Rules Should the stand rule be abolished?

[Simche]

just run in and throw it up. And no ruck nominations and any number of people can go for the ruck knock. Another two rules which created the congestion.

I actually hate this more than anything else in the game. The umpire genuinely waits for the two lumbering ruckmen to make their way from a kick behind the football, then actively instructs all the players that 'I'm going to come out this way, so make sure I'm clear', then has a bit of a look round and coaches the players not to hold one another, then finally throws it up after both teams have the opportunity to structure up and flood up to the contest.

Should be like the old days. Blow whistle, get ball, up it goes.

 

[RUNVS]

You are the one that is using scoring as your point. Scoring on average is considerably lower than before all these rule changes. Thats factual. You mentioned 1995 and the average was 94 points per game. Last year it was 83 points per game. in 2000 we averaged 103, before that you had to go back to 91 and 92 to average over 100.

You can't just look at the stats and make such a simplistic observation. In WW2 the Americans found out that head injuries among tank crews increased considerably after the introduction of helmets for tank crews, but all you had to do was dig a little to see that this was a good thing because previously instead of a head injury the tanker died.

Yes scoring was higher in 1995 but it was a different time. The game was not even fully professional back then. Tactically it is night and day between 2022 and 1995, with coaches able to setup defensive structures in 2022 that they would have even dreamed possible in 1995. Players are fitter too, a lot fitter, so it is much easier to keep those defensive structures in place for the entire game.

You time travel an average team from 1995 and have them play against an average team from 2022 and the 2022 team would monster them. The 1995 team would likely struggle to get the ball even passed the halfway point and by 3 quarter time the 1995 team would barely be able to move with majority of their players completely out on their feat.

Yes scoring was higher in 1995, and that scoring has been on the decrease since then (and as you point out the AFL has been changing rules since then too) but your analysis argues rule changes must be the reason for the decreased scoring which I think is a flawed theory. The AFL's rule changes have if anything slowed down the scoring decline and are not the reason for the scoring decline. The reason for the decline is scoring is fitter players and much better defensive strategies compared to decades earlier.

 

[Coach_Required]

I know this has got nothing to do with the stand rule but I also hate when a forward marks the ball and instantly comes off the line to improve his angle, making the umpire blow his whistle for time off and to bring the forward back around to the correct angle.

Just call play on, they call play on for every other player stepping off the line.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You can't just look at the stats and make such a simplistic observation. In WW2 the Americans found out that head injuries among tank crews increased considerably after the introduction of helmets for tank crews, but all you had to do was dig a little to see that this was a good thing because previously instead of a head injury the tanker died.

Yes scoring was higher in 1995 but it was a different time. The game was not even fully professional back then. Tactically it is night and day between 2022 and 1995, with coaches able to setup defensive structures in 2022 that they would have even dreamed possible in 1995. Players are fitter too, a lot fitter, so it is much easier to keep those defensive structures in place for the entire game.

You time travel an average team from 1995 and have them play against an average team from 2022 and the 2022 team would monster them. The 1995 team would likely struggle to get the ball even passed the halfway point and by 3 quarter time the 1995 team would barely be able to move with majority of their players completely out on their feat.

Yes scoring was higher in 1995, and that scoring has been on the decrease since then (and as you point out the AFL has been changing rules since then too) but your analysis argues rule changes must be the reason for the decreased scoring which I think is a flawed theory. The AFL's rule changes have if anything slowed down the scoring decline and are not the reason for the scoring decline. The reason for the decline is scoring is fitter players and much better defensive strategies compared to decades earlier.

No it is not my analysis that scoring has lowered because of rule changes, you pointed out 1995 not me. Rule changes have not improved the game is my analysis. I agree with you in regards to better defensive stategies and fitness being a huge part of the game. And I have no issue with that. Again as a fan then I only care did we win or did we lose?

You seem to have a problem with defense? All you want is higher scores yes?

WHY?

 

[RUNVS]

No it is not my analysis that scoring has lowered because of rule changes, you pointed out 1995 not me. Rule changes have not improved the game is my analysis. I agree with you in regards to better defensive stategies and fitness being a huge part of the game. And I have no issue with that. Again as a fan then I only care did we win or did we lose?

