Stand rule

[master bate]

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.

Melbourne didn't lose a game in the first 9 weeks with McDonald, Jackson and Fritsch. I don't see why the Tigers couldn't do the same with Riewoldt, Lynch and Chol/CCJ.

Same down back where May, Lever and Tomlinson controlled things - none of them big 200cm monsters, all mobile and Lever and May probably border on undersized in pure cms. Richmond had Astbury, Broad, Balta and Grimes available and dominated defensively with that set up for years.

I can see why you want Tarrant to replace Astbury and can then keep a tall backline. And obviously you need to make a move to find a replacement for CCJ/Chol and someone who consistently plays.

But remembering back to ANZAC Eve, back in the glory days of going to the footy, it was Salem, Petracca, Oliver and Langdon who were the difference in that game. Salem controlled the game from half back and Petracca with power running broke it open. Oliver was Oliver and Langdon was Langdon. It was wet and 2 good teams didn't bother with chipping it around with the stand rule, it was tough hard fast physical footy.

If Prestia, Cotchin, Martin, Lambert and Graham were all fit and up for the fight it would've been game on. But Dusty was looking ready for a trip to NZ and got concussed. Cotchin couldn't go with the younger Melbourne mids. Lambert got injured. Graham was chasing a step behind. Prestia didn't play.

Jackson was very good too, I think Astbury couldn't go with him either. But not to the extent that it was won by tall forwards.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Footy legend Kevin Bartlett has urged the AFL to scrap the contentious ‘stand’ rule, declaring it an “embarrassing” blight on the game.

The Tigers great said a raft of recent rule changes aimed at reversing plummeting scoring rates had failed miserably, and should all be binned.
...
Bartlett’s biggest bug bear is the ‘stand’ rule, which he says is contrary to the spirit of the game.

“The ‘stand’ rule is an embarrassment to the game because it pits 18 against 17 and the game was never designed to leave a team a player short. If a player can’t guard the mark, they are made to look foolish when a player runs off alongside them and the umpire isn’t quick enough to call play on. Guarding the mark was always a strong point of the top sides. It was almost an art form. Now the man on the mark is like a statue, sometimes it is like he is stuck in concrete.”

https://www.cairnspost.com.au/sport...s/news-story/cfdb1016d1ea03791330c30362975f96 (paywalled)

 

[smasha]

We all know why Hocking introduced these rules.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

We all know why Hocking introduced these rules.

yep, while published as a rumour early in the year that the 'Stand' rule was Hocking's anti-Richmond rule, by the end of the season it was being discussed openly in the media.

By that point the message was that yes, the AFL was at war with Richmond, but that Richmond deserved it somehow, though they were always vague on the reason why.

Caro brought up Richmonds 'sins', kebab-gate, not wanting to play at the Docklands etc. but also seemed to be suggesting that Gill is waging a war to bring down Brendan Gale the erstwhile favourite for Gill's job.

Overall, hard to say whether it was driven by Hocking, or Gill, or both, but certainly openly discussed that the Tigers were targeted.

 

[Carl]

Scrap the stand rule and the one where you run by a player who has a mark and don't interfere with play and it's 50m. In the protected zone or some crap. How about paying a free for not making a genuine attempt to get rid of the footy. Who cares if you get tackled within 1 second, you still need to try and get rid of it.

What other sport has a rules committee that changes rules every year?

If this is the greatest sport in the world why do we have to change the rules all the time? No rule changes for 5 years.

 

[DavidSSS]

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.

Really, in what way?

You can make a statement like this but, you know, someone is going to check the numbers.

So, what do we find?

Let's look at inside 50s per game shall we:

2011	103
2012	102
2013	101
2014	101
2015	100
2016	104
2017	105
2018	105
2019	104
2021	103

2020 excluded for obvious reasons.

I could go back further but it makes little difference.

