Strategy STAND rule

Remove this Banner Ad

sregit

Club Legend
Feb 9, 2012
1,958
3,801
Hawthorn
AFL Club
Richmond
We definitely benefited the most from this absurd rule last night - but is faster better?
We didn't benefit from this rule. What I noticed was that players who have bad disposal when under pressure, all of a sudden have all the time in the world to execute as it's almost impossible to pressurise them. A sh*te player like Paddy Dowe (with bad disposal) gets a free run to hit a target as he can't be pressured.

This rule sucks. It has turned the game into a game of keeping off.
 

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
6,879
14,795
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
We didn't benefit from this rule. What I noticed was that players who have bad disposal when under pressure, all of a sudden have all the time in the world to execute as it's almost impossible to pressurise them. A sh*te player like Paddy Dowe (with bad disposal) gets a free run to hit a target as he can't be pressured.

This rule sucks. It has turned the game into a game of keeping off.
Worst rule I have ever seen introduce, (except KB's dropping the ball, outrageous). Agree, keepings off.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not Important

because i said so.
Oct 4, 2016
2,356
2,879
AFL Club
Richmond
We didn't benefit from this rule. What I noticed was that players who have bad disposal when under pressure, all of a sudden have all the time in the world to execute as it's almost impossible to pressurise them. A sh*te player like Paddy Dowe (with bad disposal) gets a free run to hit a target as he can't be pressured.

This rule sucks. It has turned the game into a game of keeping off.
well. i like it. hate continual stoppages. thought it worked well last night.
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
6,177
12,723
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
We didn't benefit from this rule. What I noticed was that players who have bad disposal when under pressure, all of a sudden have all the time in the world to execute as it's almost impossible to pressurise them. A sh*te player like Paddy Dowe (with bad disposal) gets a free run to hit a target as he can't be pressured.

This rule sucks. It has turned the game into a game of keeping off.
Interesting twist. I suggested we benefited the most, or you could argue Carlton benefited less I suppose. Sounds like you are saying Carlton benefited more despite gifting our Tiges two simple enough goals as a direct result of 50m penalties that were a also a direct result of the new rule. Granted, that's the more measurable benefit. There are of course other benefits occuring each and ever mark or free kick - just not as noticable or measurable - and I guess that is your point and fair enough too.

I posed the question though whether faster is better? The media seem to be saying it is, and I don't understand how the ball pinging around is better. My point is supported I would have thought that given an extra 22 minutes was played over the same time last year and the scoreline differed so little (which could be argued as incidental at this stage of the year). OK, let's see what becomes more relevant in time.

2020
1616141152241.png


2021
1616141220134.png


Like many I hate the rule - and yes it is a game of keepings-off but that doesn't bother me so much because I think it always has been to some degree. For mine the penalty doesn't fit the crime (now at least). The two goals to Richmond last night were a pathetic look for the game. Imagine explaining that situation to a new person? Because he moved away from the mark / the kicker? Seriously! I want games defined and decided by playing football, not benign movements that had no bearing on the game whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
6,177
12,723
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
Or approach at the angle your trying to cut. You can move as much as you like until the umpire calls stand
I think it is as long as you moving too the correct point of the mark. Yes, it's going to get interesting (stupidly so) when players try to get to stand more corridor side of the mark (depending on whether the kicker is left or right footed) to cut that angle down a bit - will the umps insist on moving the player closer to 'the mark' and delay another second or two, or will they just start calling penalties.

Interesting discussion had by Gerard Healy and Hodgey I think it was, that Geelong of 2008 created much of the man on the mark movement and even running another man in to close that play on down opportunity - Hawks discussed it at length and then took it to another level. So it's been strategised for over a decade. So we've ended up with protected zones and Standing edicts just to try and reverse those strategies.
 

sregit

Club Legend
Feb 9, 2012
1,958
3,801
Hawthorn
AFL Club
Richmond
Interesting twist. I suggested we benefited the most, or you could argue Carlton benefited less I suppose. Sounds like you are saying Carlton benefited more despite gifting our Tiges two simple enough goals as a direct result of 50m penalties that were a also a direct result of the new rule. Granted, that's the more measurable benefit. There are of course other benefits occuring each and ever mark or free kick - just not as noticable or measurable - and I guess that is your point and fair enough too.

I posed the question though whether faster is better? The media seem to be saying it is, and I don't understand how the ball pinging around is better. My point is supported I would have thought that given an extra 22 minutes was played over the same time last year and the scoreline differed so little (which could be argued as incidental at this stage of the year). OK, let's see what becomes more relevant in time.

2020
View attachment 1080887

2021
View attachment 1080888

Like many I hate the rule - and yes it is a game of keepings-off but that doesn't bother me so much because I think it always has been to some degree. For mine the penalty doesn't fit the crime (now at least). The two goals to Richmond last night were a pathetic look for the game. Imagine explaining that situation to a new person? Because he moved away from the mark / the kicker? Seriously! I want games defined and decided by playing football, not benign movements that had no bearing on the game whatsoever.
I was not suggesting that either side had gained more from this rediculous stand the mark rule. It has been suggested that the rule benefits the player with great disposal, however, I believe the opposite. Players with great disposal hit targets even when under pressure but players with poor disposal when pressured are given extra space/time to find a target. This rule favours hard runners with sh*te skills.
 

