Could the Sub Rule Remain to the Benefit of the Ruckman?

[Blind Turn]

Recently, I was thinking about the challenges of keeping the pure ruckman relevant in the modern game. Having two rucks in your 22 is becoming a disadvantage unless they have the ability to rest forward and be a genuine threat with forward craft.

My proposal would be to refine the rules for the substitute role whereby you need to select a back-up ruckman as your 23rd player. This player could be used at any time to give your starting ruck a rest but cannot replace any other player during the game. However, if you chose to, you could insert him into the game for any reason for the permanent removal of the starting player.

I haven’t thought much beyond this but I’m sure there would be pros and cons to consider but it seems like a fair option that allows a bit of flexibility for in-game use to preserve the fitness of starting rucks and allowing the use of fringe or developing rucks. And if you lose a player to injury you’re still getting a replacement but your ability to strategically reshuffle your team to accomodate an extra tall would be an intriguing subplot.

Thoughts?

 

[stallon]

Recently, I was thinking about the challenges of keeping the pure ruckman relevant in the modern game. Having two rucks in your 22 is becoming a disadvantage unless they have the ability to rest forward and be a genuine threat with forward craft.

My proposal would be to refine the rules for the substitute role whereby you need to select a back-up ruckman as your 23rd player. This player could be used at any time to give your starting ruck a rest but cannot replace any other player during the game. However, if you chose to, you could insert him into the game for any reason for the permanent removal of the starting player.

I haven’t thought much beyond this but I’m sure there would be pros and cons to consider but it seems like a fair option that allows a bit of flexibility for in-game use to preserve the fitness of starting rucks and allowing the use of fringe or developing rucks. And if you lose a player to injury you’re still getting a replacement but your ability to strategically reshuffle your team to accomodate an extra tall would be an intriguing subplot.

Thoughts?

What would stop clubs just putting a smaller player as the sub as usual, and keep using their ruck/fwd as their backup ruck?
It would just give them an extra rotation during the game that has some restrictions on when they can come on the field.

Are you proposing a rule where ONLY the ruck or ruck-sub can contest the ruck? That doesnt work either as sometimes clubs do things like make a tall forward do the ruck when the ball is deep forward, while keeping their real ruckman outside the 50 as a defensive marking/intercept option

 

[Blind Turn]

What would stop clubs just putting a smaller player as the sub as usual, and keep using their ruck/fwd as their backup ruck?
It would just give them an extra rotation during the game that has some restrictions on when they can come on the field.

Are you proposing a rule where ONLY the ruck or ruck-sub can contest the ruck? That doesnt work either as sometimes clubs do things like make a tall forward do the ruck when the ball is deep forward, while keeping their real ruckman outside the 50 as a defensive marking/intercept option

I would think that the player chosen to be the ruck sub would need to be accepted as a genuine ruck alternative based on history and junior exposure. This could easily be assessed by an official with player profiling expertise. If the official doesn’t accept that Nick Cox has sufficient ruck history then Essendon wouldn’t be able to use him. A few stoppages during games wouldn’t count. But it’s blatantly obvious that certain players attend centre ruck contests in the VFL and are legit ruck options. Using Essendon as an example again, Nick Bryan would be able to get more exposure last year when Goldy and Draper had a mortgage on ruck duties. Goldy might get more of a rest and extend his career while Draper can go solo in some games but have Bryan relieve. I think it would benefit our giants and keep them relevant.

 

[stallon]

I would think that the player chosen to be the ruck sub would need to be accepted as a genuine ruck alternative based on history and junior exposure. This could easily be assessed by an official with player profiling expertise. If the official doesn’t accept that Nick Cox has sufficient ruck history then Essendon wouldn’t be able to use him. A few stoppages during games wouldn’t count. But it’s blatantly obvious that certain players attend centre ruck contests in the VFL and are legit ruck options. Using Essendon as an example again, Nick Bryan would be able to get more exposure last year when Goldy and Draper had a mortgage on ruck duties. Goldy might get more of a rest and extend his career while Draper can go solo in some games but have Bryan relieve. I think it would benefit our giants and keep them relevant.

Who decides what is and what isnt sufficient ruck exposure to be used in that role? What if a club is down to their last ruckman fit on the list?

Using Essendon as the example again, what if all recognised ruckmen other than Bryan were injured, are they all of a sudden allowed to use Cox as the sub? What if their only other recognised ruckman available was an 18 year old who isnt ready for AFL footy, are clubs forced to play those kids who really are not ready at all?

Geelong this year named Sam Dekoning as their ruck for a few games, would they have been allowed to do that under your proposed rules? Hes hasnt played ruck at VFL or AFL level in a long time(if at all)

Removing that positional flexibility wont work, need to give clubs full control over who they name.

