Strategy STAND rule

[CaptchaProofBot]

When you think they can’t make worse rules they outdo themselves.
Has there been a bigger ********** in world sport than Simon Hocking?

the 18 best coaches in the country will find away to use this to advantage in the completely opposite way these ******s in suits intended it

YES!!! Steve.

 

[tigs2010]

YES!!! Steve.

Close enough

 

[Cotcho]

Not replacing a player on the mark. Can you choose to not have a player on the mark? How often do you see the man on the mark move to prevent a handball receive of a running player. Is that still possible so long as you don't replace the original mark with another player?

 

[Cotcho]

The best strategy will be to have a runner go near the mark, look like you're going to handball it to running player, player on mark moves on instinct, stop and point at player on mark who has now moved and milk a 50.

Dumb lol

 

[Dr Tigris]

The best strategy will be to have a runner go near the mark, look like you're going to handball it to running player, player on mark moves on instinct, stop and point at player on mark who has now moved and milk a 50.

Dumb lol

There will be lots like this. But I reckon the big thing will be players running at 45 degrees tot eh mark to get around it and kicking on. The player on the mark has to wait til they are effectively out of his direct line before moving. So guys like Shai will have freebie unpressured kicks.

I suspect it won't make a huge difference. But what do I know

 

[Phar Ace]

There will be lots like this. But I reckon the big thing will be players running at 45 degrees tot eh mark to get around it and kicking on. The player on the mark has to wait til they are effectively out of his direct line before moving. So guys like Shai will have freebie unpressured kicks.

I suspect it won't make a huge difference. But what do I know

I simply can't stand the 50 metre penalty now becuase in most cases it applies a disproportionate benefit to a team receiving it - it's overkill, and they are just going to add to it? I want more games decided by football - not by free kicks, and especially not 50 metre free kicks.

As a key defender you will be loathed to stand the mark if the kicker is out of range. I could see a real shamozzle occurring when players in the vicinity of the mark argue they are not standing the mark and are attempting to leave 5m exclusion zone. I could even see players demanding the umpire specify where the mark is to both delay and not become a required statue on the mark.

This smacks of eventually being howled down like we do for Ruck nomination fiasco. How long until a player mocks the rule with a classic netball defense of a goal-shooter stance?

 

[Dr Tigris]

I simply can't stand the 50 metre penalty now becuase in most cases it applies a disproportionate benefit to a team receiving it - it's overkill, and they are just going to add to it? I want more games decided by football - not by free kicks, and especially not 50 metre free kicks.

As a key defender you will be loathed to stand the mark if the kicker is out of range. I could see a real shamozzle occurring when players in the vicinity of the mark argue they are not standing the mark and are attempting to leave 5m exclusion zone. I could even see players demanding the umpire specify where the mark is to both delay and not become a required statue on the mark.

This smacks of eventually being howled down like we do for Ruck nomination fiasco. How long until a player mocks the rule with a classic netball defense of a goal-shooter stance?
View attachment 1055000

Goal shooter - 5 minutes.

It'll be interesting to see how it works. I can see the players learning very fast to avoid 50m penalties. Whether it makes the game more exciting or not I don't know.

But I see it not doing much for kick mark style teams (Geelong, WEagles) and really helping go fast teams like us. If that's how it works then the AFL will change it because the Cats don't get a benefit.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Goal shooter - 5 minutes.

It'll be interesting to see how it works. I can see the players learning very fast to avoid 50m penalties. Whether it makes the game more exciting or not I don't know.

But I see it not doing much for kick mark style teams (Geelong, WEagles) and really helping go fast teams like us. If that's how it works then the AFL will change it because the Cats don't get a benefit.

It sort of looks to me like every team who has taken a mark or received a free kick gets something like an automatic 10-15m penalty if they choose to take it.

For the brain to process something and decide on an action in response and begin to execute that action takes most people about 0.2 seconds. So the statue on the mark cannot move until the ump calls play on, but that call could take 0.2 to 0.3 seconds to be made AFTER the player has actually played on. Then it takes the player manning the mark a further 0.2 seconds to recognise this, process it and begin to act. In around half a second all of that takes, an average AFL player has a 4 metre break. From where I sit that makes manning the mark pointless most of the time. So I could envisage either or both of:

a) the man on the mark moving directly backwards from the mark before the man in possession has even started to move forward, so as to invite the man in possession to run over the mark, or

b) different defensive structures with defensive players stationed at points close to and behind the man on the mark on either side.