You seem to have a problem with defense? All you want is higher scores yes?

WHY?

I don't necessarily want higher scoring. I want less congestion. I don't like endless ball ups and throw ins as it kills the game.

I really do think the perfect solution would be 15 a side as it would make it much harder to be too defensive and there would be more room to move for the players but I don't think the AFL have the courage. They would rather have a million small rule changes that only papers over the cracks than one big rule change that would actually fix the issue long term.

 

[Jugada]

Scores are lower on average now than they were 20-30 years ago because of how much more advanced defensive tactics and coaching are - not because of rule changes.

Scores would arguably be even lower than they are now if it wasn't for a lot of rule changes

 

[RUNVS]

Scores are lower on average now than they were 20-30 years ago because of how much more advanced defensive tactics and coaching are - not because of rule changes.

Scores would arguably be even lower than they are now if it wasn't for a lot of rule changes

Agreed. All you need to do is look at the top tacklers of all time and see how big a change the game has been through.

Of the top 30 tackles of all time 29 of them have played in the 2010's and later.

AFL Tables - Career Stats - Totals and Averages

afltables.com

Now tackling is good football, but I think the more tackles the more congested a game is too. Harder to tackle when the game is free flowing.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I don't necessarily want higher scoring. I want less congestion. I don't like endless ball ups and throw ins as it kills the game.

I really do think the perfect solution would be 15 a side as it would make it much harder to be too defensive and there would be more room to move for the players but I don't think the AFL have the courage. They would rather have a million small rule changes that only papers over the cracks than one big rule change that would actually fix the issue long term.

15 a side is a huge change, different sport all together. Would it make it better like you think it would? Maybe but in my view all the rule changes have made the sport virtually another sport and keeping all of them and then reducing players is as I said a whole new sport.

Less congestion can be achieved by getting rid of ruck nomination, allowing any players to contest the ruck and any number of them. Umpires blowing the whistle much quicker and throwing it up instead of yelling out knock it out blah blah blah and paying the free kicks as they are written every time.
I would prefer we do that first before doing something extreme like 15 per side.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Agreed. All you need to do is look at the top tacklers of all time and see how big a change the game has been through.

Of the top 30 tackles of all time 29 of them have played in the 2010's and later.

AFL Tables - Career Stats - Totals and Averages

afltables.com

Now tackling is good football, but I think the more tackles the more congested a game is too. Harder to tackle when the game is free flowing.

Yet the game is for the most part uncontested these days. possession after possession on your own. The contested part of todays game is tough as hell and the ability of the modern player under pressure is impressive but it's for less than half the game.

 

[Obeanie1]

Yet the game is for the most part uncontested these days. possession after possession on your own. The contested part of todays game is tough as hell and the ability of the modern player under pressure is impressive but it's for less than half the game.

Is that a problem or a great part of our game?

Feel like in the first three quarters and the first 20 min of each it is highly contested stop start. Sure some teams play possession footy but not all.

Then the final 5 to 10 min of quarters and the final quarter players fatigue and the game opens up.

So it's like two game types in the one match. The style changes as players get fatigued and the game opens up.

Look at how the Pies would finish with a flurry last year. They seemed much fitter in the last 5 minutes of quarters especially the final quarter.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Is that a problem or a great part of our game?

Feel like in the first three quarters and the first 20 min of each it is highly contested stop start. Sure some teams play possession footy but not all.

Then the final 5 to 10 min of quarters and the final quarter players fatigue and the game opens up.

So it's like two game types in the one match. The style changes as players get fatigued and the game opens up.

Look at how the Pies would finish with a flurry last year. They seemed much fitter in the last 5 minutes of quarters especially the final quarter.

I didn't say it was a problem but when people say the game is so congested I was just pointing out that for the most part of it that it is not.

