The stand rule???

[The Big Richo]

Yep, and therefore, what’s the point of the rule then ? Well done TBR. It took you a while, but you finally got there.

I've been saying since it came in I would get rid of it because I don't think it has much if any impact vs the amount of effort it requires to officiate.

Towards the end of last season I shifted a little to not being sure if it is a positive or not because the footy is good but I still can't for the life of me find anything significant the stand rule has changed that you can quantify in data.

 

[The Big Richo]

17 players versus 18 on the field

This is another thing people keep saying that I don't understand.

A player from one team has the ball and an opponent is on the mark. Then there is 17 v 17 around the field.

If the player with the ball plays on the player on the mark chases them and it is 18 v 18 around the field again.

If the player with the ball stands and kicks it the man on the mark doesn't interact with them in the same way they haven't for ever.

How is is 17 v 18?

 

[RoarEmotion]

This is another thing people keep saying that I don't understand.

A player from one team has the ball and an opponent is on the mark. Then there is 17 v 17 around the field.

If the player with the ball plays on the player on the mark chases them and it is 18 v 18 around the field again.

If the player with the ball stands and kicks it the man on the mark doesn't interact with them in the same way they haven't for ever.

How is is 17 v 18?

When the player runs straight around the man on the mark with momentum.

 

[Willo]

This is another thing people keep saying that I don't understand.

A player from one team has the ball and an opponent is on the mark. Then there is 17 v 17 around the field.

If the player with the ball plays on the player on the mark chases them and it is 18 v 18 around the field again.

If the player with the ball stands and kicks it the man on the mark doesn't interact with them in the same way they haven't for ever.

How is is 17 v 18?

Because the closest umpire is hellbent on scrutinising the man on the mark and misses the player with the ball play on. The “play on” call is too late. Often you see the player on the mark looking at the umpire while the man playing on has gone past him

When the player runs straight around the man on the mark with momentum.

Exactly. The man on the mark is still frozen waiting on the *sHocking* to call it.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Yep, and therefore, what’s the point of the rule then ? Well done TBR. It took you a while, but you finally got there.

I'd still like an answer to the question "what was wrong with the way the mark was being stood in the first place?"

(I think the answer is pretty clear...it was too hard for lil Scotty's boys and the rest of the comp to get out of their own backline. There were times when teams were simply bereft of ideas how to exit their own defence. Teams were literally made to look silly and Richmond, using this chaos method were 2 wins from four flags in a row. This was nothing more than a targeted plan to pull one of the big fangs of the Tigers).

So far I haven't heard a single reason why the stand rule was required, other than this.

 

[The Big Richo]

Because the closest umpire is hellbent on scrutinising the man on the mark and misses the player with the ball play on. The “play on” call is too late. Often you see the player on the mark looking at the umpire while the man playing on has gone past him

Exactly. The man on the mark is still frozen waiting on the *sHocking* to call it.

Pretty much the same thing could happen before if the player with the ball went sideways. The man on the mark could move sideways across the mark but they still couldn't get closer to them until the umpire yelled play on. No-one ever said but that's 17 v 18 then.

I'd still like an answer to the question "what was wrong with the way the mark was being stood in the first place?"

I think you understand that the stand rule has nothing to do with anything being wrong with the man on the mark.

It's an attempt to make moving the ball easier to adjust the balance in the game between defence and attack. The question is does it work and is that good for the game.

 

[YeOldeTiger]

Pretty much the same thing could happen before if the player with the ball went sideways. The man on the mark could move sideways across the mark but they still couldn't get closer to them until the umpire yelled play on. No-one ever said but that's 17 v 18 then.



I think you understand that the stand rule has nothing to do with anything being wrong with the man on the mark.

It's an attempt to make moving the ball easier to adjust the balance in the game between defence and attack. The question is does it work and is that good for the game.

And the answer to that is no, it doesn't work and patently it's bad for the game, Newsflash - it's why everyone (mostly) absolutely hate it.

(plus it looks infantile, a problem you don't seem to have with it...some people actually admire the aesthetics of the game...just sayin')

I understand clearly that the rule change has nothing to do with any problem associated with the man on the mark. Dude, that's my point.

 

[The Big Richo]

And the answer to that is no, it doesn't work and patently it's bad for the game,

The question to that is why?

 

[RoarEmotion]

Pretty much the same thing could happen before if the player with the ball went sideways. The man on the mark could move sideways across the mark but they still couldn't get closer to them until the umpire yelled play on. No-one ever said but that's 17 v 18 then.

That’s only true when the player with the ball doesn’t play on forwards. If the player runs forward on an angle you used to be able to run sideways to be closer to them BEFORE the umpire calls play on. Now you are frozen. I don’t get your line of thinking at all.

 

[The Big Richo]

That’s only true when the player with the ball doesn’t play on forwards. If the player runs forward on an angle you used to be able to run sideways to be closer to them BEFORE the umpire calls play on. Now you are frozen. I don’t get your line of thinking at all.

