Opinion Is the stand rule stopping you from going to games ? (poll)

[Bojangles17]

How about the people that have been making 3 hour trips for decades to attend games? Never seen any of them use it as an excuse to not attend games. Yeah the extra travel time at the moment is a pain in the ass, but bottom line is the actual game being rooted (even more so from a Richmond standpoint) really should be a bigger concern than some temporary extra travel time to get there.


Sorry mate but even with a small sample size a 62% majority isn't going to magically become 0.5%(lol) just because you expanded it. All these people voting they're staying away for one specific reason is a pretty good indicator something is wrong here. Ridiculous to try write it off as nothing just because you personally don't see it as much of an issue and have different reasons for not attending.

I call bs , other big clubs had large increase in crowds in 2022 EG blues and pies and some nut jobs on here are trying to convince us the stand rule keeping them away ,,,garbage

 

[kozi]

I call bs , other big clubs had large increase in crowds in 2022 EG blues and pies and some nut jobs on here are trying to convince us the stand rule keeping them away ,,,garbage

Might want to have another think about why Blues and Pies were up. Had their most successful seasons in ages

Regardless this isn't about them. Are you trying to say the 44 people here that voted yes are nutjobs trying to convince you of something? Strong accusation

 

[Bojangles17]

Might want to have another think about why Blues and Pies were up. Had their most successful seasons in ages

Regardless this isn't about them. Are you trying to say the 44 people here that voted yes are nutjobs trying to convince you of something? Strong accusation

Yea I’m saying it’s a facade , as you rightly pointed to our rivals enjoyed positive seasons and their crowds rose accordingly , while we were off premiership form we still won our share of games yet went backwards why peeps chose not to go is piss weak if they claim it’s stand rule which i dont believe .

 

[Groupie_]

I call bs , other big clubs had large increase in crowds in 2022 EG blues and pies and some nut jobs on here are trying to convince us the stand rule keeping them away ,,,garbage

lol the afl targeted the blooze and colonwood with the stand rule did they ?

it was targeted at rfc by a flog whos club couldnt beat us in finals . if the afl did that to colonwood or blooze after a flag they'd play to empty stadiums

 

[Bojangles17]

lol the afl targeted the blooze and colonwood with the stand rule did they ?

it was targeted at rfc by a flog whos club couldnt beat us in finals . if the afl did that to colonwood or blooze after a flag they'd play to empty stadiums

Cmon you think we were only club that exploited it ,,,rewind ‘20 GF and watch cats use it to

 

[Groupie_]

Cmon you think we were only club that exploited it ,,,rewind ‘20 GF and watch cats use it to

shocking is on record saying "we hope the stand rule brings them back to the pack"

that rule change has filled our supporters with hatred for the afl because they targeted us cos we kept winning premierships

 

[Phar Ace]

The answer to this question is a little bit yes and a little bit no. Covid has played a part, but the yes part is I cant stand is the umpired effect on the game. It is now too profound an impact they have on a a result of a game. I have never turned off the TV when watching footy more in my life than in 2022. It becomes offensive to watch at times. The game is surviving, as a good thing will, but it is a struggle the last few years. The rule change aims/goals were admirable, but so ill-conceived due to no trial or test lab.

I do fear where the game is heading.

 

[kozi]

Yea I’m saying it’s a facade , as you rightly pointed to our rivals enjoyed positive seasons and their crowds rose accordingly , while we were off premiership form we still won our share of games yet went backwards why peeps chose not to go is piss weak if they claim it’s stand rule which i dont believe .

Yeah ok 44 people voted yes just to put on a facade

 

[biaseddustyfan]

combination of basically all of shocking/gil's gimmicky rules from the last 6 years make me less likely to go, and also watching about 70% less of the oppo games on TV because the stand rule especially makes it a horrible spectacle so hard to watch if it's not my tigs playing

 

[Bojangles17]

shocking is on record saying "we hope the stand rule brings them back to the pack"

that rule change has filled our supporters with hatred for the afl because they targeted us cos we kept winning premierships

Is he , find the quote

 

[DickieKnee]

shocking is on record saying "we hope the stand rule brings them back to the pack"

that rule change has filled our supporters with hatred for the afl because they targeted us cos we kept winning premierships

And now they've taken $2 million from us and given it to teams like scats and godees, the last 2 flag winners. Our membership dollars going to other clubs to help them win flags.

 

[tora tora tora]

Yet another skill that was removed from the game. I still think deliberate out of bounds is the second most contentious rule (behind holding the ball) in the game. Why was it brought in ? To increase scoring (for sponsors ads mainly) by ensuring that a defender boxed in couldn't kick the ball up the line. (The same reason a defender could no longer chop the arm of a forward in a marking contest, increase scoring) He now either has to try to fake fumbling the ball over the line (here we go back to kindergarten stuff a la the Stand rule and the nominate to go up on the ruck rule) or let his team down by trying to keep the ball in play by doing something stupid or dangerous, nearly always turning the ball over on a dangerous position. The original skill is removed (like so many others) and guess what there's no increase in scoring (sound familiar). Then finally, here's the rub, the rule itself is left up to a wide interpretation making it virtually impossible to be consistent, so it isn't consistent and drives everyone crazy.

There was no need to introduce this rule. A defender usually got a round of applause for being able to execute a difficult kick under pressure and made ground for his team. If he screwed it up and kicked it out on the full or turned it over, kudos to the bloke who put the pressure on. What the bloody hell was wrong with that ? It allowed the game to reset for a boundary throw in, take a sip of your beer (or a bite of pie) without missing any action) and allowed ruckman and followers to go to work. It was a great part of the game !

The game is being fundamentally changed, bit by bit, rule by rule until it has become almost unrecognisable from the greatest game ever devised.

The rule changers are a blight on the game and should hang their heads in shame. 666 (netball basically), stand, medi sub, deliberate out of bounds, chopping the arms, ruck nominating and the failure over at least a decade or more, to be completely unable to get a consistent ruling on holding the ball or is it dropping the ball or is it illegal disposal (???) has turned our brilliant game into a farce at times.

Add to that the ARC joke (not very ******* funny when it decides a final!)

So, * off Gil and SHocking and the Scotts , leave the bloody game alone ! For about the one millionth time !

(If you're tldr then you deserve exactly what you get - nothing but eating the s**t you're fed)

The 3 umpire interpretation of rules which change by the week. Crack down on dissent for a while cos umpire numbers are down. The 50m penalties cost us games. I've given up trying to understand. DOOB I understand the rationale. I'm interstate and get to 2 or 3 games a year. So my $150 RFC membership is a donation. I can afford. If I was in Melbourne the gripes about game day & ticketing would apply. I watch a qtr of 2 of non RFC games on TV.

I think the AFL love to be controversial. If there's an opportunity to take oxygen from oppo codes they do. Having Gale complain about Stand rule is oxygen. for talk back & social media. No such thing as bad publicity & the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

 

[Grrr]

Yea I’m saying it’s a facade , as you rightly pointed to our rivals enjoyed positive seasons and their crowds rose accordingly , while we were off premiership form we still won our share of games yet went backwards why peeps chose not to go is piss weak if they claim it’s stand rule which i dont believe .

I think you are thinking only in regard to going to the game (which to be fair is the title of the thread). I live 6 hours away so going to the game is a rare option, so the argument for me is has the game become a better spectacle. That one is easy to answer, no. That would rationally transfer to crowd attendances.

Crowds are fickle no doubt and winning and losing are significant factors, but whether you are yelling at the tv screen or inside the MCG, the stand rule in its present form is a blight on the game and has certainly taken away from the enjoyment of the game. I just don't understand how it can stay in its present form because it is so unpopular. Loosen it, adapt it or something if they plan to keep it, but do something to make it more palatable.

 

[captain blood 17]

The draw is the biggest impediment for me. Thursday night/Friday night games are a killer for me being regional. Combine that with my kids sport and i very rarely get to go.
But, i have found i am only Richmond games on tv. The stand rule and ruck noms are killing it for me. And of course AFL corruption. * them.

 

[Phar Ace]

The 3 umpire interpretation of rules which change by the week. Crack down on dissent for a while cos umpire numbers are down. The 50m penalties cost us games. I've given up trying to understand. DOOB I understand the rationale. I'm interstate and get to 2 or 3 games a year. So my $150 RFC membership is a donation. I can afford. If I was in Melbourne the gripes about game day & ticketing would apply. I watch a qtr of 2 of non RFC games on TV.

I think the AFL love to be controversial. If there's an opportunity to take oxygen from oppo codes they do. Having Gale complain about Stand rule is oxygen. for talk back & social media. No such thing as bad publicity & the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

There is probably more to what you suggest than people might think.

 

[Phar Ace]

I think you are thinking only in regard to going to the game (which to be fair is the title of the thread). I live 6 hours away so going to the game is a rare option, so the argument for me is has the game become a better spectacle. That one is easy to answer, no. That would rationally transfer to crowd attendances.

Crowds are fickle no doubt and winning and losing are significant factors, but whether you are yelling at the tv screen or inside the MCG, the stand rule in its present form is a blight on the game and has certainly taken away from the enjoyment of the game. I just don't understand how it can stay in its present form because it is so unpopular. Loosen it, adapt it or something if they plan to keep it, but do something to make it more palatable.

This is the thing. Have we ever been told what the consultation and assessment process was to justify a major change to take one player out of the game until the umpire deems otherwise (and the amount of time can vary wildly from umpire to umpire)? I loved playing footy til I was 46, played with intensity whenever on the ground - those moments on the Mark would just do my head in - tip my hat to young players doing it and coping with the wild inconsistencies. It's an aural blight on the game - and when a goal is scored from a Stand infringement I turn off the TV. No longer care what the result is because it feels flawed.

As an aside - I'm stunned the vote is that close. Perhaps past game replays will become my go to.....

 

[Marcel Proust]

Yea I’m saying it’s a facade , as you rightly pointed to our rivals enjoyed positive seasons and their crowds rose accordingly , while we were off premiership form we still won our share of games yet went backwards why peeps chose not to go is piss weak if they claim it’s stand rule which i dont believe .

It's not just the stand rule it's the number of bullshit rules killing the game.

Umpire-cheating doesn't help either

 

[Grrr]

It's not just the stand rule it's the number of bullshit rules killing the game.

Umpire-cheating doesn't help either

I can cope with the umps shafting us, sort of used to it by now. I can cope with umpire misinterpretation, that is part of our game and always has been, but the stand rule is just sanctioned cheating.

One of the best utilisers of this new rule playing it to his advantage, which must really hurt Hocking because it is a Richmond player, is Cam MacIntosh. I don't think I have ever seen him go anywhere near kicking over his mark and is usually at least up to the mark laterally or sometimes past it when he kicks the ball.

I have mentioned this before, but if they allowed a couple of metres lateral movement, not hard to police, then the rule would be more palatable. The player might take a bit to get used to it, but it would take away the ridiculous disadvantage the player on the mark is under, and would allow far less umpire direction. Also the player trying to take up space on the mark, what the rule was designed to stop, would still be penalised. Yet to hear an argument against it.

 

[Phar Ace]

I can cope with the umps shafting us, sort of used to it by now. I can cope with umpire misinterpretation, that is part of our game and always has been, but the stand rule is just sanctioned cheating.

One of the best utilisers of this new rule playing it to his advantage, which must really hurt Hocking because it is a Richmond player, is Cam MacIntosh. I don't think I have ever seen him go anywhere near kicking over his mark and is usually at least up to the mark laterally or sometimes past it when he kicks the ball.

I have mentioned this before, but if they allowed a couple of metres lateral movement, not hard to police, then the rule would be more palatable. The player might take a bit to get used to it, but it would take away the ridiculous disadvantage the player on the mark is under, and would allow far less umpire direction. Also the player trying to take up space on the mark, what the rule was designed to stop, would still be penalised. Yet to hear an argument against it.

In fairness, if the defending player on the mark cannot move, the player with the ball can't move laterally more than a metre or it's play on! Rules have to be proportionately neutral in my opinion - given each side a fair contest.

It is crucial this is proportionate under the rules. I will watch a game again when I have some some and try and grab two snips of the disproportion of what exists. I'm sure we are all aware of it.

Agree with the highlighted bit above absolutely. It is true for all sport and I'm not sure why people think complaining will change that. What is needed is full-time professional umpires umpiring full-time professional players - period! I realise that will take time, but make that goal a stated goal ASAP.

 

[Tigeron]

Did the man on mark move when Lynch had a shot in the final

 

[Grrr]

In fairness, if the defending player on the mark cannot move, the player with the ball can't move laterally more than a metre or it's play on! Rules have to be proportionately neutral in my opinion - given each side a fair contest.

It is crucial this is proportionate under the rules. I will watch a game again when I have some some and try and grab two snips of the disproportion of what exists. I'm sure we are all aware of it.

Agree with the highlighted bit above absolutely. It is true for all sport and I'm not sure why people think complaining will change that. What is needed is full-time professional umpires umpiring full-time professional players - period! I realise that will take time, but make that goal a stated goal ASAP.

The ump has his eye on the player on the mark, making sure he does not move one step. The player with the ball always has a second or two, sometimes more before the ump realises he is off by the time he calls him play on and often due to crowd noise the marker can't always here this, the player has 5-20m head start. Players can run 20m in 3 seconds, so that is a huge advantage and that is even if the player with the ball is over his mark to start with, which is often not the case. Watch MacIntosh, he never is and does this every play.

The player on the mark for an out the full or deliberate has to stand with his foot on the boundary line, why? The kicker is always inside the field of play so there's 5m before anything happens. Before the rule that man on the mark would be in a straight line between the player and the goals. Another disadvantage.

As I have said, if the player on the mark was able to move a couple of metres either way then all this wouldn't take place. It would take the pressure off the ump, would not 'hurt the game,' the reason it was brought in and would be so much fairer. If the player moved more then a 50m is the players own fault not some instant reflex action which the ball carriers are faking to milk the 50.. Why has this never been discussed when it seems so obvious.

 

[tora tora tora]

It's not just the stand rule it's the number of bullshit rules killing the game.

Umpire-cheating doesn't help either

3 umps changing interpretation of rules especially the obscure one like Warner kicking the ball away after the siren, Ump calls for "common sense" is joke when a result is in the balance. Goal umpire getting overruled in the Lynch goal decision. In general the change of interpretation of Holding the ball, insufficient attempt can leave a spectator wondering what game am I looking at . Want games speeded up? then stop making rucks nominate for the 50 ruck contests.
Despite all that I watch as much tigers as possible. The Dimma era. Dusty, Cotch, JR, Nank, Picket, Vlas, Broad, MRJ. Good debuts from Noah C, Sonz, Gibcus.. still worth watching & going when possible.
Soccer with one ref is better but still plenty of wrong calls..

 

[Maurice Mitchell]

In fairness, if the defending player on the mark cannot move, the player with the ball can't move laterally more than a metre or it's play on! Rules have to be proportionately neutral in my opinion - given each side a fair contest.

Always been my biggest frustration with the implementation. Ump should be in a line with the two players. The moment the kicker moves off his line, “play on”.

Shots on goal are farcical. Blokes are running around gaining ten metres; the guy on the mark looks helplessly, rooted to the spot as the ump says nothing.

The rule is terrible but it’s also one more thing the umps have think about. If they can’t implement properly then there is also another why it needs to go.

 

[Grrr]

Always been my biggest frustration with the implementation. Ump should be in a line with the two players. The moment the kicker moves off his line, “play on”.

Shots on goal are farcical. Blokes are running around gaining ten metres; the guy on the mark looks helplessly, rooted to the spot as the ump says nothing.

The rule is terrible but it’s also one more thing the umps have think about. If they can’t implement properly then there is also another why it needs to go.

He can't watch two players at once, eyes for the man on the mark only, that way he gets to run backwards 50m and wave his little finger tut tut.

 

[kozi]

Isn't it funny how the more against the stand rule you are, the more rational you start to sound