Yeh, to say no impact ignores 4 years of success. Injuries have also played a major part but no impact from the new rules?
-
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???
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
Hope whoever comes in after seasons end gets rid of these rules ...
Stand rule. X
Kick out square. X
Nomination of ruckman. X
Clean up the interpretation of holding the ball or prior rule. Whatever you want to call it. X
Sub rule. X Just name another player instead of that poor player, playing his first game or a number of games waiting till an injury occurs or a player is concussed. Do away with it. Name 5 players on the bench.
But it won’t happen. What’s the bet they introduce another rule at the 11th hour without much warning.
Stand rule. X
Kick out square. X
Nomination of ruckman. X
Clean up the interpretation of holding the ball or prior rule. Whatever you want to call it. X
Sub rule. X Just name another player instead of that poor player, playing his first game or a number of games waiting till an injury occurs or a player is concussed. Do away with it. Name 5 players on the bench.
But it won’t happen. What’s the bet they introduce another rule at the 11th hour without much warning.
Last edited:
already know the only reason you post is to be a contrarian around here. Little sense or logic in most of your posts.
The stand rule has definitely favored possession oriented sides which we are definitely not. Even at our recent best we were vulnerable to sides that retained effectively retained possession. The new rule has made it just that little bit easier for good kicking sides to retain the ball and just a little bit harder for us to affect turnovers via pressure. Combined with injuries and declining form of some players the results are there for all to see
Interesting listening to AW yesterday before I turned it off during the second quarter, right after the Parker 50, the commentators all said it was a ridiculous rule and bagged it. Richo then said that the rule would be gone next year for sure. They all kinda stirred Richo up, and said how do you know? (is he on the rules committee?) and Richo didnt offer anything more. KB was calling the game, wasnt he on the rules committee too?
Hmm, people seem to be lining up on the extremes here.
TBR effectively saying the new rules have had little impact, others saying the impact has been dramatic.
To say that the new rules have had no, or even little, impact, and the game continued as before, is beyond stretching it. Clearly there have been some changes in the way the game is played and even in the way the game looks. What happens after a behind is scored is clearly quite different. The stand rule has opened options up for the player who has the ball, not as much as a lot of people think, but it has changed things. Apart from anything else it effectively puts one team a man down because the man on the mark has no impact - even if the impact of the man on the mark was small before, now it is zero - that is a change.
You would have to say that, for Richmond, it is difficult to sort out the impact because of injuries and the decline in form of some of our players who are getting older.
I would say the impact of the new rules, not just the stand rule, do take a bit away from our system. It has made it easier for the chip and mark teams. Not just the stand rule, but also the extra distance a full back has before the man on the mark is reached. We have not done well with our kick outs and have not taken advantage of the extra space offered by the man on the mark being further out, we could do better. That said, something has to be done about players running way too far without bouncing or disposing of the ball, it is a joke at the moment.
As Tiger Furious said above, we have always been susceptible to the chip mark game, but have found ways to get around it most of the time. I reckon the new rules have made the chip mark game more effective against us. Being able to put a tall player on the mark and they can move sideways does help to limit the options of the player with the ball. If it didn't we wouldn't have seen Mason Cox on the mark so often, and he was quite effective too at 6'11".
I would also say the ability to be further away from our goals when playing on from a kick out has helped other sides too.
I would get rid of both rules, not simply because they don't help us, but because they are stupid rules. I'm ok with play on from a kick out, but having the full forward stand so far away is ludicrous, means that no team has a chance to try and keep the ball in their attacking 50, something we probably relied on more than others. Would be interesting to compare kick outs after a behind to kicks taken next to the goals as a result of out on the full.
The rule changes may not be huge, but with a professional competition which is very closely contested, there really is little between even the best sides and the worst sides. Equalisation, salary caps etc have made the competition far more even. As such, even small changes can have a big impact.
As for the AFL's objectives - higher scoring and a less congested game: clearly a fail.
DS
TBR effectively saying the new rules have had little impact, others saying the impact has been dramatic.
To say that the new rules have had no, or even little, impact, and the game continued as before, is beyond stretching it. Clearly there have been some changes in the way the game is played and even in the way the game looks. What happens after a behind is scored is clearly quite different. The stand rule has opened options up for the player who has the ball, not as much as a lot of people think, but it has changed things. Apart from anything else it effectively puts one team a man down because the man on the mark has no impact - even if the impact of the man on the mark was small before, now it is zero - that is a change.
You would have to say that, for Richmond, it is difficult to sort out the impact because of injuries and the decline in form of some of our players who are getting older.
I would say the impact of the new rules, not just the stand rule, do take a bit away from our system. It has made it easier for the chip and mark teams. Not just the stand rule, but also the extra distance a full back has before the man on the mark is reached. We have not done well with our kick outs and have not taken advantage of the extra space offered by the man on the mark being further out, we could do better. That said, something has to be done about players running way too far without bouncing or disposing of the ball, it is a joke at the moment.
As Tiger Furious said above, we have always been susceptible to the chip mark game, but have found ways to get around it most of the time. I reckon the new rules have made the chip mark game more effective against us. Being able to put a tall player on the mark and they can move sideways does help to limit the options of the player with the ball. If it didn't we wouldn't have seen Mason Cox on the mark so often, and he was quite effective too at 6'11".
I would also say the ability to be further away from our goals when playing on from a kick out has helped other sides too.
I would get rid of both rules, not simply because they don't help us, but because they are stupid rules. I'm ok with play on from a kick out, but having the full forward stand so far away is ludicrous, means that no team has a chance to try and keep the ball in their attacking 50, something we probably relied on more than others. Would be interesting to compare kick outs after a behind to kicks taken next to the goals as a result of out on the full.
The rule changes may not be huge, but with a professional competition which is very closely contested, there really is little between even the best sides and the worst sides. Equalisation, salary caps etc have made the competition far more even. As such, even small changes can have a big impact.
As for the AFL's objectives - higher scoring and a less congested game: clearly a fail.
DS
The main impact of the stand rule to me is the optics. The game has lost all organic flow and is now stop/start like in previous years when teams were running down the clock. Everyone booed the teams when they were doing that. It is no different. Ugly slow footy without contests.
We re not getting our *smile* hands on the ball -30 contested most weeks, has fa to do with stand rule, I’d be worried if the powers clutched that was the problem
Yea , there was a telling stat on ch7 before lions game on how our forward handball metres gained had halved from 400+ a game to 200, why is that so you all ask thinking it’s not fashionable no more , WRONG
Five or our top 7 forward handball had been out for prolonged periods
In priority order
Edwards
Prestia
Nank
Houli
Lambert
So you are saying that the stand rule has had no impact, really?
As I said above, it is hard to dissect the influences on Richmond's performances in particular because of injuries and a drop off in form.
In any case, most of my post was on the game as a whole, not just Richmond, but since the stats don't support your case you pick out Richmond. You too mentioned other teams in your post.
Since you like stats:
Uncontested marks per game: 2019-159.86; 2021-167.04 (highest since 2009)
Marks per game: 2019-182.65; 2021-190.37 (highest since 2009)
All this while there are 10 less possessions per game: 2019-741.44; 2021-731.92.
Yeah, no impact at all
DS
Last edited:
Would be nice, but I can't see it. We stormed into the 4 in 1969 in great form and only 3 games to win the flag.
We ain't storming anywhere at the moment and you need to win 4 to win the flag now.
Would be amazing though.
DS
it has made the game look stupid K. That's about as succinct as it gets. well done.
