Mega Thread Non-Freo AFL Discussion 2024 Part 2

[Dump Truck]

Yep done it couple times from memory .
1 being announcing it the same day as a World Cup qualifier game for Socceroos

That's the one I was thinking of! Incredibly shrewd stuff from the AFL.

 

[anchor man]

i guess with so many rules it comes down to some inerptration

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) who is not a Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;
(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;
(c) blocks an opposition Ruck;
(d) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;

RULE change introduced,

• Straight-arm blocks will be permitted in a ruck contest, provided the player contests the ball

So the word UNDULY, what does that mean. This is up to interpretation sadly as so many Incorrect Disposal/ Holding ball rules are

And the line d) is the critical part. NO contact until the ball either leaves te ground if bounced or leaves the umpires hand for throwins and throwups. This is not always moderated in my opinion

The new rule of allowing blockign with a straight arm is also contentious as it says "provided the player contests the ball" again open to interpretation similar to the jumping on palyers shoulders when marking.

I firmly believe the rules need to be more BLACK AND WHITE and no GREY open for interpretation.

Do all the rules that apply to all areas of the ground do not apply furing ruck contests, except when a mid is touched ot has his guernsey pulled.
There must be more to it than shown.

i guess with so many rules it comes down to some inerptration

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) who is not a Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;
(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;
(c) blocks an opposition Ruck;
(d) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;

RULE change introduced,

• Straight-arm blocks will be permitted in a ruck contest, provided the player contests the ball

So the word UNDULY, what does that mean. This is up to interpretation sadly as so many Incorrect Disposal/ Holding ball rules are

And the line d) is the critical part. NO contact until the ball either leaves te ground if bounced or leaves the umpires hand for throwins and throwups. This is not always moderated in my opinion

The new rule of allowing blockign with a straight arm is also contentious as it says "provided the player contests the ball" again open to interpretation similar to the jumping on palyers shoulders when marking.

I firmly believe the rules need to be more BLACK AND WHITE and no GREY open for interpretation.

Yes, according to the umpires, it is interpretation, but that interpretation should apply to all parts of the ground and all ccontests.But the interpretation in ruck contests don't seem to apply to ruck contests.
They can select a holding free kick to a favoured mid for being held, but can not do the same when rucks are holding.Or scragging, or arm around the neck.
All the wrestling and stupid antics only started when I think it was Simon Madden started doing it way back.Prior to that, rucks used to jump to contest boundary throw ins and bounce downs.
It really is a scourge on the game.

 

[Raz]

Do all the rules that apply to all areas of the ground do not apply furing ruck contests, except when a mid is touched ot has his guernsey pulled.
There must be more to it than shown.

Yes, according to the umpires, it is interpretation, but that interpretation should apply to all parts of the ground and all ccontests.But the interpretation in ruck contests don't seem to apply to ruck contests.
They can select a holding free kick to a favoured mid for being held, but can not do the same when rucks are holding.Or scragging, or arm around the neck.
All the wrestling and stupid antics only started when I think it was Simon Madden started doing it way back.Prior to that, rucks used to jump to contest boundary throw ins and bounce downs.
It really is a scourge on the game.

The rules for rucks are different for all other players. Only the two nominated . one from each side are covered by the Ruck rules. this is why the rucks must nominate at each ruck contest who the rucks are and no one else can challenge in the ruck. But many of the things yuo mention are illegal even for rucks. No high contact allowed, no holding of jumpers. But umpires are human too and make mistakes. Luckily they make less mistakes than the Players. the new change with allowing ARM to block and body to body activity does favour larger stronger ruckmen and not all clubs have recruited for this yet.

 

[freo_leo29]

Interesting design choice from the Crows

 

[AstonSouffle]

That's the one I was thinking of! Incredibly shrewd stuff from the AFL.

Tbh I thought it was incredibly tepid weak energy from the AFL, way to absolutely concede the fear they have of soccer that they felt they needed to pull a stunt like that.

 

[anchor man]

The rules for rucks are different for all other players. Only the two nominated . one from each side are covered by the Ruck rules. this is why the rucks must nominate at each ruck contest who the rucks are and no one else can challenge in the ruck. But many of the things yuo mention are illegal even for rucks. No high contact allowed, no holding of jumpers. But umpires are human too and make mistakes. Luckily they make less mistakes than the Players. the new change with allowing ARM to block and body to body activity does favour larger stronger ruckmen and not all clubs have recruited for this yet.

They make mistakes at every ruck contest.
Very very seldom do they pick out a free at ruck contests. But, at the same time they will pick one from their Rse for a midfielder when exactly the same infringement occurs in the same contest.
It has nothing to do with who is bigger or stronger the umpires just refuse to apply the same rules to ruckmen as they do to other players.

 

[DragoDelph]

YUGE!!!

 

[Dump Truck]

Jack Carroll to the saints apparently.

 

[freo_leo29]

YUGE!!!

View attachment 2160909

Brissy lost 56 points but saved a list spot

 

[The Feeder Club]

Jack Carroll to the saints apparently.

Was Silvagni responsible for drafting him to Carlton iniitally? It's a running joke now

 

[Taylor]

Was Silvagni responsible for drafting him to Carlton iniitally? It's a running joke now

I believe Silvani left the year before he was drafted

 

[Docker82]

Brissy lost 56 points but saved a list spot

Actually gained points as they’ve only made enough space for six list spots.

They’ve already created three fake list spots by delisting two rookies to be redrafted and not listing Sam Day until after the draft. There probably wasn’t any more levers they could pull.

I’m not sure what the motivation of that draft is for Collingwood as they won’t use pick 66 as it’s their fourth pick in the draft. They’ve got five list spots but have already committed to redrafting two players they’ve delisted as rookies - so three picks really. It’s trade one of two I reckon with trade two to happen early in the draft.

Worth noting that number of picks is limited to available list spots before the draft but you can trade in more picks once the draft starts. Collingwood started today with three picks in the 50s - Reckon the second trade will be the remaining two picks in the 50s for one of Brisbane’s picks in the 40s.

 

[Superkoops]

Actually gained points as they’ve only made enough space for six list spots.

They’ve already created three fake list spots by delisting two rookies to be redrafted and not listing Sam Day until after the draft. There probably wasn’t any more levers they could pull.

I’m not sure what the motivation of that draft is for Collingwood as they won’t use pick 66 as it’s their fourth pick in the draft. They’ve got five list spots but have already committed to redrafting two players they’ve delisted as rookies - so three picks really. It’s trade one of two I reckon with trade two to happen early in the draft.

Worth noting that number of picks is limited to available list spots before the draft but you can trade in more picks once the draft starts. Collingwood started today with three picks in the 50s - Reckon the second trade will be the remaining two picks in the 50s for one of Brisbane’s picks in the 40s.

Good summary. Reckon you’ll be right. Collingwood trying to get their first pick in ND a bit higher to the 40 odd range.