Autopsy Nominate a ruck.

Remove this Banner Ad

BallaratBulldog

BallaratBulldog

Premium Platinum
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2022 Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2022 Longest SFA Game Thread Ever West Coast Wonders - Sweet F.A. Sweet F.A. 300+ Games Played in the SFA Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2018 Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2018 Pokemon is Life
Aug 5, 2007
20,042
24,812
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray VFL.
What are people thoughts on teams not nominating anyone or putting a non **** in there and standing there? Surely this is not what we want.

A traditional part of the game is the Ruck taps.

Is it just as simple as just say, only talls can be nominated? Or leave it alone and fair play for strategies used.
 
BallaratBulldog said:
What are people thoughts on teams not nominating anyone or putting a non **** in there and standing there? Surely this is not what we want.

A traditional part of the game is the Ruck taps.

Is it just as simple as just say, only talls can be nominated? Or leave it alone and fair play for strategies used.
Click to expand...

a consequence of rule changes can be unforeseen. perhaps they should have reversed the rule re ruckmen taking possession with the latest rule change
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The rule just needs to be scrapped, so tired of all these rule changes. Get rid of the rule, and then the rules committee and all will be good in the game. Sub rule, now this bullshit.
 
Early days, players are still getting use to it but i agree its probably not what we want. There were a few examples this round, particularly in the Dogs Freo game where either:

1. You had 2 players from the same team go up. Example in the Richmond game, the umpire nominates Rance as he is next to Darling who was rucking, but really it should have been Elton as he was our ruck around the stoppage and he probably felt that he needed to go up which resulted in both of them going up which IIRC turned into a WC goal.

2. Nobody from one side would go up, probably due to a lack of communication which leads to no one nominating in fear of getting a free kick paid against

3. You had a player nominate themselves not knowing there ruckman was in the vicinity of the stoppage, which led to ruck contests where you had Libba going up agaisnt Sandilands and Fyfe going up. On both occasions there teams ruckman was around the stoppage.

It does seem like the nominating part is the issue. Once players have warmed to it then it should hopefully be fine. It shouldnt be that hard of a concept to get use to but its a bit like the rushed behind rule, players are just a little confused or afraid of having a free paid against
 
Last edited:
This rule sucks
Reverse it midstream

What was wrong with third man up other than ruckmen getting bruised and clobbered, they're big boys anyway

It takes away the '360' and 'you can do anything in this great game ' factor
 
Substance said:
I think freo failed to nominate once tonight and the umpire said "no freo" meaning fremantle couldn't contest the ruck because they hadn't nominated. Sandilands won the tap anyway and it was play on so I'll admit I'm pretty confused about this rule.
Click to expand...

Yeah im in agreement here, that one lost me!

However, Sandilands shouldnt need to nominate himself he aint there to rove the ****ing football!
 
The (stated) rationale for the third man up rule was to protect the role of the ruckman, but the last way to go about preserving something is to introduce a rule that was never there previously: a new rule brings new situations and new problems, and it certainly doesn't maintain "traditions". As long as the rule remains, I don't see why teams should be penalised for seeking to creatively neutralise their weaknesses in one-on-one ruck contests - I agree that uncontested ball-ups/throw-ins (whether tactically or because of a failure to nominate) are undesirable, but that's the fault of a senselessly implemented rule, not the teams who happen to have used it to their advantage. The rule has offered no discernible benefit, but plenty of problems, and should be scrapped.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It's good, when a rover nominates I.e. Sloane, libba it stops rucks from playing a defensive tap to their own feet, makes the game less defensive imo
 
I think Hartung makes a fine Ruckman, No matter how many times he raises his hand that he's covering a wing

You saw the bulldogs not nominate guys to try to Shark Sandilands, After the first time when he just smashed it 30m over the boundary he guessed what was going on and slayed the couple of times dogs tried it again, Points for creativity.

Weird rule
 
OhhDeledio said:
Early days, players are still getting use to it but i agree its probably not what we want. There were a few examples this round, particularly in the Dogs Freo game where either:

1. You had 2 players from the same team go up. Example in the Richmond game, the umpire nominates Rance as he is next to Darling who was rucking, but really it should have been Elton as he was our ruck around the stoppage and he probably felt that he needed to go up which resulted in both of them going up which IIRC turned into a WC goal.
Click to expand...
The umpire doesn't nominate the ruckmen. The ruckmen nominate themselves. Don't blame the umpire for the confusion.

3. You had a player nominate themselves not knowing there ruckman was in the vicinity of the stoppage, which led to ruck contests where you had Libba going up agaisnt Sandilands and Fyfe going up. On both occasions there teams ruckman was around the stoppage.
Click to expand...
That's more likely the scenario in the Richmond game. The players failed to communicate.

It does seem like the nominating part is the issue. Once players have warmed to it then it should hopefully be fine. It shouldnt be that hard of a concept to get use to but its a bit like the rushed behind rule, players are just a little confused or afraid of having a free paid against
Click to expand...
Agree, it's a new rule (for better or worse) and like the umpires and coaches and fans, the players will have to adjust.
 
YippeeYiYeo said:
the nominating is whats causing all the problems. Remove that, and if two people go up from 1 team then award a freekick. Its not hard.
Click to expand...
How would that work? Teams will just put a dummy ruckman in or near the contest and then have someone else (i.e. the third man) come over the top at the last second while the dummy ruckman pulls out of the contest. It would make the rule change entirely redundant.

It's not a great rule by any stretch, but if it is to work as intended, the umpire needs to know who the ruckmen are so they then know who the third man is.
 
It's pretty simple. You nominate 2 people from each team before the game who are allowed to ruck and they are the only ones allowed to ruck
1 at a time nominates and they are the rucks until they tell the umpire differently. If one gets injured you can swap them by informing the emergency umpires.

It's pretty simple
 
i nominate the guy on the right. 18cm taller than Sandilands.

rtx2q2in.jpg
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Nominate a ruck.

Similar threads

Blind Turn
Could the Sub Rule Remain to the Benefit of the Ruckman?
Replies
10
Views
425
Blind Turn
Blind Turn
faible
Toast Essendon ruckman Todd Goldstein passes 10,000 Career Hitouts
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
windyhill
windyhill
RUNVS
  • Poll
Who is the best Ruckman of the 21st Century?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
6K
GoldbergsGold
GoldbergsGold
kickazz
  • Poll
Should teams be able to nominate more than one sub?
Replies
3
Views
573
MC Extra Dollop
MC Extra Dollop
Lingsface
Ruckman top 10
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
154
Views
5K
Schauermann
Schauermann
P
MCC Waiting List Nomination
Replies
1
Views
726
Crimson Azure
Crimson Azure
BF Tiger
AFL’s big F-U to travelling fans.
Replies
21
Views
1K
Jim Prideaux
Jim Prideaux

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top