I detest the rule. it's a cheats rule that the ump has no chance of enforcing properly. But MacIntosh has got it sorted. Don't go near your mark, take off, run 15m and boot it 50. All to the tune of wide open road...
George likes it too
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I detest the rule. it's a cheats rule that the ump has no chance of enforcing properly. But MacIntosh has got it sorted. Don't go near your mark, take off, run 15m and boot it 50. All to the tune of wide open road...
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 shite player like Paddy Dowe (with bad disposal) gets a free run to hit a target as he can't be pressured.We definitely benefited the most from this absurd rule last night - but is faster better?
Worst rule I have ever seen introduce, (except KB's dropping the ball, outrageous). Agree, keepings off.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.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.
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.
Or approach at the angle your trying to cut. You can move as much as you like until the umpire calls standThe key to this is pretend your running straight at the mark and then deviate late and you will get more merres
Or approach at the angle your trying to cut. You can move as much as you like until the umpire calls stand
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 shite skills.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.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.
Different rule bookI noticed plenty of dogs and pies moving around while manning the mark and the umps did not ping them...
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.
I also thought the rule was watered down in that game.I noticed plenty of dogs and pies moving around while manning the mark and the umps did not ping them...
Exactly, it's a chook lottery the umps have no choice but to enforce. I bet they hate it.I noticed plenty of dogs and pies moving around while manning the mark and the umps did not ping them...
Subtitles please...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 sportTrue 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.
Agree...STAND dont fu**en move a millimetre campaigner or I'll pay 50 lol fu** outahere what a rubbish rule.
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.
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...
That's not good enough in my Rule Book! I want it hypothesised at the highest/higherest levels!!I'm sure it is being hypothesised at high levels.......
That's not good enough in my Rule Book! I want it hypothesised at the highest/higherest levels!!
dill to shocking. Steve the number of goals haven’t increased with your new rulesTake it to the Gill!