Stand rule

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

I don’t necessarily have an issue with the rule but if they are going to bring in rules like this, they can’t have others which are completely inconsistent with this rule or simply non existent.

For example, when a player wins a free kick or takes a mark in a contest and they are tussling on the ground. Instead of simply allowing the player with the ball to get up and take their kick, the opposition sits on top of the ball for 30 seconds pretending they don’t know what’s happening and the umpires just dance around repeating themselves 15 times to give them the ball.

If you bring in a rule such as the stand rule to open up space and give the ball carrier greater opportunities to move the ball, then fix up this type of rubbish too.

Nothing more annoying that seeing a 50m penalty for a 3cm movement from the guy on the mark only for the next contest to watch players to tussle on the ground for 30 seconds to clearly interrupt the play and allow the defender to get into position.

Either have consistent rules which share the same objective or none. Don’t cherry pick some here and there

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Has scoring gone up?

By 1 goal a game (per team)

Scoring is marginally down on the last full season (2019).
In my opinion only, I haven't seen an objective assessment of 2020 scores directly addressing defensive efforts being sustainable for a greater % of the game.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Scoring was going down anyway, has been for the last 25 years, scoring would be lower this year without the stand rule.

That people don’t understand this is a very bleak comment on our education system, my god.

 

[RichLeMonde]

Given that the rule’s already been brought in, I’d prefer to see, in the first instance, proper umpiring of it, involving much faster play-on calls as guys move off their line, which would allow the player on the mark to much more quickly re enter play, as the OP notes.

Give that a go for a year. If it’s still a shamozzle then **** it off

 

[banzai]

That people don’t understand this is a very bleak comment on our education system, my god.

There was a stat they showed a while back ( i think on On The Couch) that showed scores from front half turnover have dropped by more than scores from the back half have increased. So the stand rule combined with the new kick in rule isn't necessarily going to increase scoring. If it only makes it slightly easier to score from the back half, but harder to create forward half turnovers it won't really change a lot.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

There was a stat they showed a while back ( i think on On The Couch) that showed scores from front half turnover have dropped by more than scores from the back half have increased. So the stand rule combined with the new kick in rule isn't necessarily going to increase scoring. If it only makes it slightly easier to score from the back half, but harder to create forward half turnovers it won't really change a lot.

yep 'Stand' just creates a basketball structure, no point defending up court, just flood back and defend from the back

rinse, repeat, very tiresome

just a very badly thought out rule change, rushed in without proper testing

CH7 must have cracked the absolute s*** when they managed to drop scoring even further with their bumbling.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Had the desired effect. One of very few rule changes that worked. Definitely no need to remove even if there was any thought of doing this

 

[Mudman85]

Had the desired effect. One of very few rule changes that worked. Definitely no need to remove even if there was any thought of doing this

Please explain what the desired effect was and how it achieved this.

 

[wowlace]

Notice a lot of times players don't even bother getting to the mark, but instead guard the space behind the mark.

Stupid rule but nothing new for the AFL.

 

[Snarls Barkley]

Dumb rule. Up there with the worst they’ve introduced. Hopefully it’s scrapped as soon as next year and we all forget it was a thing in the first place.

 

[OnlyPowerForever]

Dumb rule. Up there with the worst they’ve introduced. Hopefully it’s scrapped as soon as next year and we all forget it was a thing in the first place.

Just as much chance that the AFL double down and introduce a rule like "defenders aren't allowed to mark inside D50" or something equally stupid.

 

[avijae]

That's 100% the intent of the rule.

Ok, I "stand" corrected.

 

[avijae]

I thought the rule worked as intended and is one of the better changes made by the AFL in recent times. The complaint about taking the man on the mark out of play is an odd one as it's pretty much exactly what it's designed to do.

In saying that, I think what needs to be looked at is how play-on is signalled by the ump. In noisy stadiums, it doesn't make a heap of sense to have play-on signalled by a shout when the umps have whistles. If something could be figured out that wasn't too confusing around the umps using the whistle to call play-on, then I think it would really help the players know when they're able to move.

To you and a couple of others who mentioned changes and noise. Is there a chance that the calls change (and are indicated via a whistle) when there is a violation? I mean, the players know the rule, they know they have to stand without waiting to be told, and they would then be allowed the opportunity to move because of an offensive type move by the man with the ball (regardless of being a feign or not) and not have to wait for the "play on" call from the umpires. Then the whistle would indicate if one of the conditions were not properly met. Put the onus on the players.