We do want to see quick ball movement but rapid ball movement with no realistic prospect of the man in possession being placed under pressure starts not even looking like soccer. It would be closer to golf in some ways. This looks a fiasco to me and like a lot of things will rely on the umpires relaxing interpretations over time to give the game more natural looking outcomes.

 

[biaseddustyfan]

I simply can't stand the 50 metre penalty now becuase in most cases it applies a disproportionate benefit to a team receiving it - it's overkill, and they are just going to add to it? I want more games decided by football - not by free kicks, and especially not 50 metre free kicks.

As a key defender you will be loathed to stand the mark if the kicker is out of range. I could see a real shamozzle occurring when players in the vicinity of the mark argue they are not standing the mark and are attempting to leave 5m exclusion zone. I could even see players demanding the umpire specify where the mark is to both delay and not become a required statue on the mark.

This smacks of eventually being howled down like we do for Ruck nomination fiasco. How long until a player mocks the rule with a classic netball defense of a goal-shooter stance?
View attachment 1055000

give it a couple years, they will change all standard 50's to 100's i reckon

 

[Dr Tigris]

It sort of looks to me like every team who has taken a mark or received a free kick gets something like an automatic 10-15m penalty if they choose to take it.

For the brain to process something and decide on an action in response and begin to execute that action takes most people about 0.2 seconds. So the statue on the mark cannot move until the ump calls play on, but that call could take 0.2 to 0.3 seconds to be made AFTER the player has actually played on. Then it takes the player manning the mark a further 0.2 seconds to recognise this, process it and begin to act. In around half a second all of that takes, an average AFL player has a 4 metre break. From where I sit that makes manning the mark pointless most of the time. So I could envisage either or both of:

a) the man on the mark moving directly backwards from the mark before the man in possession has even started to move forward, so as to invite the man in possession to run over the mark, or

b) different defensive structures with defensive players stationed at points close to and behind the man on the mark on either side.

We do want to see quick ball movement but rapid ball movement with no realistic prospect of the man in possession being placed under pressure starts not even looking like soccer. It would be closer to golf in some ways. This looks a fiasco to me and like a lot of things will rely on the umpires relaxing interpretations over time to give the game more natural looking outcomes.

I get a bit excited when I think of guys like George, Dan, Shai, Shedda taking off and hitting targets with no pressure. Take a mark, get a free, stand 2 meters from guy on mark and take off to you preferred side. You can play on quickly and it'll be exciting. But it makes a mockery of what we've know of as a free.

 

[Livonski]

If someone is having a shot for goal, do you have to stand still?

Can’t move from side to side to put them off?

Laughable.

 

[Tackle Bag]

Seems a no brainer to simply not man the mark and stand 10mtrs back from the mark. The umpire may then have to call you up to the mark which will require them to hold up play or let you go.
This may be the silliest of all the silly rules they’ve brought in

 

[Meteoric Rise]

I get a bit excited when I think of guys like George, Dan, Shai, Shedda taking off and hitting targets with no pressure. Take a mark, get a free, stand 2 meters from guy on mark and take off to you preferred side. You can play on quickly and it'll be exciting. But it makes a mockery of what we've know of as a free.

I guess is is advantageous to forwards with an overhead presence and our little forwards can mark it. You really don’t want to be kicking behinds now though. The ball will get a saloon passage to the other end.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I guess is is advantageous to forwards with an overhead presence and our little forwards can mark it. You really don’t want to be kicking behinds now though. The ball will get a saloon passage to the other end.

If teams really go for it this rule change could alter how the game looks quite alot.

But if the player on mark stands back then you just gain a few meters and nothing else changes. It'll be in the adjudication.

 

[Phar Ace]

If someone is having a shot for goal, do you have to stand still?

Can’t move from side to side to put them off?

Laughable.

It's becoming theatre not football........

