Analysis THE STAND. How is it working out?

[arrowman]

I thought it might be an idea to start an ongoing discussion of how the "Stand" rule is working out.

I'll start with a cross-thread quote:

Absolutely despised the new rule. Not so much after one game.

Mostly I thinkI hate the umpires’ late ‘play on’ calls. What they should do is judge whether the man on the mark moves before or after the kicker plays on, with the man on the mark allowed to move as soon as the kicker plays on, without having to wait for the ump’s call.

I'm working off a sample size of one game but I thought the rule worked well - not a negative, and in some ways a positive for the flow of the game, and giving the smart kicker an edge without it being over the top in the kicker's favour.

I didn't think the umpires were late with 'play on' calls, in fact I felt they were pretty hot on it, and rightly so, I'm sure they're aware of the potential issues if they don't make a quick call.

I don't agree with the idea of letting players move before the umpire has called it - it's appealing, but players should never be able to make their own decisions vs the umpire, and it'd be massively open to controversy.

All in all - after one game, yes, I'll give it a tick.

 

[Stephen2]

I really enjoyed it, and don't care if the kicker gets an advantage. Let the kicker have an advantage. It did some really great things for the flow of play for both teams.

I'm in.

 

[ams4crows]

I do wonder if Buddy's natural arc will now mean the man on the mark is virtually useless for him and it'll be like kicking for goal with no one there of if Umps will call him play on more

 

[Geoffa32]

Yeah I dont mind it.

But it does make the man on the mark effectively pointless if the kicker deviates as part of their kicking action. Kinda funny seeing how despondent some of those guys have been.


Be interesting to see how it is applied to Buddy's arc.





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Geoffa32]

I do wonder if Buddy's natural arc will now mean the man on the mark is virtually useless for him and it'll be like kicking for goal with no one there of if Umps will call him play on more

Lol, same time as me.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[1970crow]

I don’t understand why Tex (from memory) was forced so far inside the boundary with the OOF on the wing. Everywhere else on the ground you stand on or behind the mark and the opponent is forced to kick over you unless they deviate from the line directly over you at goal. But on this occasion it’s a gift to run straight at goal under no pressure.

 

[spexau]

I don’t understand why Tex (from memory) was forced so far inside the boundary with the OOF on the wing. Everywhere else on the ground you stand on or behind the mark and the opponent is forced to kick over you unless they deviate from the line directly over you at goal. But on this occasion it’s a gift to run straight at goal under no pressure.

Yeah the Mark should always be at the intersection of the kicker and the goal.

 

[Crow_Magnon]

In general play I thought it worked well, but I feel it's too much of an advantage when set shots for goal are taken - in that scenario the bloke on the mark is completely taken out of the play. The positioning of the umps is key also...there should be one directly behind the kicker and they call play on as soon as they step off the line.

 

[Deaneus!]

Lol, same time as me.

Ha, two minutes faster, old man

I liked it- more open play, faster ball movement, game just looked better. And we won.

 

[Thetrader15]

I do wonder if Buddy's natural arc will now mean the man on the mark is virtually useless for him and it'll be like kicking for goal with no one there of if Umps will call him play on more

That would never happen! The umpire will call play on straight away if he moves off his line.

 

[Thetrader15]

Yeah I dont mind it.

But it does make the man on the mark effectively pointless if the kicker deviates as part of their kicking action. Kinda funny seeing how despondent some of those guys have been.


Be interesting to see how it is applied to Buddy's arc.





Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

If the rules committee did their job and told umpires to call play on once he moves off the mark, it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Thetrader15]

Geelong were interesting to watch on the weekend. Quite often they stood 5m back on the 45 degree and didn't stand the mark, but then moved forward as soon as the player played on.

I'd also say there was a lot of leniency given. On numerous occasions, players did move a step or 2 and no 50m was give - which was a good result.

 

[Interloperer]

It's a bad rule, like all recent changes. Will bump up scores for a few rounds before teams adapt and drive scores way down again.

I don’t understand why Tex (from memory) was forced so far inside the boundary with the OOF on the wing. Everywhere else on the ground you stand on or behind the mark and the opponent is forced to kick over you unless they deviate from the line directly over you at goal. But on this occasion it’s a gift to run straight at goal under no pressure.

My understanding is that, as a failed attempt to mitigate the problems with the rule, you get a little bit of lateral movement before "Stand" is called, at which point you have to freeze.

defending teams use this to cut off the inside pass from OOF free kicks. Attackers have countered this by just running straight through where the mark should be.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Seen enough of the show to know it is gabarge. Haven't seen enough of the rule.

 

[Truck25]

I understand what they are trying to do but I don't like the look. I've Always been a fan of working the mark. To stand still just seems wrong. I think they need to tweak it and allow some movement, Ollie Wines 50 was just wrong. Maybe a 1-2m circle type of thing.

 

[Thetrader15]

I understand what they are trying to do but I don't like the look. I've Always been a fan of working the mark. To stand still just seems wrong. I think they need to tweak it and allow some movement, Ollie Wines 50 was just wrong. Maybe a 1-2m circle type of thing.

I agree. I also think the rules should be the same all over the ground, so if the player on the mark has to stand during a shot for goal, the player shooting should only have 10-15 seconds too.

But calling play on is the key to this whole rule.

 

[Betts are off]

If it continues to make leading forwards who bomb 60m fatty's more relevant in modern footy, then i'm 100% behind it!

 

[AFC979810]

Stop changing the rules every damn day.

The only rule changes that work just mitigate the rule changes that didn't work.

 

[dude316]

The worst part of the new stand rule is that I haven’t been able to get that R.E.M song out of my head for two weeks

 

[Jarman3]

I didn't actually watch much footy on the weekend, so I didn't really notice it getting paid. Did they actually pay a lot of 50's for it, or did players tend to just adhere to the rule so it wasn't necessary?

That's really my biggest issue with it - it's well intentioned, and if it works as intended it improves the flow of the game. But the problem I have is that a 50m penalty just seems like way too heavy a penalty for a guy shuffling one step sideways on the mark, especially if the kicker is already moving sideways and the ump is just a fraction of a second slow calling play on.

 

[Deaneus!]

The worst part of the new stand rule is that I haven’t been able to get that R.E.M song out of my head for two weeks

...which one?

 

[1970crow]

It's a bad rule, like all recent changes. Will bump up scores for a few rounds before teams adapt and drive scores way down again.


My understanding is that, as a failed attempt to mitigate the problems with the rule, you get a little bit of lateral movement before "Stand" is called, at which point you have to freeze.

defending teams use this to cut off the inside pass from OOF free kicks. Attackers have countered this by just running straight through where the mark should be.

Tex wanted to be closer to the boundary line but he was dragged towards the middle by the ump. It was definitely not his call to be 45 degrees away from the line between the opponent and the goal.

 

[flashcrow]

...which one?

"Can't Get There from Here"?

 

[dude316]

...which one?

 

[BRL121]

Tex wanted to be closer to the boundary line but he was dragged towards the middle by the ump. It was definitely not his call to be 45 degrees away from the line between the opponent and the goal.

This is absolutely correct. I recall the umpire screaming "5-metres" at poor old Tex who wanted to stand the mark properly. Yet, the same thing did not seem to happen elsewhere. Perhaps this should be brought up at the weekly review?