 

[banzai]

To you and a couple of others who mentioned changes and noise. Is there a chance that the calls change (and are indicated via a whistle) when there is a violation? I mean, the players know the rule, they know they have to stand without waiting to be told, and they would then be allowed the opportunity to move because of an offensive type move by the man with the ball (regardless of being a feign or not) and not have to wait for the "play on" call from the umpires. Then the whistle would indicate if one of the conditions were not properly met. Put the onus on the players.

In theory that would work better but its not realistic. The umpires would never be able to judge whether a player with the ball feigned or moved a split second before the man on the mark moves.

 

[avijae]

Players do not need to "stand", they should be allowed to move EAST/WEST without issue, with a 50m only paid if they move forward.
[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the way it was BEFORE the stand rule?

 

[amazingjoshy]

Has scoring gone up?

Compared to last year's shortened games it has, but that's completely disingenuous to include them in the stats surely.

Take out last year and it's the lowest scoring year for over 50 years

 

[NoobPie]

I thought the rule worked as intended and is one of the better changes made by the AFL in recent times. The complaint about taking the man on the mark out of play is an odd one as it's pretty much exactly what it's designed to do.

In saying that, I think what needs to be looked at is how play-on is signalled by the ump. In noisy stadiums, it doesn't make a heap of sense to have play-on signalled by a shout when the umps have whistles. If something could be figured out that wasn't too confusing around the umps using the whistle to call play-on, then I think it would really help the players know when they're able to move.

That's not a bad suggestion. Maybe a double toot?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Players do not need to "stand", they should be allowed to move EAST/WEST without issue, with a 50m only paid if they move forward.

Isn't that the way it was BEFORE the stand rule?
[/QUOTE]
yep east/west was fine, it was a great rule

I wonder if the AFL actually wants to create the tenterhooks drama that the Stand rule brings in?

I don't know about you but every time I watch an opposition mark be taken, I am completely occupied by my teams player on the mark. It's a kind of paranoia the rule creates where you just obsess over whether the man on the mark will put a footstep sideways and cost your team a 50m penalty.

I think that takes so much enjoyment away from watching the game, but maybe the AFL thinks 'any drama is good drama'?

 

[Ron The Bear]

yep east/west was fine, it was a great rule

Except it wasn't quite that simple.

"The last third of the ground, the actual bloke on the mark doesn’t have to go east-west. He can go off on a line tangent... It’s two-thirds east-west when you are defending and when you come into your attacking third and you’re lined up with the middle of the goal, you can go on that arc."

Peter Schwab, Head of Umpiring 2017

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[master bate]

The ball moved way better end to end. Defending is still too good and skills too shabby for scores to increase, but the game was far more exciting going up and back rather than being stuck in one third of the ground.

I'd certainly tweak it so if a forward has a set shot the man on the mark can move side to side. That's a fair compromise and stops the bad look of a forward taking a set shot next to the man on the mark.

There's also work for the umps to be done on when to call play on for the attacker going off their line vs when to pause the game and make the attacker go behind the mark.

The reality is teams lived over the mark for the best part of a decade. Hawthorn were 3-5m over the mark at every opportunity in their premiership years. That's not to blame them, they were just the best at a tactic every team adapted to.

Either the umps had to start paying a whole bunch of 50m penalties or something else had to be done to get the defender back where they belong.

 

[DavidSSS]

Stupid rule, dump it.

The notion that scoring would be lower without this rule is backed by absolutely no evidence so is just pure speculation.

Basically now if there is a free kick or mark then you have 17 v 18 because the man on the mark is taken out of the game.

They allow the player with the ball to go off their line, but don't allow the player on the mark to adjust for this. The rule is unbalanced, too much advantage for the player with the ball.

DS

 

[Tackle Bag]

Get rid of this rule ASAP. Looks terrible and has not had the impact that was promised. Extremely annoying to listen to and adds another task for the umpires which they do not need

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The ball moved way better end to end. Defending is still too good and skills too shabby for scores to increase, but the game was far more exciting going up and back rather than being stuck in one third of the ground.

I'd certainly tweak it so if a forward has a set shot the man on the mark can move side to side. That's a fair compromise and stops the bad look of a forward taking a set shot next to the man on the mark.

There's also work for the umps to be done on when to call play on for the attacker going off their line vs when to pause the game and make the attacker go behind the mark.

The reality is teams lived over the mark for the best part of a decade. Hawthorn were 3-5m over the mark at every opportunity in their premiership years. That's not to blame them, they were just the best at a tactic every team adapted to.