I'm just saying I think the whole 17 v 18 thing is an exaggeration born out of dislike of the rule more than an actual issue with the rule.

 

[Redford]

That’s only true when the player with the ball doesn’t play on forwards. If the player runs forward on an angle you used to be able to run sideways to be closer to them BEFORE the umpire calls play on. Now you are frozen. I don’t get your line of thinking at all.

Stop talking sense RE.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Across the past eight decades there has been more and more meddling with the rules:

• 1940's - Three rule changes, the most significant being the use of two reserves, the 19th and 20th man, from 1946.
• 1950's - Four rule changes, introduction of runner carrying coach’s message from 1955.
• 1960's - Six rule changes, flick pass banned in 1966.
• 1970's - Five rule changes; centre diamond in 1973, centre square from 1975 and interchange from 1978.
• 1980's - Six rule changes, 50-metre penalty introduced in 1988.
• 1990's - Fourteen rule changes, “prior opportunity” written into holding-the-ball rule in 1996.
• 2000's - Twenty-three rule changes, minimum length of kick that qualifies for a mark increased from 10 to 15 metres in 2002.
• 2011 on: Twenty-five rule changes, 6-6-6 formations at centre bounce introduced in 2019, kick-in rule also changed.

And you can guarantee that from the 1990's onward as the corporate side of footy grew and expanded so to did the adjustments n modifications to the rules expand. Flogs in suits on big fat incomes need to do something to justify their existence so rather than let the coaches work out ways to win games and premierships, it's now up to the manipulators at HQ to constantly adjust the way the game is played n effectively shut down any tactical advantages as soon as a trend is identified as being successful.
Always takes a side two or three years to modify their list to suit a game system a coach may want to implement. If the new system is unsuccessful then it's usually not long afterward that a club starts searching for a new coach. If the system is successful then after a couple of years opposition coaches start working out ways to block the system or copy the system to re - balance the comp until such time as the next coach makes a successful new adjustment.
AFLHQ loathes and detests any club being successful for more than a year or two as they desperately want every club in the comp playing finals on a regular basis and vying for the chance to win a flag. It's part of their ingrained socialist manifest of operations. Hence the constant fiddling and manipulation by the flogs in suits, all for the greater good of the competition of course.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Ooops, pushin wrong buttons

 

[tigerdell]

Ooops, pushin wrong buttons

Seems to me you are always pushing buttons Maso.

A lot of vitriol about a dumb rule. Lets hope the Tiges have adjusted and play great footy.
In fact hopefully all teams have adjusted, it looks idiotic when players are deciding between going on the mark or pushing back. Its created a ridiculous situation. Id rather see good footy than worry about the man on the mark

 

[DavidSSS]

That’s only true when the player with the ball doesn’t play on forwards. If the player runs forward on an angle you used to be able to run sideways to be closer to them BEFORE the umpire calls play on. Now you are frozen. I don’t get your line of thinking at all.

Exactly, I presume the above is a response to the AFL Cheer Squad who is continuing to flail about trying to justify this rubbish.

But if you can't see that the Stand Rule makes it effectively 17 v 18 then you need to look closer. The AFL sure as hell can see this, that's why they brought the stupid rule in to begin with.

DS

 

[Quickdraw]

I just don't get what was supposed to be so wrong with the game that the AFL had to bring in this rule change.

TBR says last season the game looked terrific. Fair enough but didnt it look terrific before this rule change? What is this rule to fix or encourage?

To me it's a fundamental change that looks ridiculous. And on top of that, it is very badly officiated. How many times do we see a player deviate off his line and the poor bugger on the mark is waiting on the green nong to call play on".

Can't stand it

 

[The Big Richo]

TBR says last season the game looked terrific. Fair enough but didnt it look terrific before this rule change? What is this rule to fix or encourage?

If you look up the game day thread from us vs Sydney at the Gabba in 2020 (the one when Hardwick put his foot in his motuh afterwards) you'll see pretty universal condemnation of the game, probably by the same people who don't like the stand rule.
That game was an outlier but certainly not a game style that wasn't being seen regularly.

I don't watch as much footy now but I don't think we are seeing those sorts of games now are we?

 

[tommystigers]

I don't watch as much footy now

Why?

 

[The Big Richo]

Why?

Medical issues.

 

[RoarEmotion]

If you look up the game day thread from us vs Sydney at the Gabba in 2020 (the one when Hardwick put his foot in his motuh afterwards) you'll see pretty universal condemnation of the game, probably by the same people who don't like the stand rule.
That game was an outlier but certainly not a game style that wasn't being seen regularly.

I don't watch as much footy now but I don't think we are seeing those sorts of games now are we?

This is like a trump argument on global warming based on one event where you don't watch the weather at all except where you live.