The stand rule??? | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

The stand rule???

yandb

Tiger Champion
Mar 24, 2004
3,599
867
Much has been written about this rule and how it is affecting our game plan but it is only because our coaching staff have let it.

The stand rule can be negated by the player on the mark conceding 5 metres and then they can move any where they want.

I rang the club 2 months ago and asked the club employee to pass this onto the coaches for their consideration.

Briefly put all the way up the ground until the back of the square our players should concede 5 metres on the mark and then the stand rule doesn't apply so the can move

sideways or backwards as in previous seasons. This means we can go back to our previous game plan at the cost of conceding 5 metres each time a mark or free is

awarded. the reason I refer to the back of the square is you don't want to concede 5 metres to put players within goal kicking distance.

A simple adjustment to how we play but either the suggestion was not passed on or just ignored and at the time I didn't post is on here as I hoped I might get us an advantage

but as there has been no change I am putting it out there for discussion.
 

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
24,454
11,873
Parker moved backwards coz he was unbalanced and copped a 50m penalty. What a *smile* joke.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
Reactions: 3 users

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,667
11,715
Parker moved backwards coz he was unbalanced and copped a 50m penalty. What a *smile* joke.
Nah, he jumped to block a fake handball. he knew it. it is the rules. f'in stupid rule though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Carter

Tiger Legend
Nov 14, 2012
9,348
7,515
Makes no difference, a player can mark the ball and kick anywhere he wants without hindrance, 5m or not.

Geelong gains, we lose.

Like giving them a steel 1-wood and removing ours from the bag altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

yandb

Tiger Champion
Mar 24, 2004
3,599
867
Makes no difference, a player can mark the ball and kick anywhere he wants without hindrance, 5m or not.

Geelong gains, we lose.

Like giving them a steel 1-wood and removing ours from the bag altogether.
How do you claim it will make no difference? the player with the ball can play on but the player 5 metres back on the mark can shift at any time to negate the play on

and the force the player to kick over him.
 
Jul 26, 2004
78,245
38,257
www.redbubble.com
Deliberate attack on our game plan & designed to favour Geelong. Absolute disgrace.

The damage has been done but looking forward to a complete sweep out of this current AFL administration.
Hope Gil takes the Olympics job. They can *smile* off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users

MB78

I can have my cake and eat it too
Sep 8, 2009
8,005
2,154
Disgrace of a rule. It doesn’t work in that scoring is lower.

They could easily adjust the rule in that you can move backwards.

While they are at it get rid of the ruck nomination. Pretty simple if a third ruck goes up the free is against them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

TigerFurious

Smooth
Dec 17, 2002
3,582
4,719
Much has been written about this rule and how it is affecting our game plan but it is only because our coaching staff have let it.

The stand rule can be negated by the player on the mark conceding 5 metres and then they can move any where they want.

I rang the club 2 months ago and asked the club employee to pass this onto the coaches for their consideration.

Briefly put all the way up the ground until the back of the square our players should concede 5 metres on the mark and then the stand rule doesn't apply so the can move

sideways or backwards as in previous seasons. This means we can go back to our previous game plan at the cost of conceding 5 metres each time a mark or free is

awarded. the reason I refer to the back of the square is you don't want to concede 5 metres to put players within goal kicking distance.

A simple adjustment to how we play but either the suggestion was not passed on or just ignored and at the time I didn't post is on here as I hoped I might get us an advantage

but as there has been no change I am putting it out there for discussion.
Don’t think it will work. If you move the man on the mark back 5m they have a wider arc and therefore more ground to cover to affect the disposal. The kicker automatically gets an extra couple of meters as well which give them a territory advantage.

If Hocking and co. set out to create a rule to nullify us they succeeded with ruthless efficiency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Carter

Tiger Legend
Nov 14, 2012
9,348
7,515
How do you claim it will make no difference? the player with the ball can play on but the player 5 metres back on the mark can shift at any time to negate the play on

and the force the player to kick over him.