Either the umps had to start paying a whole bunch of 50m penalties or something else had to be done to get the defender back where they belong.

Melbourne fans love this rule and should absolutely campaign to keep it, no surprise to see lots of Tigers hating on it as it ended our dominance in the league.

I think even the most objective observer though would agree it is a confected and stunted version of real Aussie rules.

Stand did the opposite of it’s purported aim. Should be binned.

 

[master bate]

Melbourne fans love this rule and should absolutely campaign to keep it, no surprise to see lots of Tigers hating on it as it ended our dominance in the league.

I think even the most objective observer though would agree it is a confected and stunted version of real Aussie rules.

Stand did the opposite of it’s purported aim. Should be binned.

Players being 4m over the mark and getting told to take 2 steps back, then taking 2 of the tiniest steps back or moving 5m inside the mark to cover the corridor was just as confected. Watch a game from the 90's where players stood the mark, then watch footy in the 2010's where everyone's manipulating the mark like crazy and it's clear the attacking player struggles to do anything but kick down the line.

Richmond's end of the era largely came about because your midfield was absolutely smashed and gassed. Cotchin couldn't go at the level. Dusty not fit enough. Prestia injured. Lambert injured. Edwards injured and older. And then your backline couldn't hold up under inside 50 pressure due to injuries and ageing too.

You've been the best transition running team for 4 years, by a mile, there's no reason you couldn't dominate under the stand rule and you absolutely would've in 2017-2020.

Melbourne's defensive grid was hugely influenced from Hawthorn and Richmond, we used May like Grimes/Rance, used Lever like Vlastuin, Salem modelled his entire game on Houli and our pressure forward work was very similar to Richmond's. Similar we didn't get sucked in to chipping the ball around, we went long and direct to tall forwards just as Richmond did. A little more crash and bash through the midfield than the Tigers forward handball running game but similarly direct.

The Dogs, Port and Brisbane all had very strong two way game plans with up tempo aggressive footy. Geelong continued to be Geelong. Several of the best sides of the last few years were the best sides again.

And the inside 50 numbers are objective evidence that play moved faster which was exactly the aim. Yes it would've been nice to see scoring go up too but scoring would've been even lower without the rule change.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Players being 4m over the mark and getting told to take 2 steps back, then taking 2 of the tiniest steps back or moving 5m inside the mark to cover the corridor was just as confected. Watch a game from the 90's where players stood the mark, then watch footy in the 2010's where everyone's manipulating the mark like crazy and it's clear the attacking player struggles to do anything but kick down the line.

Richmond's end of the era largely came about because your midfield was absolutely smashed and gassed. Cotchin couldn't go at the level. Dusty not fit enough. Prestia injured. Lambert injured. Edwards injured and older. And then your backline couldn't hold up under inside 50 pressure due to injuries and ageing too.

You've been the best transition running team for 4 years, by a mile, there's no reason you couldn't dominate under the stand rule and you absolutely would've in 2017-2020.

Melbourne's defensive grid was hugely influenced from Hawthorn and Richmond, we used May like Grimes/Rance, used Lever like Vlastuin, Salem modelled his entire game on Houli and our pressure forward work was very similar to Richmond's. Similar we didn't get sucked in to chipping the ball around, we went long and direct to tall forwards just as Richmond did. A little more crash and bash through the midfield than the Tigers forward handball running game but similarly direct.

The Dogs, Port and Brisbane all had very strong two way game plans with up tempo aggressive footy. Geelong continued to be Geelong. Several of the best sides of the last few years were the best sides again.

And the inside 50 numbers are objective evidence that play moved faster which was exactly the aim. Yes it would've been nice to see scoring go up too but scoring would've been even lower without the rule change.

yep Melb and EFC were the most effective at Richmond's previously dominant style last year, as far as I saw. The STAND rule made kick/mark the most dominant part of the game this year however, and really brought KPPs, particulary KPFs, back into the game, Boner and Mcdonalds career turn arounds are a great example. Absolute sweet spot for the Dees with so many genuine talls on every line, and they fluorished.

Doesn't completely correlate as I would have expected CFC/WCE to do very well with their kick/mark-heavy gamestyles similar to Geelong.

Unfortunately Richmond's list is way undersized in comparison, lucky to have even one elite KPP on any line, Lynch and Nank if you want to call them elite, some would dispute that, KPDs none? can Grimes be considered a genuine tall? No chance with such a major restructure of the game taking away the Tiger's A-game of up-field pressure.