Analysis THE STAND. How is it working out?

How do you feel about The Stand?


  • Total voters
    10

Large 1

Club Legend
May 7, 2015
1,375
3,124
AFL Club
Adelaide
This whole debate really goes to how much reward should a player get for taking a mark. Personally, I think that a mark (especially a contested mark when it is hard to play on) has not benefitted the marking team enough (in the field of play - not forward 50).

Therefore I have no problem with the pendulum swimming back towards the attacking team. But the 50m penalty is too severe.
 

Murray2503

Cancelled
10k Posts
May 10, 2016
16,259
13,252
AFL Club
Adelaide
I really enjoyed it, and don't care if the kicker gets an advantage. Let the kicker have an advantage. It did some really great things for the flow of play for both teams.

I'm in.
By the end of the year we will be back to how it was last year. Already the players aren't listening to the umpire and are daring them to give a 50. Surely there is a better way to decrease congestion. Get rid of 2 players a team, increase kick distance to 25 metres, make it last touch out of bounds like the SANFL. The game length is also way too long now. 18 min max, not 20. The main problem in the game is also players throwing the ball and incorrect disposal along with ducking. Geelong did it all game last night, umpiring was blatant cheating.
 

chrisso crow

All Australian
Jul 27, 2020
965
1,326
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
NA Roosters
I only have a small sample size of a few games, but to me it seems to have resulted in a more free flowing game with less congestion.

It's very annoying hearing the umpires call "stand" (is it time we removed the audio of the umpires?) but I saw a few positive examples of the rule allowing players to move the ball on quicker.

But can anyone tell me why it isn't for all standing the mark? Players seem to be able to stand 5m back from the mark and they don't have to stand still? Are we already seeing teams get around this rule?

The extra distance allowed by the full back for kicking out has also been a positive move, you see less of the 15m pass to the BP and more long kicks to the wings and centre.
 
Mar 23, 2008
25,893
32,127
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Standing the mark benefitted defenders because it stopped the kicker cribbing extra metres. Now there's no benefit. It just takes a man out of the play for a crucial few seconds. So why don't teams just NOT stand the mark? Position the defending player elsewhere.
Which is exactly what I proposed when the rule first appeared. I've seen Geelong do it often though and now I'm not convinced it's such a good idea anymore.
 
Mar 23, 2008
25,893
32,127
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
The most annoying thing is when the kicker is positioned more to the side of the player on the mark and is allowed to run forward a good two metres to the side of the stationary guy on the mark - the ump doesn't call play on until he's nearly level with the guy on the mark and is free to just run around him. Have seen that half a dozen times in the few matches I've watched.

It's just a free hit...and is s**t umpiring.
 
Jun 21, 2014
8,559
9,320
AFL Club
Adelaide
The most annoying thing is when the kicker is positioned more to the side of the player on the mark and is allowed to run forward a good two metres to the side of the stationary guy on the mark - the ump doesn't call play on until he's nearly level with the guy on the mark and is free to just run around him. Have seen that half a dozen times in the few matches I've watched.

It's just a free hit...and is sh*t umpiring.

I think we're missing something. There seem to be two situations, most clearly observable for OOFs. (1) The umpire takes great pains to place the mark on the boundary, and calls play-on if the kicker runs at an angle. (2) E.g., Tex, the umpire orders the marker to stay 5-m away and lets the kicker do what he likes. I saw both in today's match. On reflection, I think there must be a rule that if the marker doesn't make the mark early enough, then there is no formal marker at all and he has to stay out of the zone.
 
Mar 23, 2008
25,893
32,127
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think we're missing something. There seem to be two situations, most clearly observable for OOFs. (1) The umpire takes great pains to place the mark on the boundary, and calls play-on if the kicker runs at an angle. (2) E.g., Tex, the umpire orders the marker to stay 5-m away and lets the kicker do what he likes. I saw both in today's match. On reflection, I think there must be a rule that if the marker doesn't make the mark early enough, then there is no formal marker at all and he has to stay out of the zone.
And yet in that instance, Tex was told to stand, so it should have been the actual mark. If he’s 5 metres away he can do as he pleases except enter the 5m zone.
 

arrowman

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 27, 2004
13,332
16,377
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
They called Buddy to play on, on Saturday, immediately he started to move into his "arc". Good. As long as they're quick with the "play on" call, and this continues, the rule will work OK. The worry is that this will drop off over time.
 

Slippery Pete

Samcro24 alias account
Jul 19, 2010
25,387
61,662
AFL Club
Adelaide
The most annoying thing is when the kicker is positioned more to the side of the player on the mark and is allowed to run forward a good two metres to the side of the stationary guy on the mark - the ump doesn't call play on until he's nearly level with the guy on the mark and is free to just run around him. Have seen that half a dozen times in the few matches I've watched.

