THE IMPLEMENTATION of the 'third man up' rule has become a farce and needs to be changed immediately to end further confusion.

It's not the rule itself that is the problem but the nomination process, where a player from each club is expected to identify himself as the competing ruckman.

Not only are the players confused, but many officials and most importantly, spectators at the ground, haven't got a clue what is happening when an infringement occurs.

There were two incidents at boundary throw-ins during the final quarter of the Richmond-Collingwood clash on Thursday night that saw the rule play out in a manner that was surely against the spirit of why it was introduced.

Neither decided the result, but both left supporters scratching their heads.

The first incident led to a free kick to Tigers midfielder Shaun Grigg and the second happened minutes later when Richmond ruckman Toby Nankervis was allowed to contest a boundary throw-in on his own.

Grigg's free kick and goal came midway through a tight final quarter after he nominated to contest the ruck then stood where a midfielder would stand only to be blocked by confused Collingwood defender Brayden Maynard.

Paying the free kick was the correct decision and Grigg's actions were smart.

But it was an exploitation of a rule that was supposed to see two players pit themselves against each other without threat of injury and to give umpires a better chance to umpire stoppages.

In the second incident Nankervis was able to take a boundary throw-in without a Collingwood opponent because, as the umpire made clear, no-one from the Magpies had nominated to go up in the ruck.

WATCH the incident in the media player above

As the umpires told AFL.com.au on Monday's Whistleblowers if a team doesn't nominate to go up in the ruck, it can't contest the throw-in.

After watching what happened on Thursday night as a result that is clearly not a good direction for the game to be going.

You have to wonder what would happen if no-one from either side nominated for the ruck?

Would the field umpire just let the ball be thrown in and stop everyone from getting the ball until it bounced on the ground like a live grenade?

You would be entitled to doubt the umpires would allow that to happen but if you can bar one team from competing in the ruck for not nominating why can't you penalise both?

The absurdity of such a situation occurring hardly needs explanation.

Finding a solution to practically apply the new rule is tougher.

Collingwood skipper Scott Pendlebury foresaw problems ahead of the clash when he suggested that umpires should nominate two players to contest the ruck rather than it being the players' call.

Four-time premiership coach Alastair Clarkson said on Friday further work was needed to clarify the obvious confusion, after watching his team penalised a week earlier when pacy midfielder Billy Hartung mistakenly put himself forward as the Hawks' ruckman.

A discussion needs to be had immediately after round two is complete to ensure the season doesn't progress further with a rule interpretation that isn't satisfactory if the intent of the rule to protect the welfare of ruckmen and their place in the game is to be realised.