Inside 50 numbers are objective evidence that the stand rule has not opened up the game, things might move to the forward 50 quicker, but mainly because defending the middle of the ground has become impossible because of the outnumber created by turning one player (the player on the mark) into a statue. Then the ball gets stuck until there is a score - a goal it goes back to the middle, and a behind the player kicking out runs 50 metres and delivers to the wing at minimum.

Not only has scoring not increased, if you look at the best team for each season (ie: the Premiers) going back to 2000 the average score for the Premiers has gone down, Melbourne the 4th premiership team over that time to average less than 90 points a game (the others are Sydney 2005, Dogs 2016 and Richmond 2019) and they are the only premiership team in the period since 2000 who have averaged less than 70 kicked against them per game over a season. So, these rules are opening up and making the game less defensive? I think not, and the evidence backs me up - the best team for 2021 managed to strangle their opposition more than any other premiership team since 2000 (and likely for some years earlier).

Players have been running sideways on the mark to block the outlet for decades. The rule is a crock, it needs to go.

The game has evolved. We no longer see 50 goals in a Grand Final (1972) but that's life, the game evolves. The rule changes don't stop the evolution as we can see in many stats, all they do is make a mess.

DS

 

[master bate]

Really, in what way?

You can make a statement like this but, you know, someone is going to check the numbers.

So, what do we find?

Fair enough, I got that one wrong, I'm sure I had read that.

I haven't seen an end of year wrap up and the AFL will guard stats very closely, but this was mid year:

The spike in uninterrupted ball movement from defensive 50 to attacking 50 has been one of the most significant changes in 2021, with the League's data showing the D50 to I50 transition rate has increased by 3.8 per cent this season.

This change was most pronounced early in the season, when the rate was 26.8 per cent from rounds one to three, but it has held relatively firm to be 24.1 per cent across the 12 completed rounds.

The kick-in to inside 50 rate of 23.4 per cent is an increase on both 2019 (18.8 per cent) and the adjusted 2020 rate of 19.1 per cent.

Corridor use, meanwhile, has remained relatively unchanged compared to the past two seasons at 27.8 per cent, an increase of 0.3 per cent compared to 2019.

There were two matches in round 12 – the Dreamtime clash and Collingwood's win over Adelaide – with corridor use of more than 33 per cent.

Stoppages remain down, with 7.2 fewer a game compared to adjusted 2020 figures, while the rate of secondary stoppages (13.9 per cent) has also fallen slightly compared to 2020 (15.4 per cent) and 2019 (14.3 per cent).

So it might have been transition between the 50's that was up. If stoppages are down 7 as well that's a much better game to watch.

The stand rule has not led to a proliferation of kick-mark game plans either. If Geelong and the Eagles were strangling the game with chip kicks that would be bad but it's not true.

The ball is moving quickly from end to end. That's way better than watching the ball go from the forward flank in to the pocket then back to the flank all day long with a bunch of ball ups and throw ins.

And yes Melbourne were a great defensive team and protected their defensive 50 entries with May dropping back the way Rance and Grimes had for years prior. They did that by really strong defensive running so transitions were slower, whilst still protecting the corridor. But they often had to concede the ball out of their forward line or concede kicks towards half forward.

Again, I'd rather teams have the change to move the ball freely and quickly between the arcs even if they get punished kicking it in to set key defenders (and often quality ones at that) than stoppage after stoppage and the ball sit in one part of the ground. Teams and forwards will eventually work out how to disrupt set defenders and score more. Scoring and fluent ball movement wasn't going to ever get better if it's just bogged down repeat entries.

 

[Call Me Cake]

It becomes polarisingly stupid to watch when you see a player kick to another resulting in a mark but no oppo player nearby to "stand for the mark" - so you see 2 oppo players 10 metres away looking at each other, freezing, unsure of whether they can move or not despite not being anywhere near the mark - and not moving up with a fear that they will risk being seen as a player moving instead of being a statue in time to be there before a kick is taken.

Either fix the interpretation of the rule for a better and more coherent understanding or introduce 25m penalties for actions deemed less severe to the play.

 

[DavidSSS]

Teams will work out how to disrupt, and the lower the scores the more incentive there is to just try and outscore the other team.

