The stand rule???

[YeOldeTiger]

The question to that is why?

No mate. That's not the question at all. The question is why was it brought in ? And the answer to that simply isn't justifiable when it tugs at the fabric of the game.

Also I am shocked that you can't see that this rule makes for 17 v 18. When "stand" is called it's 17 v 18 because the man on the mark can now no longer have any impact on the game at that point for the next play. They are removed from play. It looks terrible because deep down we know it's wrong and is now no longer a fair contest.

Geesus you learn over and over in juniors (when I was coaching kids I drummed it into them - it's called a 1 per cent'er and the team that wins the 1%'ers most often wins the game) how to man the mark aggressively so the oppo with the ball can't play on (primarily), also doesn't get an easy kick away, is put under pressure and you might even get a deflection or a smother causing a turnover, force him into an option he doesn't want to take (like kicking backwards) and giving your team mates up the field the chance to man up.

Of course all these little football skills (the look of the game and the intricate fabric of the game, developed over 150 years) apparently mean nothing to the AFL. They don't want bloody defence ! They want goals ! Defence is ugly, Richmond chaos is ugly, defence slows things down, defence means less goals ! (Of course Richmond were and are a very high scoring team which makes a mockery of these rule changes).

Yet, suprisingly about HALF the players on the field are, shock horror DEFENDERS ! In fact every player is a defender at times so it has a negative effect on any player who man's the mark. It's a joke and the joke is on us. It is a *smile* rule.

Here's why it's *smile*. It's screwing the game over. It's messing with things that are established and historical and have always been because they are unique and special and are good for the game ! That's why fans hate the stand rule, players hate it and Neil Balme The Godfather of football (the only 70+ year old former player still involved deeply in the competition) is furious about what the AFL are doing. I don't mind the game evolving, however I abhor this kind of untrialled, unsubstantiated and not required tampering with the rules because of an agenda.

Then, suprise surprise we get more tampering the next year to try to fix the stupidity of last years rules that should never have been introduced.

Stupid is as stupid does.

We are subjected to stand by and watch the game we grew up playing, coaching, administrating and supporting (and now our kids and grandkids play and support as well), being eroded by a bunch of complete non entities in the name of what ? The odd low scoring game where advertisers don't get their money's worth ? Making sure one team doesn't dominate ? Because defence isn't pretty ? Because Steve Hocking couldn't ever see Geelong beating a surge/chaos team in finals ?

It's a disgrace. The game is being stolen right from under our noses and being turned into AFLX (or some hybrid netball/basketball horror). AFLX was a notion that was universally panned and laughed at and skittled immediately. Well, like I said, wait 10 years and that will be AFL. Too many changes, too fast will be the death of football as we know it.

Blink and it's gone.

 

[The Big Richo]

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.

It's an example, and not an isolated one by any means over the past 20 years.

And by the way, if there's a Trump side in this I'm pretty sure it's in the 'I don't know what this thing does exactly, but I hate it!' camp.

No mate. That's not the question at all. The question is why was it brought in ? And the answer to that simply isn't justifiable when it tugs at the fabric of the game.

Also I am shocked that you can't see that this rule makes for 17 v 18. When "stand" is called it's 17 v 18 because the man on the mark can now no longer have any impact on the game at that point for the next play. They are removed from play. It looks terrible because deep down we know it's wrong and is now no longer a fair contest.

Geesus you learn over and over in juniors (when I was coaching kids I drummed it into them - it's called a 1 per cent'er and the team that wins the 1%'ers most often wins the game) how to man the mark aggressively so the oppo with the ball can't play on (primarily), also doesn't get an easy kick away, is put under pressure and you might even get a deflection or a smother causing a turnover, force him into an option he doesn't want to take (like kicking backwards) and giving your team mates up the field the chance to man up.

Of course all these little football skills (the look of the game and the intricate fabric of the game, developed over 150 years) apparently mean nothing to the AFL. They don't want bloody defence ! They want goals ! Defence is ugly, Richmond chaos is ugly, defence slows things down, defence means less goals ! (Of course Richmond were and are a very high scoring team which makes a mockery of these rule changes).

Yet, suprisingly about HALF the players on the field are, shock horror DEFENDERS ! In fact every player is a defender at times so it has a negative effect on any player who man's the mark. It's a joke and the joke is on us. It is a *smile* rule.

Here's why it's *smile*. It's screwing the game over. It's messing with things that are established and historical and have always been because they are unique and special and are good for the game ! That's why fans hate the stand rule, players hate it and Neil Balme The Godfather of football (the only 70+ year old former player still involved deeply in the competition) is furious about what the AFL are doing. I don't mind the game evolving, however I abhor this kind of untrialled, unsubstantiated and not required tampering with the rules because of an agenda.