It's just a free hit...and is sh*t umpiring.

It’s more a s**t rule than s**t umpiring
 

40porpoise

Club Legend
Aug 29, 2013
2,087
4,248
AFL Club
Adelaide
I like the free flowing footy but does the ends justify the means? The guy standing on the mark watching the opposition waltz past them is ridiculous. Surely we can achieve the same result in a different way?
 
Oct 15, 2012
11,815
21,844
Hobart
AFL Club
Adelaide
Those saying that the new man on the mark rule is rubbish and easy to get around ... I'm gonna wait and see. I think you are wrong if you think that standing a few metres back allows you total freedom, that's not how I read it. I'm not sure if it is a good rule or not, need to see it in action.

I've said I want to see it in action before I judge it in its entirety - now I have. That looks bad. Really bad.

The umpire should have called play-on once the player with the ball moved an inch off his line. That is the only way it works ... and even then it's a solution without a problem.


Ok ... Second take.

It does open up the play massively if the players learn to stand still.

My worry is the interpretation by the umps.

As we move along this new rule timeline ... I'm seeing the initial problem I thought would crop up becoming the issue.

Inconsistency in umpiring the man-on-the-mark rule is the big one, as with most problems we have with AFL rules.

Players are moving and not getting pinged, so when it does happen we are going to throw our arms up.

Bulldogs, Cats and Tigers are the ones I see getting away with it at the moment .. they do not get penalised, they put out their arms and sorry as they slow down the play-on.

I think the AFL stumbled onto something good, then got scared to keep it how it was.

After seeing the rule in play I'd go harder than the original description:
Man on the mark must stand and cannot play-on until the ball is disposed of OR the player with the ball moves out of the 5m corridor either side.​
 
As we move along this new rule timeline ... I'm seeing the initial problem I thought would crop up becoming the issue.

Inconsistency in umpiring the man-on-the-mark rule is the big one, as with most problems we have with AFL rules.

Players are moving and not getting pinged, so when it does happen we are going to throw our arms up.

Bulldogs, Cats and Tigers are the ones I see getting away with it at the moment .. they do not get penalised, they put out their arms and sorry as they slow down the play-on.

I think the AFL stumbled onto something good, then got scared to keep it how it was.

After seeing the rule in play I'd go harder than the original description:
Man on the mark must stand and cannot play-on until the ball is disposed of OR the player with the ball moves out of the 5m corridor either side.​
The umpires do appear to have relaxed the rule a bit... not calling all infringements like they did in earlier rounds.

This always seems to happen with new rules.
 
It's stopped being policed and the game has suffered visually for it. Really disappointing.
Perhaps they will ramp it up for our game...

Don't reckon the AFL would have been happy with last night's game.
 
Jun 30, 2014
29,143
34,097
The Winchester
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, East Side Hawks
View attachment 1084039

I thought it might be an idea to start an ongoing discussion of how the "Stand" rule is working out.

I'll start with a cross-thread quote:


I'm working off a sample size of one game :) but I thought the rule worked well - not a negative, and in some ways a positive for the flow of the game, and giving the smart kicker an edge without it being over the top in the kicker's favour.

I didn't think the umpires were late with 'play on' calls, in fact I felt they were pretty hot on it, and rightly so, I'm sure they're aware of the potential issues if they don't make a quick call.

I don't agree with the idea of letting players move before the umpire has called it - it's appealing, but players should never be able to make their own decisions vs the umpire, and it'd be massively open to controversy.

All in all - after one game, yes, I'll give it a tick.
I saw two opposing players run through the mark last night while the stand rule was in place.
The amount of laxity on this rule has exponentially changed from immediate at its start.
I have no doubt that was one way it’s going to get manipulated by teams.
Umpires being lax are letting teams set up now hence slowing it down.
You make a rule, stick to it, rather than letting teams and umpires create grey areas.
 
Jun 30, 2014
29,143
34,097
The Winchester
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, East Side Hawks
Until we play Sunday and one of our guys overbalances a millimetre and gets pinged the 50 for a gaol.

You know it's gonna happen.
That may well be the case. And wouldn’t be surprised it being a fifty against us to give Kyle Harriman a sausage.
Thing is, the rule has gone lax.
 
Jun 30, 2014
29,143
34,097
The Winchester
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, East Side Hawks
Coaches want the game played a certain way and they will always find a way for the game to get back to that way. Only a matter of time before they completely counter the change
This situation is blending into the exclusion zone. And there is going to be s**t decisions made.
 
Back