Serenity_Now

All Australian
Oct 7, 2019
881
3,566
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Philadelphia 76ers
Interesting twist. I suggested we benefited the most, or you could argue Carlton benefited less I suppose. Sounds like you are saying Carlton benefited more despite gifting our Tiges two simple enough goals as a direct result of 50m penalties that were a also a direct result of the new rule. Granted, that's the more measurable benefit. There are of course other benefits occuring each and ever mark or free kick - just not as noticable or measurable - and I guess that is your point and fair enough too.

I posed the question though whether faster is better? The media seem to be saying it is, and I don't understand how the ball pinging around is better. My point is supported I would have thought that given an extra 22 minutes was played over the same time last year and the scoreline differed so little (which could be argued as incidental at this stage of the year). OK, let's see what becomes more relevant in time.

2020
View attachment 1080887

2021
View attachment 1080888

Like many I hate the rule - and yes it is a game of keepings-off but that doesn't bother me so much because I think it always has been to some degree. For mine the penalty doesn't fit the crime (now at least). The two goals to Richmond last night were a pathetic look for the game. Imagine explaining that situation to a new person? Because he moved away from the mark / the kicker? Seriously! I want games defined and decided by playing football, not benign movements that had no bearing on the game whatsoever.
We got one 50 from the stand rule infringement, the other was because Curnow didn’t follow his man and ran through the protect zone.
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
6,177
12,723
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
We got one 50 from the stand rule infringement, the other was because Curnow didn’t follow his man and ran through the protect zone.
True but protected zones got a tweaking / changed as well IIRC. Didn't Curnow make the decision to follow his man late and as a consequence was considered detached from following his man. That all comes back to non-footballing decisions affecting the game. Footballers moving with no impact on the game being deemed in breach of a recently made up rule that was designed to influence the game in ways that were once never thought necessary.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

smurfin

Club Legend
Apr 1, 2016
1,996
5,676
Central Victoria
AFL Club
Richmond
I noticed plenty of dogs and pies moving around while manning the mark and the umps did not ping them...
I also thought the rule was watered down in that game.
Seemed to be plenty of times I didn't hear "stand" called and player on the mark seemed allowed to move after the player went off their line but before "play on" was called.
 

JAKLAUGHING

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Nov 20, 2008
28,009
49,673
Tokyo
AFL Club
Richmond
True but protected zones got a tweaking / changed as well IIRC. Didn't Curnow make the decision to follow his man late and as a consequence was considered detached from following his man. That all comes back to non-footballing decisions affecting the game. Footballers moving with no impact on the game being deemed in breach of a recently made up rule that was designed to influence the game in ways that were once never thought necessary.
Subtitles please... :think: :oops:
 

SunshineBoy

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jan 3, 2012
29,621
56,574
In Covid Free wilderness
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks
True but protected zones got a tweaking / changed as well IIRC. Didn't Curnow make the decision to follow his man late and as a consequence was considered detached from following his man. That all comes back to non-footballing decisions affecting the game. Footballers moving with no impact on the game being deemed in breach of a recently made up rule that was designed to influence the game in ways that were once never thought necessary.
Amatuer organisation trying to run a professional sport
 

JAKLAUGHING

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Nov 20, 2008
28,009
49,673
Tokyo
AFL Club
Richmond
STAND dont fu**en move a millimetre campaigner or I'll pay 50 lol fu** outahere what a rubbish rule.
Agree...
Why have a player marking the mark when in effect he is not moving/taken out of the play/and has no influence in proceedings...
So in effect you have a situation where 18 oppo players are moving to only 17..with one stationary..and dependent on the Ump's call..late or not...to respond!
Why not just leave the mark unguarded..and have the player involved in defending downfield...
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
6,177
12,723
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
I also thought the rule was watered down in that game.
Seemed to be plenty of times I didn't hear "stand" called and player on the mark seemed allowed to move after the player went off their line but before "play on" was called.
It really creates a kind of auditory diarrhea. Even my wife (who is not a footy fan) has chimed in with mocking the umpire after he shouts "STAND", with "SIT", "ROLL-OVER" and "WHO'S A GOOD BOY"!
 

Phar Ace

Premium Platinum
Feb 9, 2017
6,177
12,723
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Brisbane Bullets, Firebirds
Agree...
Why have a player marking the mark when in effect he is not moving/taken out of the play/and has no influence in proceedings...
So in effect you have a situation where 18 oppo players are moving to only 17..with one stationary..and dependent on the Ump's call..late or not...to respond!
Why not just leave the mark unguarded..and have the player involved in defending downfield...
I'm sure it is being hypothesised at high levels.......
 

SunshineBoy

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Jan 3, 2012
29,621
56,574
In Covid Free wilderness
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Chelsea FC, Victory, All Blecks
Take it to the Gill!
dill to shocking. Steve the number of goals haven’t increased with your new rules
shocking to dill. Dill these coaches are to clever
dill to shocking. Let’s widen the goals to say 30m and gave another million in bonuses
 

Remove this Banner Ad