I'd like to get a feel for how supporters of other clubs feel about the rule.
I don't think you'd find a tigers fan that doesn't despise it so there's not much point discussing it over there. I think it's mostly because it coincides with the demise of our dynasty and the fact most on the Richmond board think that there is a legitimate conspiracy against our club from the AFL and Hocking who introduced the rule. Now I don't subscribe to that theory but I'm nearly one out in that regard it so I'd like to hear the opinions of supporters of other clubs. I've got a hardcore Dees mate that surprise, surprise absolutely loves it. He reckons the game has never been better
I've hated the rule since before a ball was bounced last season (and before we sucked). I hate the optics of it, I hate sound of it and I hate the contentious 50m penalties it's creating (plus I think 50m is far to great a penalty for most rule breaches but that's for another day). I think it's a terrible look having the man on the mark stand still like a statue within scoring distance while their opponent runs around unimpeded and has a kick for goal. I think it's a terrible look having players scrambling to get outside 5m to get back and help defend, leaving the bloke with the ball without a man. Clearly the dogs are most guilty of this tactic and I'm not sure it even works as a tactic but * me it just looks dumb. I hate how players now are feigning to give off a handball to try and suck the man on the mark in to taking a step too early. This happens multiple times every game and I hate that the players are falling for it regularly too. That isn't footy.
Sure, it may have slightly promoted ball movement but overall I don't think the game is any better off, at best. There was nothing wrong with the old rule. Do what you want, just don't go over the ******* mark. Pretty simple. As it stands now 5 meters is too hard to judge in an instant, the "2-3 seconds" players have to scram or stand still varies between umps and between moments in games and the time it takes for the ump to call play on, thus allowing the man on the mark to wake up varies between ump to ump. Players don't hear the ump call stand over the crowd noise quite often. STAND, STAND, STAND, OUTSIDE FIVE, OUTSIDE FIVE, STAND, PLAY ON. Drives me ******* nuts.
So....do you like it? And why. do you think the coaches and clubs prefer it? If not, would the AFL have the balls to admit they ****ed up for once and remove it?
I don't think you'd find a tigers fan that doesn't despise it so there's not much point discussing it over there. I think it's mostly because it coincides with the demise of our dynasty and the fact most on the Richmond board think that there is a legitimate conspiracy against our club from the AFL and Hocking who introduced the rule. Now I don't subscribe to that theory but I'm nearly one out in that regard it so I'd like to hear the opinions of supporters of other clubs. I've got a hardcore Dees mate that surprise, surprise absolutely loves it. He reckons the game has never been better
I've hated the rule since before a ball was bounced last season (and before we sucked
). I hate the optics of it, I hate sound of it and I hate the contentious 50m penalties it's creating (plus I think 50m is far to great a penalty for most rule breaches but that's for another day). I think it's a terrible look having the man on the mark stand still like a statue within scoring distance while their opponent runs around unimpeded and has a kick for goal. I think it's a terrible look having players scrambling to get outside 5m to get back and help defend, leaving the bloke with the ball without a man. Clearly the dogs are most guilty of this tactic and I'm not sure it even works as a tactic but * me it just looks dumb. I hate how players now are feigning to give off a handball to try and suck the man on the mark in to taking a step too early. This happens multiple times every game and I hate that the players are falling for it regularly too. That isn't footy.Sure, it may have slightly promoted ball movement but overall I don't think the game is any better off, at best. There was nothing wrong with the old rule. Do what you want, just don't go over the ******* mark. Pretty simple. As it stands now 5 meters is too hard to judge in an instant, the "2-3 seconds" players have to scram or stand still varies between umps and between moments in games and the time it takes for the ump to call play on, thus allowing the man on the mark to wake up varies between ump to ump. Players don't hear the ump call stand over the crowd noise quite often. STAND, STAND, STAND, OUTSIDE FIVE, OUTSIDE FIVE, STAND, PLAY ON. Drives me ******* nuts.
So....do you like it? And why. do you think the coaches and clubs prefer it? If not, would the AFL have the balls to admit they ****ed up for once and remove it?
