Rules Should the stand rule be abolished?

[Meteoric Rise]

This rule and the way it was brought in is a blight on the game. And Blight coached Geelong so f*ck him.

Seriously, you take a mark or are awarded a free kick the fair thing is you can kick, handball or run from that spot, rather than the man on the mark standing on that spot and you kick, handball or run from some point metres behind that. So instead of the player with the free kick going back behind the mark he stays on the mark and the player guarding the mark is taken back say 5-10 metres. From that point, allow the player on the mark to move in any direction he wants but not into the protected area until the player in possession has played on.

 

[Strange Cat]

What a shock that a tiger supporter started this thread in question

Shocked I tell you!!

 

[CharacterFirst]

Excellent rule.

You have to "man the mark", and don't cheat in doing it.

It is football's mankad.

 

[Agenda 21]

Abolish it when having a shot, inside 50.

 

[Sttew]

The game is better with the stand rule, so it’s a no brainer

 

[AnEmptyChair]

absolutely not.

the quality of footy in the last two years has been the best it's been in a very long time and a significant reason -- albeit not the only one -- is the stand rule. The game flows better, it allows for faster footy, it gives more freedom to creative players, and it results in less stagnation and congestion. it's legitimately the best change to the rules the AFL has made in years

 

[St Plugger]

Nah, abolish it and bring in 15 aside instead to improve the spectacle!

 

[Grin]

No, the stand rule and the ARC are the only things keeping Richmond from winning 27 premierships in a row, or so I've heard. It needs to remain for equalisation.

Of course, it is all about Richmond

What a shock that a tiger supporter started this thread in question

Shocked I tell you!!

Sigh. Everything's always all about Richmond with you.

 

[Osho]

Now the result wanted is achieved, yes, get rid of it, let coaches and strategies evolve without any inside running.

 

[LTT]

Should this horrendous rule be removed?

And why or why not?

The biggest problem with this rule is that it doesn’t allow for crowd noise. I hate it when the player with the ball goes back 5m and 3m off his line and the umpire allows it because it’s too hard or too noisy. Then when the player immediately runs off his line the umpire often delays his call or the call is barely audible. It would be so much simpler to drag the player on the mark back 5m and apply the old rules. This would have the advantage that a forward who marks the ball on the 50m line would get to kick from the 50m line not from 55m. This in turn would force the defender to defend further out from the goals. The stand rule seems to be a complicated solution when a simple solution would be better

 

[lewdogs]

It's a great rule. The player whose opponent marks or gets a free kick is effectively out of play. Seriously why do people have a problem with it? For once the AFL actually brought in a good rule, as if they're going to change it back lol.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

The "STAAAAAAAAAND" rule could be the worst of all these inane rules. It's so unnatural, it removes the "psyche out" component, and I've seen it stop players from moving once their opponent peels off the mark. It hasn't achieved an increase in scoring. Scoring has continued fluctuating down.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

There’s no reason to abolish it.

Scores haven’t dropped off. The game seems to be flowing a little better. Commentators are complaining less about the look of the game, during games, which makes watching on tv a little more tolerable.

It’s just another step in the ever evolving rules of AFL football. The person in the seat next will look to make their mark on the game with another rule change that will probably be more contentious.

Scoring has dropped off, when you compare pre-stand 2017 to 2022.

 

[RUNVS]

Most of the people voting no probably also complained about the state of the game a few years ago, and now it has improved they want it to go back to what it was.

 

[Captivating]

It's a great rule. The player whose opponent marks or gets a free kick is effectively out of play. Seriously why do people have a problem with it? For once the AFL actually brought in a good rule, as if they're going to change it back lol.

I get what you're saying, but the stand rule keeps the player on the mark out of play when the kicker plays on. As soon as the player with the ball deviates from the line, the player on the mark should be permitted to move. It's *ing dumb to watch a player run past the player on the mark to kick the ball.