 

[Gazza Greatness]

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 absolutely agree with this lag time, it's a real issue, too much in favour of kicker. The way I see it the man on the mark cannot move sideways until the kicker moves off his line, if kicker stays on his line then the man on the mark must stand but once he moves off his line then the man on the mark who is standing can then move sideways or forward as it now becomes a play-on situation without umpire's approval because of the lag time/delay issue from umpire calling play on. If the man on the mark wants to move backwards off the mark he can but he must move backwards on the same line as kicker, if kicker goes off line he then also can move sideways or anywhere he likes because it now becomes a play-on situation. If the kicker fakes going off his line, therefore man standing on mark moves sideways then umpire just stops play and resets man on marks position but 'no free kick' given against him.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

If it stays as it is, it should be gone, it's terrible. As is the ruck nomination rule.

We are treating professional adult athletes like U8 children. And the reality is, that is worse than any positive those rules bring.


If it is going to stay, then there has to be say 2.5m either side for movement, it's roughly 2 steps left or right, it allows for the man on the mark to move in reaction to the player with the ball moving without having to wait for the umpire to call play on. It also takes away any 50's for blokes accidently moving, or taking one step for handball fake etc.

The ruck rule around only one up can stay (although it's not needed), but lose the nomination. If grown ass men can't work out between them who is going up, then pay the freekick against them. Simple

 

[smasha]

This rule put in after Shocking studied Cotchin 24,7.

Cheat Beach.

 

[smasha]

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

Yes,no Richmond premiership,job done by the AFL.

So it will definately stay.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

I actually hate this more than anything else in the game. The umpire genuinely waits for the two lumbering ruckmen to make their way from a kick behind the football, then actively instructs all the players that 'I'm going to come out this way, so make sure I'm clear', then has a bit of a look round and coaches the players not to hold one another, then finally throws it up after both teams have the opportunity to structure up and flood up to the contest.

Should be like the old days. Blow whistle, get ball, up it goes.

If it stays as it is, it should be gone, it's terrible. As is the ruck nomination rule.

The ruck rule around only one up can stay (although it's not needed), but lose the nomination. If grown ass men can't work out between them who is going up, then pay the freekick against them. Simple

I'd be okay with losing the "Ruck Nomination Rule", so long as we don't regress back to the terrible adjudication of the "Blocking Rule" that nominating was brought in to counter. Watching 6'3" players (yes Danger, I'm looking at you) throw their arms out as if they've been prevented from going up in the ruck duel and then get a cheap free kick as a consequence, was an abomination.

Perhaps if the ball is within 5 metres, blocking should be allowed, just like when the ball is in play (barring a marking contest, where nowadays it seems there is more of an advantage by being outnumbered)?

The ridiculous "Stand Rule" has been effectively diluted nowadays by the "Outside 5" comedy that has replaced it.

 

[Bjo187]

Richmond fans are up and about in this thread.

 

[JyeDye]

Don't even know what the point of the rule is anymore when no teams even stand on the mark. All you hear is "outside 5" every second now. Get rid of it.

 

[Do the Dew]

Dogshit rule that goes against the essence of the sport. Australian footy is about freedom. Anyone can go anywhere and kick/mark/handball. Compare this to other team sports (like NFL that the AFL admin seem to like so much) that are so structured that it becomes a giant bore to watch. I'd propose that any rule change that majorly restricts freedom should be abolished.

• Stand rule stops players moving on the mark however all this has achieved is a change in interpretation (outside 5) and congestion is just pushed further back defensively. It's a horrible spectacle that penalizes a guy moving a toe and is incredibly subjective as each umpire adjudicates it differently
• 666 rule restricts teams from setting up how they like and cuts one of the main score avenues. Having a loose man in defence means that any scrappy centre clearance can be easily mopped up and worked down the other end of the ground using the spare defender
• Ruck nom just takes way too long. Teams also sometimes nominate multiple players so that there is a pause so more players can get to the contest
• Interchange requirements are just dumb and I believe brought in by (shamefully) the great KB because he assumed that more tired players leads to a more open contest. This is absolutely false as if you're tired, why would you try to get the ball to space and tire yourself more? It's preferable to keep it in tight so that you don't get more tired. Games tend to open up late because players take more risks and pressure builds on defending teams, not because of interchange limits. Pretty sure that the last highest scoring season was when interchanges were unlimited...