Then, suprise surprise we get more tampering the next year to try to fix the stupidity of last years rules that should never have been introduced.

Stupid is as stupid does.

We are subjected to stand by and watch the game we grew up playing, coaching, administrating and supporting (and now our kids and grandkids play and support as well), being eroded by a bunch of complete non entities in the name of what ? The odd low scoring game where advertisers don't get their money's worth ? Making sure one team doesn't dominate ? Because defence isn't pretty ? Because Steve Hocking couldn't ever see Geelong beating a surge/chaos team in finals ?

It's a disgrace. The game is being stolen right from under our noses and being turned into AFLX (or some hybrid netball/basketball horror). AFLX was a notion that was universally panned and laughed at and skittled immediately. Well, like I said, wait 10 years and that will be AFL. Too many changes, too fast will be the death of football as we know it.

Blink and it's gone.

You express your opinion very eloquently and I'm sure you will be well supported on here and with the overwhelming majority of football fans.

I guess the difference in our perspectives is in the emotion. You are invested in the emotion of the game, the history, the fabric as you describe it and that perspective doesn't suit rule changes, especially ons like the stand rule.

Me on the other hand couldn't really care less about any of those things, and am unemotional about it, I just want to see the version of the game I can. Like (I think) most people, my version of that is fast flowing, clean football where attack has the edge over defence. If the games brings that, I don't really care what rules are changed in order to do it.

I liked the football I saw late last season, and if, and it is very much an if as I've said, the stand rule is at all responsible for that then I'm happy for it to stay.

 

[MD Jazz]

Me on the other hand couldn't really care less about any of those things, and am unemotional about it, I just want to see the version of the game I can. Like (I think) most people, my version of that is fast flowing, clean football where attack has the edge over defence. If the games brings that, I don't really care what rules are changed in order to do it.

Sounds like AFLX to me? Boring as bat *smile*.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

There are the AFL cheerleaders who champion this travesty of a rule, but whenever they’re asked how it betters the game or what issue it was trying to fix you get crickets.

 

[frickenel]

I'm no Mark Robinson fan, but after the 2020 GF, he thanked the Richmond Football club, because as he saw it, our victory was a win for fast furious football, over that keepings off, flood back sh!te played by 17 other clubs, and in particular, Geelong..

I think he was right ,though being an AFL brown nose, he forgot his musings when the new rule came in.

I don't think the standing rule has had much at all to do with the more aggressive football being played. I think it's more a case of realising that the best wayt to win a flag was to attack. Even Geelong last year only improved and peaked above the pack when they altered their game style to a more aggressive approach.

Football Richmond style circa 2017 - 2020 gave the best of both worlds. You were on your feet watching the furious tackling of your small forwards, and the suffocating press, to keep the ball in deep forward, and also seeing the breakneck speed when we exited our defence.

With the opposition, all you saw was a flood back mentality, i guess on the premise that you can't stop Richmond going forward, so you might as well wait there for them with your full team and try to sling shot out to an empty forward line. The problem with this strategy, and our defensive forward press, was that the ball would start to live in our forward line.

The stand rule lends itself to chip kicking rather than break neck speed. It also caused a lot of teams to flood back on the basis that if you can't stop the ball moving forward, you might as well flood back. The result was more entries, less scoring, and seemingly less time between the arcs. Tall forwards were kicking less goals, because they had no space to operate. I don't know the stats on this, but it seemed the talls were getting to less marking contests as the congestion allowed it to be easier to put blocks on their run to the ball.

Richmond had evolved the game before they tinkered with it. It just took the other clubs a long time to catch on, and having caught on, the tinkering held the progression up.

I like seeing fast football, but i like seing a contest as well.

The Ross Lyon / Paul Roos style of contest was out of whack as the game was a rolling scrum.

Richmond brought the heat, but weren't so defensive that they protect the ball at all costs ala Roos / Lyon. We were coming forward in chaos, challenging teams to take the ball from us. When they did, they stopped and started chipping...... perfect for us!

Now they are going hard the other way, not so perfect for us, hence the higher scoring against us. But now the balance is out of whack in the opposite direction, too much open run, and not enough contest.

Had the AFL, through Steve Hocking not tried to rig the game against us in direct support of his pathetic side kicking cats, then the competition would have evolved and we'd have the perfect mix right now, of attack and hard defense.

 

[Quickdraw]

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?

Thanks TBR.

I remember the game was a shocker, possibly the worst of the year but still an outlier as you say. Players didn't play for 3 months (Jack couldn't kick 40 against Collingwood to possibly win us the game), short quarters, and Swans typically play that low scoring grind.

Yes game was a shocker but we scored

I watched what Dimma said in the presser and not sure what you're referring to re putting his foot in his mouth.

 

[The Big Richo]

I watched what Dimma said in the presser and not sure what you're referring to re putting his foot in his mouth.