 

[Phar Ace]

Seems a no brainer to simply not man the mark and stand 10mtrs back from the mark. The umpire may then have to call you up to the mark which will require them to hold up play or let you go.
This may be the silliest of all the silly rules they’ve brought in

I think I read it is 5 metres behind the mark. There you should be able to run left and right and be ape-s**t crazy, but one metre closer you must "STAND". Can you imagine the crowds carrying on with the word, initially at least. I tell ya, it's only a matter of time til Shocking suggests bibs! Man, is that guy overpaid or underworked?

 

[biaseddustyfan]

lel reports today that clubs hate the rule and are struggling with it at training prepare for 200x50m penalties in rd1

 

[Drofder]

I used to think Adrian Anderson couldn’t be beaten for the worst General Manager of Football but Hocking has outdone him by the Flemington straight.

His endless tampering with the game knows no bounds and the frustration he causes for fans, players etc is never ending as well.

I can’t *** “stand” him.

 

[Bojangles17]

I expect the argy bargy to be around the lag in umpire calling play on . Ultimately it should benefit us as much as it costs us , if it means more ops getting jack lynch or dusty 1/1 then we re winning , who else can say that

 

[Wooden Robot]

When you think they can’t make worse rules they outdo themselves.
Has there been a bigger ********** in world sport than Simon Hocking?

the 18 best coaches in the country will find away to use this to advantage in the completely opposite way these ******s in suits intended it

Who is Simon Hocking?

 

[VB_longneck]

 

[Football Tragic]

Was it last year (or 2019?) when we played in the Season Opener and the umpires went ballistic with the new exclusion rule? It became a 50m penalty feast with the backlash from footy world ringing loud and clear. The very next night though, the umpires eased off and common sense prevailed. I'm guessing we'll see a repeat this year.

This rule will open up the corridor regardless and mean stopping players from taking the extra 10-15m by playing on, very difficult to stop too. Defending the corridor will never be more important.

 

[VB_longneck]

Was it last year (or 2019?) when we played in the Season Opener and the umpires went ballistic with the new exclusion rule? It became a 50m penalty feast with the backlash from footy world ringing loud and clear. The very next night though, the umpires eased off and common sense prevailed. I'm guessing we'll see a repeat this year.

This rule will open up the corridor regardless and mean stopping players from taking the extra 10-15m by playing on, very difficult to stop too. Defending the corridor will never be more important.

2018 flag unveiling game

they guinea pigged on us and gifted carlspoon like 5 goals from bullshit 50m penalties

 

[Marcel Proust]

Not replacing a player on the mark. Can you choose to not have a player on the mark? How often do you see the man on the mark move to prevent a handball receive of a running player. Is that still possible so long as you don't replace the original mark with another player?

You'd think, you are allowed.

Have no player on mark.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

That is utterly laughable that footage. The man in possession runs off his mark, taking about 5 paces off the line before the man on the mark moves past his allowable distance. The ump does not respond by calling play on, which is a complete error surely, and when the man on the mark adjusts so the man in possession can’t run straight past him the ump pings him 50m.

This rule is two things.

1. it is a total contrived technical mess, that will blight the game more than it could ever possibly improve it as a spectacle, and

2. it seems to be designed precisely in a way that would benefit a high volume marking, high free kick for team like Geelong against a low marking, high free kick against team like Richmond. And it has been brought in by a person who has only ever had one club affiliation, and it was a long one. That affiliation was with Geelong.

Governance wise, it is a shocking conflict of interest issue at the very least. The worst case scenario is it is the result of the Cats conspiring with Hocking to get the rules changed to favour them and specifically counter their nemesis, the Tigers.

Teams who want to be able to move the ball forward should look no further than the best team at it, the Tigers, who play on, run and forward handball and don’t play like they are petrified of losing possession.

It looks diabolical this new rule. If umpires don’t immediately call play on as soon as the player in possession steps to the side of his mark it contrives a situation completely in favour of the team in possession. If umpires do call play on immediately the player steps he may already have too big a break before the man on the mark has had time to react to the call of "play on." The rule came out of nowhere. It is a whiteboard rule. that is a s**t way to introduce new rules regarding the flow of play. The greatest beauty of the game of Australian Rules Football, is it was not a game that was designed as such, it evolved organically by being played.

What. A. Mess.