Stand rule

[avijae]

I hope there is discussion about adjusting this rule. I mentioned before that "Play on" is not called quickly enough, and when it is, the player seems unwilling to leave for fear of a 50. Watching the PA/Bulldogs match, there was a 50 awarded, "per the rule" , i.e. correctly. However, the man on the mark reacted to the motion of a hand pass, which was pulled back, but because he moved, the 50 was awarded. Seems to me that this rule is far too severe. I can understand why the rule was put in place, but there are too many times when the play is allowed, or penalized, and the "man on the mark" is basically taken out of play. I really don't think that was the intent. So, end of rant, is there any conversation going on about making some changes/allowances so that the defense still has "something" to contribute instead of being forced to be a statue and totally taken out of play? As I mentioned, even after "play on" has been called, too many times, the defense still just stands. I assume for fear of being penalized.

 

[Shane Heard]

It’s a stupid rule. I can’t stand it.

 

[Jakksynn]

I have no issue with it. The problem is 50m is an incredibly harsh penalty. Needs to be lowered to 25m imo

 

[AnEmptyChair]

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.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Ideally, axe it entirely.

Failing that, allow the player on the mark to move slightly sideways before the play on call, so long as the player with the ball has moved off their line or made out to dispose of the ball. (i.e. the player has looked or feigned to played on, the umpire just hasn't called it yet)
Give them a step or two leeway to act on instinct.

 

[Ati Tude]

It looks odd that the man on the mark can't move to stop something obviously about to happen eg handpass to a guy running past but I think it does help the flow of the game. Or at least help the guy with the ball find another option. Is also frustrating when the ump has called play on but the man on the mark hasnt heard it and just stands there as play continues. I hate the 50s from feigned handpasses though and would look at not awarding that but it will just add another layer of subjectivity and something else for the umps to have to interpret.

If goal kicking accuracy improved, we wouldnt be having these discussions as scoring would be higher. Am pretty sure from some data I recall seeing midyear that scoring shots were up but accuracy was worse or the same. I surmise that accuracy has gone down as players are more tired, but others say they practice it less (not so sure about that).

If you want a left field idea to increase scoring - make the goals wider. It's not like we have a goal keeper as in soccer to get concerned about here. Make it 1 metre wider. Maybe make the 2 point areas 50cm narrower so the whole goal front is the same. Just a thought.

 

[Baird]

If you want a left field idea to increase scoring - make the goals wider. It's not like we have a goal keeper as in soccer to get concerned about here. Make it 1 metre wider. Maybe make the 2 point areas 50cm narrower so the whole goal front is the same. Just a thought.

That doesn't make the game more watchable though. People want increased scoring because it's a by-product of end to end play

 

[owen87]

the "man on the mark" is basically taken out of play

I really don't think that was the intent.

That's 100% the intent of the rule.

 

[Unique Name]

Has scoring gone up?

 

[Ati Tude]

That doesn't make the game more watchable though. People want increased scoring because it's a by-product of end to end play

I know what you mean but I think it does. Goals are a reward and people will feel better about what they are watching if there are more rewards, more bags from key forwards etc. People are forever complaining about poor accuracy in front of goal. The players dont seem to be able to do much about it, so lets help them by making the scoring area bigger. It is definitely a left field idea but in a few years you wouldnt even think about the change.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Should be allowed to move across the ground.
I can understand not allowing the 45 degree block of the mark, but surely east West is OK?

 

[Dirty Bird]

Has scoring gone up?

By 1 goal a game (per team)

 

[The Hobo]

If they want to open the game up, stop players from delaying the restart of play. It's that simple.

No more standing over the ball and preventing access to the ball, or accidentally tangling your legs with the opposition who's trying to get up.



What currently happens:
Man gets tackled HTB (or some other free kick). They lie on each other wrestling for the ball, pretending to get tangled etc etc. Eventually the conceding team get up and the recipient needs to go and get the ball, and then get to the top of his mark. In this time, a huge zone has been set up and there are no free options.

Changes to be made:

If a free kick is paid and results in the ball being stuck under a pack of players, the free kick recipient (and team mates) are encouraged to immediately move away from the pack and wait at the point where they would take their kick. It is the responsibility of the team that conceded the free kick to immediately pass the ball to the recipient. That includes picking it up off the floor. They need to do this with a level of urgency.

IF the recipient (or anyone on the receiving team) tries to get the ball themselves, resulting in a 'skirmish' for the ball, then the team is not penalised. The receiving team needs to be aware that they are not to try and 'contest' for the ball when they are receiving a free kick. They are better off leaving it to the other team to return.

If the ball is loose and away from the pack, then it is up to the recipient's team to get the ball as per current rules. If a player makes any attempt to slow the return of the ball (standing over it to block someone picking it up etc), that's 50.

The intent of this change means that there is no two teams competing to slow the other down/get the ball back. One team evacuates the area, leaving just one man. It also allows the recipient to get to the top of his mark waiting for the ball so he can start play as soon as he gets the ball. Umpires then penalise the team for not returning the ball in reasonable time with a 50m penalty. If the opposition team deliberately slows the man from going to the top of his mark, then that's a 50m penalty too.

Returning the ball in general needs to be sped up, and any sort of 'gamesmanship' to slow down play is to be discouraged.

It is so frustrating watching a player earn a free kick, and seeing many options ahead of them, only for the restart of play being slowed down by the opposition, and then all the free options dry up.

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.

 

[zeggie]

Stupid rule and should be axed entirely asap.

 

[Captain_Bender]

Get rid of all rules introduced by Hocking.

 

[RUNVS]

Get rid of all rules introduced by Hocking.

Do that and scoring goes down considerably.

 

[Captain_Bender]

Do that and scoring goes down considerably.

Scoring went down with the rules he introduced.

 

[CharacterFirst]

I like it.

I vote to keep.

 

[RUNVS]

Scoring went down with the rules he introduced.

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

 

[Big Sauce 21]

why don't players take a step back, can do what ever they want then

 

[LordLucifer]

This rule would never have been brought in if the umpires had made the player on the mark actually stand ON the mark (i.e. the position on the ground).

What we saw was a kick out on the full being taken with the player on the mark being allowed to move 15-20m towards the centre of the ground forcing the kick to go down the line.

With this silly "stand" rule, they make the player correctly man the mark in that instance by having one foot on the actual boundary line. Why the feck didn't they place him there initially ??

A 50m penalty should only be paid if the man on the mark actually encroaches the position on the ground, not for moving sideways or jumping up & down waving his arms.

I do have issues with the "protected space" thing too but that's for another discussion.

 

[sprockets]

why don't players take a step back, can do what ever they want then

No they can't, they need to be back at least 5 metres from the mark.

The stand rule is the most ridiculous rule I've ever seen brought in, with the ruck nomination rule not far behind. Get rid of both, plus a few others.

 

[Mudman85]

Scrap it. It offered nothing other than a few extra goals in early rounds that leveled out by mid season. If not scrapped then 2nd option, allow the player on the mark the same amount of lateral movement/freedom as the player with the ball. Will eliminate stupid late play on calls where they guy with the footy basically runs straight past a stationary player.

 

[Thrawn]

If we're going to keep that rule, please take the mics off the umpires. Because it always sounds like they're advertising Stan.

"STAAAAAN!"

 

[PetterdHoisted]

One of Shocking's great failures, and we assume the reason he is out of AFL House now.

The East-West rule was perfect.

So obvious it would lead to reduced scoring and boring chipping the ball from HBF to opposing HBF...Shocking must have known it would reduce scoring as we all called it would..so did he have an ulterior motive?