The stand rule???

[shad]

I don't know if has been said but it has a real netball vibe about it. I have a 19 year old son who was a handy footy player and he started playing social mixed netball this year. He plays goal attack and he says it's just a joke because you get to shoot and the defender just has to stand there unable to do anything. Sound familiar?

 

[Tigers2020]

Awful rule. Lions used it again to their advantage by handballing or kicking over the man of the mark and making the game 18v17 for a short period of time. If it gets removed we automatically become elite defensively again

 

[Tigaman]

Blight on the game. Allows player to run off the mark or free kick unhindered.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Saw this article today in the hun. Didn’t know how to find it on the website to post a link so I took a pic.



It’s only been a season or so and already this “brilliant” rule from SHocking needs tweaking. What concerns me is the 5th paragraph where it says if a player feigns to handball they will will told to play on or reset. If that means that the league decides on one option, fine. If it means they will leave it up to the umpires discretion on which option, then that’s *smile* and will make the rule even worse than it is now. I can just picture it now. Richmond has a shot for goal from around 50 out. We pretend to handball, umpire calls play on, player gets tackled, we get penalised. A minute later at the other end, opposition in the same scenario, pretends to handball umpire says no, go back and have your shot, they goal. You know it will happen.

I have a better, much more radical solution. Get rid of the *smile* rule. It was brought in the help the handbaggers get a flag. Goal achieved. If you step over the mark, penalised. If you move sideways or backwards on the mark, no penalty. Like it should be

 

[Nico]

Saw this article today in the hun. Didn’t know how to find it on the website to post a link so I took a pic.

View attachment 17841

It’s only been a season or so and already this “brilliant” rule from SHocking needs tweaking. What concerns me is the 5th paragraph where it says if a player feigns to handball they will will told to play on or reset. If that means that the league decides on one option, fine. If it means they will leave it up to the umpires discretion on which option, then that’s *smile* and will make the rule even worse than it is now. I can just picture it now. Richmond has a shot for goal from around 50 out. We pretend to handball, umpire calls play on, player gets tackled, we get penalised. A minute later at the other end, opposition in the same scenario, pretends to handball umpire says no, go back and have your shot, they goal. You know it will happen.

I have a better, much more radical solution. Get rid of the *smile* rule. It was brought in the help the handbaggers get a flag. Goal achieved. If you step over the mark, penalised. If you move sideways or backwards on the mark, no penalty. Like it should be

There are also instances where you genuinely go to handball to a teammate running past, but change your mind at the last minute as the oppo is closing down faster than you thought. Will that be called play on?

Was listening to G Healy last night discussing this tweak to the rule. He thinks the stand rule should be different in the forward line, compared to the rest of the ground. OMG let's add even more complexity to an already sh!te rule! What a doofus.

Get rid of it!!

 

[Baloo]

Let's add more rules on top of new rules because that's the best way to make the game easier to umpire.

Umpires are biased pricks who hate Richmond, but can't help but feel a bit sorry for them trying to enforce all these overly subjective rules sHocking has introduced lately.

Universally hated is the stand rule, expect for the AFL syncophants who need to toe the AFL line.

 

[The Big Richo]

There are also instances where you genuinely go to handball to a teammate running past, but change your mind at the last minute as the oppo is closing down faster than you thought. Will that be called play on?

You would think that would be the instance where it would be reset, and play on when you are just foxing.

 

[Scoop]

Rules to fix rules that are wrong.

More pressure on umpires.

This will go well.

This years round 5 interpretation adjustment for sure.

 

[Nico]

You would think that would be the instance where it would be reset, and play on when you are just foxing.

You would think so, but it would be up to the umpire's discretion whether he was foxing or genuinely looking to give off. With 4 field umpires this year...I smell trouble.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Happens nearly every time. They introduce a rule in a knee jerk reaction to fix a non existent problem, and then later on have to bring in new rules or alter the one they brought in to counteract its negative effect on the game. Leave the game alone, ffs!

 

[Legends of 2017]

You would think that would be the instance where it would be reset, and play on when you are just foxing.

And there’s the issue. It should be but again, umpires interpretation. Either get rid of the rule or it’s either play on OR reset. I’ll bag the umpires as much as the next bloke ( unless the next bloke is you TBR ), but they have enough on their plate with all the rules as it is. Also, some players are better actors than others, some players are smarter than others and some players are umpires pets and get away with stuff that most players couldn’t. Too much interpretations will make an already bad situation worse

 

[Tigers of Old]

Guess who the guinea pigs will be (again)?

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Get ready for the bulldhiit 50's we will give away.

"I didn't call play on""

 

[TigerMasochist]

You would think that would be the instance where it would be reset, and play on when you are just foxing.

So we leave it up to the umpires to read players minds again, that always works well.

Way beyond time the entire rule book was thrown in the bin and a clean sheet of paper was brought in. First rule to be applied when redrafting the rules would obviously be the KISS rule.

 

[Sintiger]

Happens nearly every time. They introduce a rule in a knee jerk reaction to fix a non existent problem, and then later on have to bring in new rules or alter the one they brought in to counteract its negative effect on the game. Leave the game alone, ffs!

This
There was no problem to fix

 

[Tigers of Old]

This
There was no problem to fix

The Tigers winning seems to have been the issue.

 

[Baloo]

The Tigers winning seems to have been the issue.

I think it was a more specific issue than us just winning. It's that we beat Geelong in a Grand Final and they were frustrated by the way we were manning the mark.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

This
There was no problem to fix

There rarely ever is, Sin. The AFL get their media puppets to make a fuss about something and then trumpet that the game is in trouble, This puts the seed in people’s minds, and they have to bring in a new rule to fix a non existent problem. Hocking was one of the worst, because they introduced these rules with no trial or consultation.

 

[The Big Richo]

And there’s the issue. It should be but again, umpires interpretation. Either get rid of the rule or it’s either play on OR reset. I’ll bag the umpires as much as the next bloke ( unless the next bloke is you TBR ), but they have enough on their plate with all the rules as it is. Also, some players are better actors than others, some players are smarter than others and some players are umpires pets and get away with stuff that most players couldn’t. Too much interpretations will make an already bad situation worse

80% of umpiring is interpretation though Legends. It's the nature of footy and the reason our umpires cop it more than most.

Ironically though, when rules are made to be black and white, like deliberate out of bounds, they create more unhappiness with fans for not using a feel for the game which is essentially just interpretation.

As for the players I think what you are describing is the skill and ability of players. Some players have the speed of mind and kinaesthetic awareness to be able to draw more free kicks, and that's an advantage they create for themselves in the game.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Ironically though, when rules are made to be black and white, like deliberate out of bounds, they create more unhappiness with fans for not using a feel for the game which is essentially just interpretation.

Thought that rule was adjusted to be insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. Under either description it's a *smile* rule because it's based upon 3 or 4 different umpires each game reading minds and interpreting intent accurately dozens of times per game.

Simple way to clean up a lot of the mind reading required would be to change to last possession out free against.