Poll – Ruck Buddies

Written by Schwarzwalder on April 17 2017

There’s been a bit of a stir about the new ruck rules in recent weeks which has led to some baffling (I mean, important) free kicks.  The new ruck rules regarding ‘no 3rd man up’  have the footy world divided.

In theory I believe it’s the right call.  Without it, I see the Ruckman in danger of becoming obsolete in our fast-paced game of AFL.  I still see a place for them in our great game.  I fear a contest of an Under 10’s level where 30 guys just chase the ball around the park.  This way the Ruckmen are still protected (and necessary).

What do you make of the ruck rules?  Care to let us know?


How do you interpret the new Ruck rules?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom

14 thoughts on “Poll – Ruck Buddies”

  1. I don’t like it. The umps having to decipher who is contesting the ruck is crazy IMO. And it leads to too many dodgey free kicks. Was it really that bad before?


  2. In the poll we need a third option, “Good for the game but let’s look at a new approach”. Unfortunately I don’t have a solution yet.


    1. It has always intrigued me that people constantly criticise the umpires and think they know nothing about the game but then judge a players season on how many Brownlow votes he gets.


  3. I agree with the rules intention it is just the application that is frustrating at the moment.

    Simple solution is to pay the free kick if there is a third man up and leave it to the players to work out who is competing the ruck contest. Get rid of the nominating before every ball up.

    While watching the Col vs STK game at every ball up/ throw in, Hickey and Grundy were standing next to each other and next to the umpire. Yet the umpire continuely asked the 2 rucks to nominate, I mean come on it’s pretty obvious who the 2 rucks are.

    From a viewers point of view it was annoying hearing the umpire yell nominate 100 times a game, maybe the broadcaster can turn off the umpire mics.

    The umps have enough to worry about without adding this bullshit red tape nominate rule aswell.

    One last thing, if one team doesn’t provide a ruckman for the ruck contest, then I think that the opposing ruckman should be allowed to take the ball directly from the ball up/ throw in without being penalised for holding the ball if tackled straight away.


    1. I think that makes a lot of sense. Would probably cover 99/100 cases of ball up throw ins, but there’d probably still be some 1/100 case that cases confusion, perhaps a four man up where both teams simultaneously break the rule or some other types of infringements. But on balance you’d probably accept it for a viewing purpose.


    2. Sounds ok in theory but (without players nominating) I’m sure there will be some confusion between players at times which will result in two going up or none at all.

      Personally, I think we should revert to last years rules then have a good think about alternatives and trial them in the pre-season (perhaps for more than one year) before making further changes.

      BTW – I think we can all agree the current rule (nomination system) is not working.


  4. Why the hell is the ‘yes’ vote winning!? This is a stupid rule that should never, ever have been introduced. It should be repealed immediately.


  5. Just to give some context to my above comment, I should point out that I have opposed every single rule change the AFL has introduced, except for the reversal of previous rule changes. So I think it’s pretty obvious how I’m going to feel about this one.


    1. The one exception is not paying a free for high-contact if a player deliberately ducks. I also broadly support the concussion protocols. But other than that, I’ve opposed all the rule changes that were not simply reversals of previous rule changes.


      1. I think you have to include the sliding rule in that too. Very dangerous practice and the rule against it is good, but it just needs to be better implemented.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *