Opinion Is the stand rule stopping you from going to games ? (poll)
- Thread starter Groupie_
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Agree 200 per cent.
I have no issue with the stand rule. It makes sense and is what the initial rule intended , to actually STAND on the mark.
Phar Ace
Brownlow Medallist
Phar Ace
Brownlow Medallist
Like a lot of rules, it becomes less about how they are adopted, but rather how they are interpreted. I have consistently said the game must find a balance between opportunities for the team in control of the footy and the team not in control - otherwise the game becomes a sham and full of frustration to the players and watchers.
I can live with the Stand Rule if it is both adjudicated with balance and penalised with relevance. I don't think either are being achieved well enough at the moment. I also detest umpires effectively scoring goals. I know that isn't completely avoidable, but it has been an accelerating feature of the game in recent times and I don't think it is good for the game.
Umpires love scoring goals .. that won't stop anytime soon.
As Grant Thomas once said about them, 'they need to check their egos at the door'.
Simply play on needs to be called much quicker , few infractions are called for stand , much fewer than I expected , the common fk up which is arbitrarily administered is handing ball back , we must be only team that ever gets free against with umpire being fairly liberal with our oppo getting ball back , three as one in the elim form memory let go to keeper
- Jul 8, 2017
- 21,803
- 64,231
- AFL Club
- Richmond
These campaigners are corrupt as *.
Surprise f##king surprise .. fancy the AFL adding an amendment to the farcical Stand rule because it has opened up more ways to fool the umps into knee jerk 50 m penalties … f##k the Stand rule off you morons ….. the madness that is The AFL continues
- Feb 14, 2014
- 5,274
- 12,750
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Not only the stand rule but the dickhead who tries to rev up the crowd. He MC'd a wedding I went to on the weekend and he pissed me off enough I ended up telling him all football fans wished he would shut the * up and we would rather watch a dog sniff another dog's arse than listen to him tell us to "make some noise"
- Feb 14, 2014
- 5,274
- 12,750
- AFL Club
- Richmond
I was told his name was Daniel
Oh god, we all know what is going to happen in round 1.
If a player faking a handball steps off their line, umpires will now call play-on to deter such acts.
A Richmond player will only need to look sideways to be called to play on
The other change to the standing-the-mark rule relates to the five-metre protected area.
When a player is penalised for giving away a free kick or loses a marking contest, they must stand the mark or immediately leave the protected area.
You just know we are going to get smashed in this one
Meanwhile, players will receive a warning after 25 seconds of their set-shot, instead of at 15 seconds.
More like we will get a warning at 20 seconds and called to play on at 25 seconds
If a player faking a handball steps off their line, umpires will now call play-on to deter such acts.
A Richmond player will only need to look sideways to be called to play on
The other change to the standing-the-mark rule relates to the five-metre protected area.
When a player is penalised for giving away a free kick or loses a marking contest, they must stand the mark or immediately leave the protected area.
You just know we are going to get smashed in this one
Meanwhile, players will receive a warning after 25 seconds of their set-shot, instead of at 15 seconds.
More like we will get a warning at 20 seconds and called to play on at 25 seconds
smasha
It's Time!
We see right through em.
Phar Ace
Brownlow Medallist
Oops, that might be embarrassing, maybe there is bloke out telling this story on repeat......
Phar Ace
Brownlow Medallist
My main concern with this, is we now rely on part time umpires to discern what 'faking' actually is. Perhaps they need to check it with their girlfriends/boyfiends.
The game is so figgen fast that I can see these guys/girls calling anything at all that is a change of mind and/or reaction to a teammate call also as 'faking'! That's how these people role. I'm not suggesting it is easy to discern. At least it would be an easy free to do a reversal on when they inevitably get it wrong - but they won't do that either - they are too precious by half.
THEN THERE IS.......Immediately leave the protected zone - OK, does that mean aimlessly run away - or what if they look for their man first after they pushed up to the contest? I mean losing a marking contest - are they for real? Immediately? Not immediately 'begin', but immediately. Immediately move 5 metres?
Have they checked out all marking contest recently? How many times are there more than two players in a marking contest? Let's say 5 are in a marking contest, 3 for X and two from Y, one of Y marks, how is the umpire going to discern which of these 3 has not immediately left the protected zone This just gets worse I think. Let's remember:
This was the changed adjudication for 2016:
Then we got this little abomination at the start of 2021
Along with a new five-metre protected area around the player on the mark that even teammates are not allowed to enter.
Look it took until end of June of 2022 to just get this obvious one happening:
@maxlaughton
June 28th, 2022 4:14 pm
The AFL has tweaked the protected area rule, following criticism about 50-metre penalties being given unfairly against some players.
The league has informed clubs that players can now infringe the 10-metre protected area if they have “split” from their opponent and are trying to run with them.
Previously players were allowed to follow their opponent into the area around a player who has marked the ball if they were within two metres of the opponent.
Now the opponents can split apart but a 50-metre penalty will not be given against the defender who is trying to clear the zone.
The defender must still clear the area as soon as possible.
A prime example of a 50-metre penalty which would no longer be given is Essendon’s Matt Guelfi being penalised against St Kilda.
Guelfi was juked by opponent Jack Sinclair and ran on the other side of Saints player Jack Billings, and was thus penalised for being in the protected area.
“The protected area rule is designed for the kicker to have options to move the ball,” AFL head of umpiring Dan Richardson said.
“It is having the desired effect, however there have been more and more instances of players deliberately running their opponent into the zone with the intention of getting split and/or drawing a 50m penalty.
“If this ‘split’ of players happens, providing the defender moves to vacate the area, the umpires have been instructed to no longer apply a 50m penalty.
“Feedback is important, and we continually listen to a whole range of stakeholders, and this clarification will provide opportunity for the rule to be applied as intended.”
TINKER, TAILOR THE AFL IS A FAILURE!
Umpire to yell “Stand” followed by “Don’t fake” x 4
Excellent addition this will be
Just get rid of the stand rule and they don't need to make adjustments but the AFL are too ******* stubborn, how clubs haven't come out and said get rid of it is beyond me.
Phar Ace
Brownlow Medallist
Problem was Balmey's alternative suggestion that the guy who had to Stand should now be allowed to give a coathanger to the guy with the ball instead, just didn't get enough widespread support
Dr Tigris
Brownlow Medallist
Just allow the guy on the mark to move one step, like in basketball. Easy fix. Achieves the same goal, but stops the stupid frees that annoy people.
