As distinct from breaking the tackle or simply a bad tackle, all in a split second.
News Holding the Ball rule change for 2022 Announced
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
As distinct from breaking the tackle or simply a bad tackle, all in a split second.
- Oct 16, 2015
- 24,279
- 30,558
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Neither can most players
- Oct 16, 2015
- 24,279
- 30,558
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Only if it's a close game, which is rare. Most high scoring games are one sided, which is something the AFL doesn't want either.
- Oct 16, 2015
- 24,279
- 30,558
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
If a player doesn't have prior, there should be ball up if he doesn't immediately dispose of it (correctly) or it's not knocked out in the tackle, like was the case in the 90s and 2000s. The umpires let the play go too long now.
The rolling mauls are worse than a ball up. Call the ball up, and throw it up after 2 seconds. Don't wait 20 seconds for rucks (and 15 other players) to come in from 50m away and cause congestion. It's the nomination of rucks which is causing congestion.
If prior opportunity (and that's about 2 seconds), and no legal disposal (kick or handball), it's HTB whether it's knocked out, dropped, given to another player or held in.
It's not rocket science!
The rolling mauls are worse than a ball up. Call the ball up, and throw it up after 2 seconds. Don't wait 20 seconds for rucks (and 15 other players) to come in from 50m away and cause congestion. It's the nomination of rucks which is causing congestion.
If prior opportunity (and that's about 2 seconds), and no legal disposal (kick or handball), it's HTB whether it's knocked out, dropped, given to another player or held in.
It's not rocket science!
- Prior opportunity (~2 seconds)-> If it's not immediately (<1 second) handballed or kicked, it's HTB.
- No prior opportunity-> Knocked out, or legally disposed of within 1 second- play on. Otherwise, ball up within 3 seconds.
- Oct 16, 2015
- 24,279
- 30,558
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Whatever happened to the rule that if a player contributes to the high contact, they don't get a free kick? Dropping the knees, raising the arm to lift the tackle, leaning into a player are all contributing (I would argue causing) the high contact, so shouldn't be a free.
Officials and umpires say the tackler has to 'do better', but if someone is falling into you sideways, or drops their knees just as you are about to tackle, how are you supposed to tackle?
Your mastery of the use of the unsupported statement to respond to the facts and figures used to answer your previous unsupported statements is breathtaking arse.
Those things are completely unrelated, stand only applied from a mark. Therefore it had no impact on the 'rolling maul' situation at all. Unless your suggesting it led to more kick-mark disposal chains, of which I did not see any evidence of.
You don’t the difference between attempting to break a tackle and trying to milk a high contact free kick?
By the way, if you attempt to break a tackle it’s holding the ball if you don’t kick or hand pass the ball.
Facts & figures? You may as well be quoting the NBA numbers for how relevant they were to the argument.Your mastery of the use of the unsupported statement to respond to the facts and figures used to answer your previous unsupported statements is breathtaking arse.
Be that as it may, a person making totally unsupported and demonstrably incorrect statements wouldn’t be in any position to criticise would they?
Demonstrably incorrect? Given how off base any attempts at addressing it via stats have been from you... totally in a position.
Ok, then, demonstrate to us exactly how the stand rule has "increased the value of one of he best aspects of the game, marking.” And how this “encourages more marks.”
I demonstrated how I think those statements made by you were wrong. Now let’s see you demonstrate why you think they are right. This will be good.
. I am looking forward to some more unsupported statements to support the unsupported statements you made in the first place. You are one of the finer exponents of the unsupported statement I have seen on these pages. When I need an unsupported statement to disprove I will refer to you in future, one of the best in the business.
I really need to demonstrate that the stand rule has increased the value of taking a mark? You really think this needs supporting beyond what is self-evident? Seriously?
I concede the second sentence of the original post was poorly worded. It would be better to say it does provide a tool for coaches to use in a way that will encourage more risk-reward with marking based strategies.
Any which way I think marking is a worthy element of the game for greater reward and if you're going to try and improve the game is a good a lever to pull as any.
On the flipside, do you have anything substantial to support the claim it's degrading the game?
I concede the second sentence of the original post was poorly worded. It would be better to say it does provide a tool for coaches to use in a way that will encourage more risk-reward with marking based strategies.
Any which way I think marking is a worthy element of the game for greater reward and if you're going to try and improve the game is a good a lever to pull as any.
On the flipside, do you have anything substantial to support the claim it's degrading the game?
So your position is your "self evident" observation, despite being demonstrably incorrect, needs no supporting evidence.
But my demonstrably correct observations about the ineffectiveness of the stand rule in even increasing marking let alone scoring, need further evidence than scoring decreased and marking decreased.
The rule was introduced without proper trial, without proper notice, which was always going to make it prone to unintended consequences marring its effect. Before the season had commenced there were some of us just on here predicting it will lead to teams flooding more players behind the ball which is precisely what happened.
Imagine explaining to an international visitor why the man on the mark cannot stand in line with where he thinks the ball will be kicked….. Well because a guy called Stephen Hocking who used to play for Geelong was in charge of the rules of the game, and after Geelong got beaten in a series of finals when they couldn’t advance the ball in a slow boring fashion by chipping it through the opponents defensive structure he decided to cryogenically freeze the man on the mark so he could not defend a kick on any other line that the one he is told to stand on by the umpire. Oh, and by the way, he almost immediately resigned his position in charge of rules of the game to take up his appointment as Geelong FC CEO. Only to be replaced in his position in charge of rules of he game by the twin brother of the coach of the Geelong FC.