Geelong don’t want to play on. Rule suits them perfectly.

Like it was designed by them, for them.

But you’ll have to excuse me. Only way that would happen is if the former AFL footy director has a vested interest in Geelong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users

Jake

Tiger Superstar
Apr 2, 2005
1,998
1,207
Rule is F##### stupid as is the kick out rule.

That one does my head in, how far can a fullback or the kicker run without bouncing the ball? AFL has taken 2 skills out of the game we love, man on the mark and kicking out from fullback. Remember when the fullback used to have to kick it to himself to play on. Gone. Freddy Swift RIP, could kick it CHF every time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Redford

Tiger Legend
Dec 18, 2002
34,368
26,218
Tel Aviv
It was really clear in that very first practice game of the year v Dudbourne that the new rules were going to have an impact on us. We looked super fit and ready for that game yet the model we traditionally use looked really weak. Especially, we couldn't control or influence the movement of the ball by the opposition anywhere near what we're used to being able to apply. Our defensive structures around the ground really struggled in that game. And that's continued on the rest of the year. We used to be top 4 for points against year on year. Now we're 10th.

The stop/start/space style of game that these new rules have promoted has really impacted our defensive structures and also how we like to move the ball when we do get it back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Harry

Tiger Legend
Mar 2, 2003
24,454
11,873
It was really clear in that very first practice game of the year v Dudbourne that the new rules were going to have an impact on us. We looked super fit and ready for that game yet the model we traditionally use looked really weak. Especially, we couldn't control or influence the movement of the ball by the opposition anywhere near what we're used to being able to apply. Our defensive structures around the ground really struggled in that game. And that's continued on the rest of the year. We used to be top 4 for points against year on year. Now we're 10th.

The stop/start/space style of game that these new rules have promoted has really impacted our defensive structures and also how we like to move the ball when we do get it back.
correct.

we based our entire game on conceding first possession then structuring up and winning it back by applying pressure. Manning the mark aggressively allowed us to a) structure up behind the ball, b) close off the short pass option, and c) force teams to kick to a contest. Now the opposition can release alot of this pressure by maintaining possession by chipping it short at angles and we can't do anything about it because our boots are super glued to the ground.

*smile* disgrace

why didn't we say something when this was being floated, as it was obviously aimed at us? didn't want to sound like we were whinging?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

MD Jazz

Don't understand football? Talk to the hand.
Feb 3, 2017
13,329
13,715
How do you claim it will make no difference? the player with the ball can play on but the player 5 metres back on the mark can shift at any time to negate the play on

and the force the player to kick over him.
That makes no sense. He is too far back to force the kick over him. The angles the player has to kick at are dramatically improved by the man in the mark being 5m back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Redford

Tiger Legend
Dec 18, 2002
34,368
26,218
Tel Aviv
correct.

we based our entire game on conceding first possession then structuring up and winning it back by applying pressure. Manning the mark aggressively allowed us to a) structure up behind the ball, b) close off the short pass option, and c) force teams to kick to a contest. Now the opposition can release alot of this pressure by maintaining possession by chipping it short at angles and we can't do anything about it because our boots are super glued to the ground.

*smile* disgrace

why didn't we say something when this was being floated, as it was obviously aimed at us? didn't want to sound like we were whinging?
It was pointed out in the media during the course of the year that Hocking had apparently said that he wanted to close down Richmond's ability to "angle off" the space defensively and create more room. In particular, he wanted to close down how we used the man on the mark plus the boundary line, to really close opposition movement off.

Not one single person inside of the AFL has denied that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

saigon tiger

Tiger Superstar
Jun 4, 2010
2,392
1,217
Wasn't this rule brought in after lists were finalised and without any trials. Geesooks knew exactly that an Isaac Smith would be the perfect recruit with this rule. Insider trading here and we know who provided the leak and leg up. Corrupt and downright disgraceful!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 users