But the rule changes just make a mess and everyone has to adjust. While they adjust they are not innovating.

The way Richmond play, the sling shot off half back is exciting, push the ball forward fast, don't stop and get the ball forward to score. Melbourne are exciting when on song. The rule changes are just getting in the way of the evolution of the game and they are creating too many unbalanced situations in a vain attempt to encourage attack. The way that players kicking out from a behind have 15metres before the man on the mark is possibly worse than the stand rule. The reality is that the response to these rules is for teams to fold back more, to take less risks and the scoring reflects that.

I can, to some extent, understand the issues with stoppages. But part of that is because stoppages take forever. If the umpires just threw the ball up immediately, stoppages would be a lot less of an issue.

DS

 

[Call Me Cake]

All these Tigers fans complaining about the rule for different reasons though, too convinced by their paranoia they consider it as being the reason for their drop rather than the fact that they're just older, slower and sh**ter. It was gonna be over regardless, accept it and move on.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

All these Tigers fans complaining about the rule for different reasons though, too convinced by their paranoia they consider it as being the reason for their drop rather than the fact that they're just older, slower and sh**ter. It was gonna be over regardless, accept it and move on.

Wasn’t us who said it, the media leaked it. You expect after that we are going to be happy about it?
Be reasonable, you would have reacted to that news the same way. It should never have happened.

 

[And_ROOS]

I don't think as a rule the stand rule really was worth it to be honest. Its far too strict and the punishment too severe especially when the umpires wouldn't waste obvious time wasting techniques like players standing over other players or taking too long to throw the ball back.

After watching classic GFs from 2001 to 2011 its been hard to accept this years football because its just not as enjoyable to watch.

 

[amazingjoshy]

All these Tigers fans complaining about the rule for different reasons though, too convinced by their paranoia they consider it as being the reason for their drop rather than the fact that they're just older, slower and sh**ter. It was gonna be over regardless, accept it and move on.

Things is, forgetting all the anti Richmond conspiracy nutjob stuff, they are mostly spot on about the effect of the rule changes. The game (and scoring) would've worked itself out, the changes have just put everything back a few years. And just produced one the most unwatchable years of football I can remember.

 

[Grrr]

There is some merit, a small one, as to why the rule was introduced, to stop sagging off and guarding of space, not a particularly big problem.

If the man on the mark was able to move laterally the same amount as the man with the ball, then I would have no problem with it. The kicker wandering off his line, which happens all the time, is almost never called by the ump until they are in stride and away. If the marker was able to move in a similar fashion, not sagging off, not over compensating, then it would not give the kicker such a ridiculous advantage and not make the rule the complete f**k up that it is.

 

[Grrr]

All these Tigers fans complaining about the rule for different reasons though, too convinced by their paranoia they consider it as being the reason for their drop rather than the fact that they're just older, slower and sh**ter. It was gonna be over regardless, accept it and move on.

But it is nonsensical to watch a player run around the mark and the man on the mark is still stationary because the umps, who had a whole season to get the hang of it hasn't called play on. I saw a player on his mark late in the season, stand there with his hands in the air while the kicker ran around him and was 10m past him and kicked for goal without the ump blowing play on. So from 65 to 45m out. Sure the player was making a point, but if a Grand Final or a close game was decided like that there would be outrage. Ump's make mistakes, but why add another layer of difficulty in already the most difficult game in the world to officiate.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

I'm not sure if I would get rid of it or not, but as I saw it there were two definite problems with it, one of which heavily impeded the increase in scoring it was designed to bring.

Firstly, as many have mentioned, the umpires never adapted to calling play on quickly enough and we saw some pretty farcical situations with players standing still well after the kicker had moved off.

For the intent of the rule itself, with the inability to defend the space around the kicker adequately, players are streaming downfield to protect space around where the next kick is likely to go. In essence almost a form of flooding. On one hand the rule seemed a dream for the Eagles, on the other with their slow ball movement it was harder to find space where the next kick was headed.