Some of these rules were brought in because supposedly (according to Gerard Whateley) the state of the game was horrible and that scoring had to increase. Scoring has continued to trend down so by their objective metric the rule changes have been a failure.

As others have noted in this thread, why don't the umpires just throw the ball up/in quicker instead of waiting 5 seconds and letting 10 extra blokes rush to the contest. If your ruckman is too far away, then tough s**t. I remember on AFL 360 circa 2018 Nick Riewoldt brought this point up and was quickly shut down by Gerard and Slobbo and we haven't heard a peep since. Just strange that there was an easy fix to at least trial before fundamentally changing the nature of the game with the aforementioned rule changes.

And for the guy saying that let's just make it 15 a side or some other arbitrary number, I don't think this will work as players will just congest more so that they aren't opened up defensively. Bit of a slippery slope because if we did reduce the players on the field and scoring kept going down, what do you do then, keep going until it's 1v1?

 

[footyfan1978]

Dogshit rule that goes against the essence of the sport. Australian footy is about freedom. Anyone can go anywhere and kick/mark/handball. Compare this to other team sports (like NFL that the AFL admin seem to like so much) that are so structured that it becomes a giant bore to watch. I'd propose that any rule change that majorly restricts freedom should be abolished.

Just remember cricket, before our time had an issue with negative tactics like legside fields and then they brought in fielding restrictions so this idea that everything restrictive is bad is also a bit silly. The centre square was created before my time to restrict players in certain setups to ironically make it flow more freely....

 

[Do the Dew]

Just remember cricket, before our time had an issue with negative tactics like legside fields and then they brought in fielding restrictions so this idea that everything restrictive is bad is also a bit silly. The centre square was created before my time to restrict players in certain setups to ironically make it flow more freely....

I'd argue it's false equivalency with cricket as it's a very different sport and quite a structured one at that, at least compared to footy.

However fair point with the centre square. I still maintain that the essence of footy is freedom and that any rule that restricts this arbitrarily should be closely examined before implementation. For example, let's say there was no centre square and the AFL wanted to introduce this rule next season. The result would be less players in the centre and therefore a better chance of a team getting a decent clearance, compared to 20 blokes around the ball. You could argue that it actually increases freedom because now a team can setup players elsewhere, rather than being forced to equal numbers in the centre. The point is that the centre square is a definitive way of reducing congestion, whereas other rules (like 666) are not.

On the stand rule, it was brought in just before season 2021 started, with only a trial at a Geelong intraclub game. It should have been trialled for at least a year in the VFL or other state league before even being considered for the AFL.

 

[footyfan1978]

I'd argue it's false equivalency with cricket as it's a very different sport and quite a structured one at that, at least compared to footy.

It is not very structured in terms of position in the field. Much like football they kind of can move anywhere. But there are restrictions in terms of how many legside/ behind etc. Up to captain to organise it in way he wants but basically as long as does not violate the restrictions you free to be very inventive with your field. One dayers a little bit more restrictions. The point is, when there are restrictions in cricket and footy they should be to make sure the play is not too negative. Hence they brought in things like centre square. I think there are one or two others they could do in time that would be positive for the game without hurting the freedom we all want that basically any player can end up either end of the ground at different moments. But the stand rule specifically when a player having a kick within 50 metre arc is too restrictive to player on mark.

 

[Xtreme]

Not until Geelong get their fourpeat

The rule is fine. Just stop the umpires yelling it all the time.

This

 

[Falcon3518]

Do people really care about high scoring games? To me I don’t care if the scores are 100-100 or 60-60 with 1 min to go. It still makes a great game when it’s close and you just feel entrenched in the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Do people really care about high scoring games? To me I don’t care if the scores are 100-100 or 60-60 with 1 min to go. It still makes a great game when it’s close and you just feel entrenched in the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The ones who care about the look of the game only do because the AFL told them to care. I am with you, as a footy fan I end up with one of two emotions at the end of a game. We either won or we lost. Never ever in 50 years have I left a game worried about the look of it.