He said something about the way Sydney played and ended up apologising to Longmire about it.

 

[tigerman]

Thanks TBR.

I remember the game was a shocker, possibly the worst of the year but still an outlier as you say. Players didn't play for 3 months (Jack couldn't kick 40 against Collingwood to possibly win us the game), short quarters, and Swans typically play that low scoring grind.

Yes game was a shocker but we scored

I watched what Dimma said in the presser and not sure what you're referring to re putting his foot in his mouth.

I was wrapped that Dimma gave Longmire a clip after that game, what disgraceful brand of football Horse had them playing.

 

[Quickdraw]

He said something about the way Sydney played and ended up apologising to Longmire about it.

Yes, I watched the presser. He made mention that all players were in our F50 which seemed to imply that Sydney were flooding the place. I thought at the time that Longmire was a bit precious about it all.

Anyway I still hate the look of the stand rule

 

[TigerMasochist]

, I just want to see the version of the game I can. Like (I think) most people, my version of that is fast flowing, clean football where attack has the edge over defence. If the games brings that, I don't really care what rules are changed in order to do it.

.

Would I be right in guessing that you also like cricket tests where every wicket is a flat boring road n every bat gets to make 100 while the bowlers grind themselves into the dust.

I'd much rather see a balanced contest where everyone gets the opportunity to have a successful input provided they're willing to get the hands dirty n do the hard work.

 

[14tempany]

No mate. That's not the question at all. The question is why was it brought in ? And the answer to that simply isn't justifiable when it tugs at the fabric of the game.

Also I am shocked that you can't see that this rule makes for 17 v 18. When "stand" is called it's 17 v 18 because the man on the mark can now no longer have any impact on the game at that point for the next play. They are removed from play. It looks terrible because deep down we know it's wrong and is now no longer a fair contest.

Geesus you learn over and over in juniors (when I was coaching kids I drummed it into them - it's called a 1 per cent'er and the team that wins the 1%'ers most often wins the game) how to man the mark aggressively so the oppo with the ball can't play on (primarily), also doesn't get an easy kick away, is put under pressure and you might even get a deflection or a smother causing a turnover, force him into an option he doesn't want to take (like kicking backwards) and giving your team mates up the field the chance to man up.

Of course all these little football skills (the look of the game and the intricate fabric of the game, developed over 150 years) apparently mean nothing to the AFL. They don't want bloody defence ! They want goals ! Defence is ugly, Richmond chaos is ugly, defence slows things down, defence means less goals ! (Of course Richmond were and are a very high scoring team which makes a mockery of these rule changes).

Yet, suprisingly about HALF the players on the field are, shock horror DEFENDERS ! In fact every player is a defender at times so it has a negative effect on any player who man's the mark. It's a joke and the joke is on us. It is a *smile* rule.

Here's why it's *smile*. It's screwing the game over. It's messing with things that are established and historical and have always been because they are unique and special and are good for the game ! That's why fans hate the stand rule, players hate it and Neil Balme The Godfather of football (the only 70+ year old former player still involved deeply in the competition) is furious about what the AFL are doing. I don't mind the game evolving, however I abhor this kind of untrialled, unsubstantiated and not required tampering with the rules because of an agenda.

Then, suprise surprise we get more tampering the next year to try to fix the stupidity of last years rules that should never have been introduced.

Stupid is as stupid does.

We are subjected to stand by and watch the game we grew up playing, coaching, administrating and supporting (and now our kids and grandkids play and support as well), being eroded by a bunch of complete non entities in the name of what ? The odd low scoring game where advertisers don't get their money's worth ? Making sure one team doesn't dominate ? Because defence isn't pretty ? Because Steve Hocking couldn't ever see Geelong beating a surge/chaos team in finals ?

It's a disgrace. The game is being stolen right from under our noses and being turned into AFLX (or some hybrid netball/basketball horror). AFLX was a notion that was universally panned and laughed at and skittled immediately. Well, like I said, wait 10 years and that will be AFL. Too many changes, too fast will be the death of football as we know it.

Blink and it's gone.

Could not agree more
Well said !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Big Richo]

Would I be right in guessing that you also like cricket tests where every wicket is a flat boring road n every bat gets to make 100 while the bowlers grind themselves into the dust.

I'd much rather see a balanced contest where everyone gets the opportunity to have a successful input provided they're willing to get the hands dirty n do the hard work.

I see the first version as the equivalent to a dour, heavily defensive game of footy.

Give me our final against Brisbane this year over Sydney v West Coast 2005 any day.

 

[tora]

No mate. That's not the question at all. The question is why was it brought in ? And the answer to that simply isn't justifiable when it tugs at the fabric of the game.

