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.The question to that is why?
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.
Last edited: