, if it actually had any merit? The coaches don't think that your tactic has any merit - for a very simple reason, it doesn't.

I've seen it happen, either by accident or design, where a team doesnt contest a throw-in or a ball up, and often wins the ball from the opponent's tap because of the extra number at ground level. The reason it hasn't got any merit as staple tactic is because it would become a complete farce if a team totally abandoned ruck contests for a whole game. It would be like Garry Hocking and his 18 man flood at the centre bounce, and the AFL would put an immediate stop to it. No coach wants to open that can of worms, but I'm almost positive some of them use the tactic by stealth.

 

[Allefgib]

can someone ring Rehny on Sunday on AA - ask him about the ruck rule and then put it to bed?

 

[feenix67]

Wow, sorry to say this Vader, but how does a moderator facilitate the derailing of a thread for over two pages of posts, by derailing it himself??!!

Can we get the thread back on topic, and move all this ruck rule crap to its own thread?

 

[afc1991]

I like it.

If sides find it hard(er) to flood at the G, then perhaps having less players would have the same effect on smaller grounds. If the league has to do something I wouldnt mind a reduction in players, especially if the alternative is zones, a certain number of players inside 50, last touched out of bounds or other such nonsense.

I dont think having all these players is needed any longer. In the early days you needed all those blokes to move the ball around a massive ground. In the modern era a bloke can kickout from a point, spot a player at 50, who goes for a run and sets up a score. The ball can go from one end to the other in about 7 seconds. We no longer need all these players on the field, and clubs do not line up anywhere near the traditional setup- i.e. the way teams are named in the paper. 16 would be good imo, you could even try 14 or 15.

 

[jenny61_99]

I'd be interested to see how it works. Would be worth a shot in the NAB Cup.

It should create more space.

The question is whether the congestion around and behind the ball remains, and if teams just clear out their forward line even more. Then have to chip around or wait for the players to flood forward when they gain possession.

Kids footy (primary school age) should definitely have less on the field. I know they go down to 15 in some age group but this is still too many. It is still just a mass of kids scrambling after the ball on tiny, muddy ovals.

In QLD under 8s have 8 a side, and under 9's and 10's, 12. Even then they have zones (forward/mid/back) the kids HAVE to stay in, so it alleviates the mass scramble. Under 11's starts getting more competitive and loses the zones but then the kids are given positions to play in once their strengths are assessed.