Also I am shocked that you can't see that this rule makes for 17 v 18. When "stand" is called it's 17 v 18 because the man on the mark can now no longer have any impact on the game at that point for the next play. They are removed from play. It looks terrible because deep down we know it's wrong and is now no longer a fair contest.

Geesus you learn over and over in juniors (when I was coaching kids I drummed it into them - it's called a 1 per cent'er and the team that wins the 1%'ers most often wins the game) how to man the mark aggressively so the oppo with the ball can't play on (primarily), also doesn't get an easy kick away, is put under pressure and you might even get a deflection or a smother causing a turnover, force him into an option he doesn't want to take (like kicking backwards) and giving your team mates up the field the chance to man up.

Of course all these little football skills (the look of the game and the intricate fabric of the game, developed over 150 years) apparently mean nothing to the AFL. They don't want bloody defence ! They want goals ! Defence is ugly, Richmond chaos is ugly, defence slows things down, defence means less goals ! (Of course Richmond were and are a very high scoring team which makes a mockery of these rule changes).

Yet, suprisingly about HALF the players on the field are, shock horror DEFENDERS ! In fact every player is a defender at times so it has a negative effect on any player who man's the mark. It's a joke and the joke is on us. It is a *smile* rule.

Here's why it's *smile*. It's screwing the game over. It's messing with things that are established and historical and have always been because they are unique and special and are good for the game ! That's why fans hate the stand rule, players hate it and Neil Balme The Godfather of football (the only 70+ year old former player still involved deeply in the competition) is furious about what the AFL are doing. I don't mind the game evolving, however I abhor this kind of untrialled, unsubstantiated and not required tampering with the rules because of an agenda.

Then, suprise surprise we get more tampering the next year to try to fix the stupidity of last years rules that should never have been introduced.

Stupid is as stupid does.

We are subjected to stand by and watch the game we grew up playing, coaching, administrating and supporting (and now our kids and grandkids play and support as well), being eroded by a bunch of complete non entities in the name of what ? The odd low scoring game where advertisers don't get their money's worth ? Making sure one team doesn't dominate ? Because defence isn't pretty ? Because Steve Hocking couldn't ever see Geelong beating a surge/chaos team in finals ?

It's a disgrace. The game is being stolen right from under our noses and being turned into AFLX (or some hybrid netball/basketball horror). AFLX was a notion that was universally panned and laughed at and skittled immediately. Well, like I said, wait 10 years and that will be AFL. Too many changes, too fast will be the death of football as we know it.

Blink and it's gone.

When have the AFL repealed a rule? Never. I don't like the way Richmond seemed to slowly adapt to this rule and I didn't think criticisms of it by B.Gale and KB the start of last season were well directed. KB thinks everyone is like he was as a player...so he wanted even reduced interchange I think. If I was ALFPA I'd be arguing for more interchange. I guess 5 on the bench does that. Good to see Gale speaking on behalf of RFC fans. But the AFL response to any criticism is the rule is working fine.

We've played a game style that concedes a lot of free kicks. The 50m penalties have cost us games. Again slow to adapt to dissent.

But we also play a high scoring brand of football and at round 23 we were Top of the points for.
So lots is going right. Add hopper and Taranto and we have addressed a major issue. Should be contenders the flag again..
Hocking going back to his own club is dodgy. At least Scott has gone to a club he had no connection to

 

[The Big Richo]

When have the AFL repealed a rule? Never.

Sub rule, hands in the back.

 

[Butch67]

Sub rule, hands in the back.

Cant think of a Geelong player that would benefit from the repeal of the hands in the back rule!!!!!!

 

[eZyT]

I think that's cheer squad thinking to be honest. If you speak to anyone in that sort of position, with connection with a club and employment by another organisation, they will universally say that while you never lose the connection to your team, you also do your job to the best of your ability regardless.

If anything, I'd suggest people in those positions tend to be harder on their original team if anything, because they want to make sure they are not seen to be even slightly conflicted.

If i got a plum AFL job,

Id build my Dusty shrine on my desk,

And Appoint dale weightman to run ARC, MRP and Umpiring singlehandedly

 

[Tigers of Old]

If i got a plum AFL job,

Id build my Dusty shrine on my desk,

And Appoint dale weightman to run ARC, MRP and Umpiring singlehandedly

Haha Flea heading the MRP. I'd like to see that!

 

[tora]

Sub rule, hands in the back.

Repealed?
No.
Interpreted differently.
On reflection the stand rule is a variation to " rule about manning the mark"

But when Gale complained Scott said it's working fine.

Now they've tinkered with the interpretation which will be like kryptonite for us.

 

[The Big Richo]

Repealed?

Sub rule was repealed. We went from three and a sub on the bench back to 4.

Then a few seasons after that the coaches asked for a restricted to medical sub which is now going to return to 4 on the bench plus an unrestricted sub.

 

[tommystigers]

Medical issues.

Sorry to hear that TBR.