Where is the evidence, other than it being “self-evident” according to you, that this ill thought out, radical, untrialled and arbitrary rule has changed the game for the better?
Putting any old old manky rope out there ain't demonstrating nothing other than maybe your lack of stats savvy.So your position is your "self evident" observation, despite being demonstrably incorrect, needs no supporting evidence.
But my demonstrably correct observations about the ineffectiveness of the stand rule in even increasing marking let alone scoring, need further evidence than scoring decreased and marking decreased.
The rule was introduced without proper trial, without proper notice, which was always going to make it prone to unintended consequences marring its effect. Before the season had commenced there were some of us just on here predicting it will lead to teams flooding more players behind the ball which is precisely what happened.
Imagine explaining to an international visitor why the man on the mark cannot stand in line with where he thinks the ball will be kicked….. Well because a guy called Stephen Hocking who used to play for Geelong was in charge of the rules of the game, and after Geelong got beaten in a series of finals when they couldn’t advance the ball in a slow boring fashion by chipping it through the opponents defensive structure he decided to cryogenically freeze the man on the mark so he could not defend a kick on any other line that the one he is told to stand on by the umpire. Oh, and by the way, he almost immediately resigned his position in charge of rules of the game to take up his appointment as Geelong FC CEO. Only to be replaced in his position in charge of rules of he game by the twin brother of the coach of the Geelong FC.
Where is the evidence, other than it being “self-evident” according to you, that this ill thought out, radical, untrialled and arbitrary rule has changed the game for the better?
Explain to me in detail how the stand rule is not increasing the value/reward for taking a mark?
"Demonstrably incorrect" LOL. Saying that repeatedly, even with variations, doesn't add any validity to it I'm afraid. Give something of substance.
Substantiation?
Substantiation?
But seriously, how does defending multiple lines on the mark improve the game? Be specific now.
You are the absolute master of the unsupported claim and you are asking me for detailed substantiation of every think I write. That is hilarious.So that's a no then? (didn't really expect any, was being facetious)
Care to explain to me in detail how the stand rule is not increasing the value/reward for taking a mark then?
That is simple to answer. Because the rest of the game did not remain the same after the rule was introduced. In one of the greatest shocks witnessed in footy since Collingwood finished runner-up one year - ok the year was 1966 and the Premier was St Kilda - the club footy departments didn’t look at the new rule and say we better not do anything to defend the situation when the man on the mark is forced to stand like he’d just been sprayed by Mr Freeze of Batman fame. To the great surprise of no-one they didn’t say we should just take it like the men we are when one of our number is reduced to being a spectator by this new rule. They did something the f*ck about it. And the thing they did the f*ck about it was exactly what any sensible person would do in the same situation, which is why it was so easy to predict. They took players from in front of the ball and put them behind the ball. Which is why scoring went down, and why forwards were taking relatively less marks than backs compared to 2019. All as explained to you previously.
The trick is to realise this one thing: only one thing is the ultimate arbiter of value in footy, and that is score.
Last edited:
If it's so simple to answer why didn't you give one?
I gave you the correct answer. It is not my job to help you understand that things in this world do not exist in a vacuum. That part is for you my friend.
Perhaps it will be easier for you to explain how you think the new stand rule has increased the value of a mark. Then we can see where you are going wrong and straighten the whole matter up for you.
No need to be afraid of a simple answer.
If it's so seismic a change that shook the foundations, you don't believe there's any significant advantage? ... Or maybe you do...
If it's so seismic a change that shook the foundations, you don't believe there's any significant advantage? ... Or maybe you do...
So now we've established you agree there's an advantage, we can move on to something else that will test your willingness to give a straight answer.I gave you the correct answer. It is not my job to help you understand that things in this world do not exist in a vacuum. That part is for you my friend.
Perhaps it will be easier for you to explain how you think the new stand rule has increased the value of a mark. Then we can see where you are going wrong and straighten the whole matter up for you.
Again given the foundation shaking catastrophe you think it is removing it, what does being able to move around on the mark actually add to the game?
Must be something quintessential that makes Aussie Rules what it is, yes?
It is clear we are talking about two different things and you are ignoring he one that matters most.
You are talking about the immediate benefit of a mark or free kick, that is, that the player in possession has less pressure on his kick from the man on the mark than before. Nobody is going to deny that.
I am talking about the overall value of that to the team in possession. It doesn’t seem to be reaping any dividend on the scoreboard, the only place that matters. In fact it is seemingly not even leading to more marks from these unimpeded kicks.
In any event, it is a change made to a long standing practice of the man on the mark being able to move laterally to his hearts content. To make a change like that there needs to be a clear case made. There wasn’t. Even a year post implementation the only case you seem to be able to make is the benefits are self evident and some vague arguments about coaches now having more attacking options available to them. Only they haven’t, because other coaches have cut them off.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 6,360
- 9,599
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Get rid of the moronic STAND rule and I'll be interested in watching the game again.
Apart from that, just stop meddling, the game was fine before Tinkerman Gill and his cronies came along.
The joy I focus on, is that one day, they will be gone and their AFLX rule changes will be slowly undone over time.
Apart from that, just stop meddling, the game was fine before Tinkerman Gill and his cronies came along.
The joy I focus on, is that one day, they will be gone and their AFLX rule changes will be slowly undone over time.
Similar threads