Need to find a way to incentivise clubs to actually name a second ruck rather than forcing it.
This isnt a serious suggestion but if there was some way to incentivise different styles of ruckman, making the rules favour an athletic jumping ruck maybe better at centre bounces and the big body wrestling ruckman better around the ground, something like that. Clubs would strongly consider 2 genuine ruckmen in that case at least, but they would still need to be able to play another role

 

[NeutralFan]

Unless it's a talent like Max Gawn and the few under him, honestly believe ruckman should be KPP that all chip in to ruck but are known for their other uses around the ground. A full time tap ruckman is so overrated in this day and age, let alone having 2 in your Best 23

 

[Blind Turn]

Unless it's a talent like Max Gawn and the few under him, honestly believe ruckman should be KPP that all chip in to ruck but are known for their other uses around the ground. A full time tap ruckman is so overrated in this day and age, let alone having 2 in your Best 23

Using my club as a reference point again, I can tell you outright that I don’t want Nick Bryan in our best 22 at the moment. Why? Because he has zero forward craft. He might become an adequate around the ground ruckman but if he doesn’t reach Gawn or Grundy levels of competence, or have the presence of a Nank or Big O, then he becomes a difficult fit balance-wise. But how do they become competent enough without getting picked at AFL level?

If you could use him in a modified sub role then you have a position for him. There are many ruckmen of this ilk who will fall to the wayside without a way of preserving their role.

I know there are challenges to getting the ruling right on this, hence why I’ve put it out there. Obviously, as mentioned above, injuries and loss of ruck depth would blur the lines of who is considered a valid ruck inclusion but, again, using a qualified official, who has in depth player-profile knowledge, would be able to determine this. Then a Nick Cox might be accepted as the back-up. He can still only be used to relieve a designated first ruck though unless a finalised sub is made for injury or tactical purposes. He then has to come off for the first ruck as well.

 

[Blind Turn]

Who decides what is and what isnt sufficient ruck exposure to be used in that role? What if a club is down to their last ruckman fit on the list?

Using Essendon as the example again, what if all recognised ruckmen other than Bryan were injured, are they all of a sudden allowed to use Cox as the sub? What if their only other recognised ruckman available was an 18 year old who isnt ready for AFL footy, are clubs forced to play those kids who really are not ready at all?

Geelong this year named Sam Dekoning as their ruck for a few games, would they have been allowed to do that under your proposed rules? Hes hasnt played ruck at VFL or AFL level in a long time(if at all)

Removing that positional flexibility wont work, need to give clubs full control over who they name.

Need to find a way to incentivise clubs to actually name a second ruck rather than forcing it.
This isnt a serious suggestion but if there was some way to incentivise different styles of ruckman, making the rules favour an athletic jumping ruck maybe better at centre bounces and the big body wrestling ruckman better around the ground, something like that. Clubs would strongly consider 2 genuine ruckmen in that case at least, but they would still need to be able to play another role

I’ve answered this a bit in my above post. I want to also add that if your talls were so depleted that a Nick Cox was considered by an appropriate official as your next best option, I don’t see the problem with this. If he can only replace your first choice ruck during the game prior to a finalised sub choice then you’re still needing to juggle your talls to take stoppages. So, if you’re forced to move Peter Wright from full forward you’re going to have to find a spot for Cox. It’s not going to be a great advantage. Plus he’ll need to come from the ground again if Draper (for example) comes back on.

The more I think about it the more I can see genuine merit in giving this a trial run.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Too complicated and not sure why the afl would create a rule, just to get more rucks in the game. Not like it does anything to enhance their product.

 

[RonnieRaven]

Sounds like something the AFL would do to turn some of the young basketball players to footy.

 

[Blind Turn]

Too complicated and not sure why the afl would create a rule, just to get more rucks in the game. Not like it does anything to enhance their product.

It’s a modification of a rule that nobody likes. If you keep the sub as a rule why not use it so that it benefits a traditional area of our game and restricts the advantage of using an extra fresh midfielder to inject into the game. At least the ruck sub has probably already had minutes during the game and is less likely to be a burst player like a Dylan Shiel (keeping with the Essendon example) who can be used to turn momentum especially if the other side uses their sub early.

 

[Blind Turn]

Some pluses are;

• the sub rule stays for unforeseen injuries during a game.
• pure ruckmen get a look-in
• developing rucks can be given a taste of AFL level footy.
• the coaches get their 5th interchange player, but in a modified capacity
• it can be used tactically but within limits
• the final sub is unlikely to be a fresh midfielder who can take advantage of the other side’s lack of a fresh sub late in a game.

It’s not too complicated. The platform is already there and a 5th interchange player is likely to be introduced in the near future anyway. Use the appropriate officials to determine the validity of a player. It’s something that can be done imo.