The stand rule. Do you like it?

[WilloTree]

I didn't mind it when it was being used/enforced properly. The idea was good - give the players a bit of time and space to move the ball. The problem, again, is that it's impossible to adjudicate with any consistency so it's not doing what it was intended to accomplish.

Here's an example.



Alex Pearce

25

Alex Pearce

Age

28

Ht

201cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.8

4star

MG

106.3

2star

No current season stats available

D

11.0

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

6.0

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

0.8

3star

MG

103.2

2star

has just taken a mark (umpired called 'mark') and pointing out to the umpire where Stengle is.

Stengle is not behind his mark, in the 'protected zone' and hasn't been asked to 'stand'.

The umpires called this play on.

You just have to throw your hands up at this point.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

come on then, if its simple when are you allowed to stop moving or even jump up?

When the umpire calls it otherwise stand. It’s made the game less congested and that’s a good thing

 

[tropicaltiger]

When the umpire calls it otherwise stand. It’s made the game less congested and that’s a good thing

stand is stand, players are leaping a metre in the air and often a foot fwd trying to fingertip it

 

[TheOptimum18]

My issue with the rule has always been what it meant in terms of AFL trying to manufacture games to what THEY want.

Like people have mentioned before, the rule was introduced to stop a specific tactic from certain clubs when standing the mark.

In other words, the AFL introduced a rule to dictate how AFL coaches should coach and form tactics. That is something I am totally against. If the AFL wanted to solve this issue, put it on the coaches to do something to change the situation, don't legislate rules for it.

The same goes with 6-6-6.

I don't think you can find another sport in the world that introduces rules specifially to combat coaches from utilising certain tactics.

 

[smasha]

My issue with the rule has always been what it meant in terms of AFL trying to manufacture games to what THEY want.

Like people have mentioned before, the rule was introduced to stop a specific tactic from certain clubs when standing the mark.

In other words, the AFL introduced a rule to dictate how AFL coaches should coach and form tactics. That is something I am totally against. If the AFL wanted to solve this issue, put it on the coaches to do something to change the situation, don't legislate rules for it.

The same goes with 6-6-6.

I don't think you can find another sport in the world that introduces rules specifially to combat coaches from utilising certain tactics.

Shocking studying Richmond.
CFL

 

[The 747]

I'd like to get a feel for how supporters of other clubs feel about the rule.

I don't think you'd find a tigers fan that doesn't despise it so there's not much point discussing it over there. I think it's mostly because it coincides with the demise of our dynasty and the fact most on the Richmond board think that there is a legitimate conspiracy against our club from the AFL and Hocking who introduced the rule. Now I don't subscribe to that theory but I'm nearly one out in that regard it so I'd like to hear the opinions of supporters of other clubs. I've got a hardcore Dees mate that surprise, surprise absolutely loves it. He reckons the game has never been better

I've hated the rule since before a ball was bounced last season (and before we sucked ). I hate the optics of it, I hate sound of it and I hate the contentious 50m penalties it's creating (plus I think 50m is far to great a penalty for most rule breaches but that's for another day). I think it's a terrible look having the man on the mark stand still like a statue within scoring distance while their opponent runs around unimpeded and has a kick for goal. I think it's a terrible look having players scrambling to get outside 5m to get back and help defend, leaving the bloke with the ball without a man. Clearly the dogs are most guilty of this tactic and I'm not sure it even works as a tactic but * me it just looks dumb. I hate how players now are feigning to give off a handball to try and suck the man on the mark in to taking a step too early. This happens multiple times every game and I hate that the players are falling for it regularly too. That isn't footy.

Sure, it may have slightly promoted ball movement but overall I don't think the game is any better off, at best. There was nothing wrong with the old rule. Do what you want, just don't go over the ******* mark. Pretty simple. As it stands now 5 meters is too hard to judge in an instant, the "2-3 seconds" players have to scram or stand still varies between umps and between moments in games and the time it takes for the ump to call play on, thus allowing the man on the mark to wake up varies between ump to ump. Players don't hear the ump call stand over the crowd noise quite often. STAND, STAND, STAND, OUTSIDE FIVE, OUTSIDE FIVE, STAND, PLAY ON. Drives me ******* nuts.

So....do you like it? And why. do you think the coaches and clubs prefer it? If not, would the AFL have the balls to admit they ****ed up for once and remove it?

A little while on, I think this:

I don't like the rule itself and that scenario but I do like the impact it has had on the game
It is better now umpires are not paying so many ridiculous free kicks
I also like the tears of Tiger supporters in their tin foil hats

The reality is that the game can't be 'left alone'. There is too much at stake and clubs will gain every advantage they can.

For example, my club made a GF on the back of a horrible cynical boring game plan designed to exploit the COVID-19 rules.

 

[The 747]

My issue with the rule has always been what it meant in terms of AFL trying to manufacture games to what THEY want.

Like people have mentioned before, the rule was introduced to stop a specific tactic from certain clubs when standing the mark.

In other words, the AFL introduced a rule to dictate how AFL coaches should coach and form tactics. That is something I am totally against. If the AFL wanted to solve this issue, put it on the coaches to do something to change the situation, don't legislate rules for it.

The same goes with 6-6-6.

I don't think you can find another sport in the world that introduces rules specifially to combat coaches from utilising certain tactics.

Really.

 

[hawkman]

Still a good rule. Still needs to be policed better. Seeing a lot of teams now running to the mark which stops the immediate play on but the umpire doesn't call stand so they quickly move back out of the 5.

Thought the Saints Carlton game was a good illustration of it. It was low scoring but it was a fast game with the ball pinging around. Normally not a fan of low scoring games but I thought that was a great game to watch, for 3 quarters at least

 

[Mitchell Madness]

My issue with the rule has always been what it meant in terms of AFL trying to manufacture games to what THEY want.

Like people have mentioned before, the rule was introduced to stop a specific tactic from certain clubs when standing the mark.

In other words, the AFL introduced a rule to dictate how AFL coaches should coach and form tactics. That is something I am totally against. If the AFL wanted to solve this issue, put it on the coaches to do something to change the situation, don't legislate rules for it.

The same goes with 6-6-6.

I don't think you can find another sport in the world that introduces rules specifially to combat coaches from utilising certain tactics.

Exactly.
Incentives to score more would work.
Teams could either develop a game plan to stop the opponent, or a gameplan to beat a defensive set up.

C7 want high rating teams on their screens, but what is worth more, 10 ads at 10k a pop in a low scoring game, or 30 ads at 5k a pop in a high scoring game?