 

[Noidnadroj]

Of course, it is all about Richmond

Did Geelong change their style in 2022? Did Collingwood change their style? Did Sydney change their style? All adopted a far more aggressive, forward momentum gameplan.

If you don’t think we are in a copycat league you haven’t been concentrating. You were a bit too quick to select my profile and were seriously triggered I followed Richmond without actually digesting what I wrote.

If you disagree, why not post a reply of substance?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[footyfan1978]

No, but it should be relaxed slightly. A player in possession of the footy can act faster than the umpire is able to communicate.

If a player in possession feigns taking off and the player on the mark instinctively moves, that should be allowed.
We've seen in games where players exploit the lag time when the umpire hasn't yet called 'play on'.

I lose no sleep when the man on the mark has to stand when the free kick is towards the middle of the ground (between the two 50 metre arcs).
When the free kick is inside the 50 metre arc the player on mark should not have to stand. I could live with that adjustment. But as it is right now, I do not like the rule. But at same time I barely lose sleep over it. Just looks stupid to me when someone has shot for goal and man on mark cannot move and free kicker gets too much advantage.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Why can’t they “stand” but if the kicker plays on they can move sideways off the mark to smother a kick or tackle a running play on (but not forward)? That would stop Bevo having our players run back 20m to do god knows what……? We’ve had Pagans Paddock and last year was Bevo’s Bullshit.

 

[LTT]

I get what you're saying, but the stand rule keeps the player on the mark out of play when the kicker plays on. As soon as the player with the ball deviates from the line, the player on the mark should be permitted to move. It's *ing dumb to watch a player run past the player on the mark to kick the ball.

I agree with you. The problem is the player on the mark can’t move until the umpire calls under threat of a 50m penalty This adds inconsistency.

 

[Obeanie1]

Id suggest this rule makes the gap between the top teams and bottom teams even wider.

Why?

Which teams gainthe most advantage from it? Those who are winning, retaining and moving the ball fowrard and attacking. And those with more skillful midfields use the extra space to greater advantage.

And the lower ranked team defending. They basically lose a player on the mark who isnt really allowed to defend.

So the rule may improve scoring but it doesnt help keep games closer and more interesting when a bottom ranked team plays a higher ranked contender.

 

[Obeanie1]

I lose no sleep when the man on the mark has to stand when the free kick is towards the middle of the ground (between the two 50 metre arcs).
When the free kick is inside the 50 metre arc the player on mark should not have to stand. I could live with that adjustment. But as it is right now, I do not like the rule. But at same time I barely lose sleep over it. Just looks stupid to me when someone has shot for goal and man on mark cannot move and free kicker gets too much advantage.

Maybe if a player nominates they are kicking on goal and take the 30 seconds the player on the mark is permitted to move sideways.

That is easy enough to adjudicate.

 

[Maya Sol]

Regardless of my feeling towards the rule I just want a few years with no changes, hate the constant tinkering

 

[footyfan1978]

Regardless of my feeling towards the rule I just want a few years with no changes, hate the constant tinkering

So let's not fix up so many of the ****ed up rule changes of past.
That makes no effing sense.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Most of the people voting no probably also complained about the state of the game a few years ago, and now it has improved they want it to go back to what it was.

Improved according to who? The sheep will turn up to watch their club play chess. They follow their club they don’t care about the sport.

 

[hawkman]

50m works because the ground is (roughly) 3 x 50m, 15m should be a rough distance umpires already know given the bounce rules, 30m is just kind of awkward.

30m is easy to judge, it how far players are allowed to run without bouncing before a free kick is given

No, but it should be relaxed slightly. A player in possession of the footy can act faster than the umpire is able to communicate.

If a player in possession feigns taking off and the player on the mark instinctively moves, that should be allowed.
We've seen in games where players exploit the lag time when the umpire hasn't yet called 'play on'.

The main thing that annoys me is that the umpire runs further away after setting the mark before calling play on so it gives the player on the mark no chance to react