Ending congestion

Remove this Banner Ad

The STAND rule in operation shows great disrespect to the guy on the mark. He is made to STAND like some kid sent to the naughty corner. Which then gives the ball player the option of picking a target at 45 degrees to the line of play to the goals. This is a useful innovation. It stopped the man on the mark crabbing sideways to influence the flight of the ball released by the ball-player.

I think the evidence is in 9x16=144 matches that I cannot recall a single instance of the STATUE actually touching a kick from the ball-player. The ball-player has been given a huge advantage.
What you are advocating is yet another rule-change for the ball-player, ... to vary off his line and not be called for it. The rule has always been ...if you diverge off the line the umpire can call play on.
If you want leeway to diverge off the line of play how much divergence do you want to allow? 5 degrees. 15 degrees. 25 degrees 35 degrees. See, it is fraught with inconsistency.
Better to stick with the rule...any divergence is play-on.
 
VascoDaGamer said:
What you are advocating is yet another rule-change for the ball-player, ... to vary off his line and not be called for it. The rule has always been ...if you diverge off the line the umpire can call play on.
Click to expand...

The issue is that they've become super strict on it since about round 6. They've changed the interpretation.

You've always been allowed to shuffle around without being called to play on for going off your line. But now, the slightest lateral movement is called play on.

In isolation I don't care.

My issue is that it has negated the effect of the stand rule.

No one kicks without taking a step. Very few kick off one step. So with the change of interpretation, to take the attacking and risky 45 degree kick, you have to 100% commit to it. You can't face 45 degrees, begin a kicking motion (half a step) then change your mind - cause you get called to play on. You can't even veer off your line when considering the 45 kick.

So players have stopped doing it. They either accidentally take a half step and get called to play on, which renders the stand rule useless, or they're too wary of being called play on to aggressively commit to the 45 kick - which also renders the stand rule useless.

So players have once again started chipping sideways and backwards, or just kicking down the line. The safe options.

Which the bags the question - WTF have the stand rule at all??

What was the point of it?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Having recently finished Michael Warner's book- The Boys Club- it struck me that there seems a strong correlation between increasing congestion on field and an ever increasing number of people employed by the AFL.
Too many cooks spoil the broth?
 
Good morning LBR.
You think there has been an interpretation change, and this has brought super strictness suddenly into the game?
I invite you to look at this video



and you will see a game decided by a player who shuffled one short step. This incident occurred in 2012.
Strictness has always been with us my friend; not that it was applied consistently by the umpires.

On the other hand you are correct to identify that short chip kicks have re-emerged as a blight. The coaches have done their homework and conclude that short kicks and the Pause are two safe ways to relocate the congestion pack at half-back to become a congestion pack at half-forward. To achieve a reduction in congestion we have to eliminate the time-opportunity for packs to re-locate to a different area of the field. That is why I suggest we do away with the pause.

The STAND rule had a point. It made open continuous play re-emerge. The STATUE meant that the defensive side was a man down, because he literally could not even feel his hamstring while standing on the mark.
The STAND rule could still be made to work if we eliminated the pause.

And if my suggestion does not survive the coaches next wave of strategies to bring in structure and stoppages then we could always refer them to the MRO for bringing the game into disrepute. (Just kidding at this stage).
 
The trend in recent years from successful teams has been to play on immediately to try and beat your opponent's zone.

The stand rule does nothing if teams play like this. Teams play on before the defender has got into place never mind before the umpire calls stand. Any game where the ball is in continuous movement, the stand rule might as well not exist.

So I don't see it as facilitating quick ball movement. It only gets used when the player with the ball stops, goes back and the defender is stood on his mark.

The stats on where the ball goes will tell you how successful it is, if that shows the corridor is being used more.
 
1. The Stand rule has been strictly enforced so why not strictly enforce running off the line by the ball carrier? It's only fair, not that the rule's fair anyway.

2. This 'pause' has been around for years or even decades, it's nothing new. Players with the ball have been waiting for teammates to get into a forward position since the flood began way back.
 
sprockets said:
1. The Stand rule has been strictly enforced so why not strictly enforce running off the line by the ball carrier? It's only fair, not that the rule's fair anyway.

2. This 'pause' has been around for years or even decades, it's nothing new. Players with the ball have been waiting for teammates to get into a forward position since the flood began way back.
Click to expand...
The Stand rule wasn't introduced for fairness though. It was introduced to provide an advantage to the player with the ball.

The change in interpretation after about R6 of that player going off his line, has negated that advantage.

So the whole thing has ended up being a total waste of time.
 
VascoDaGamer said:
Good morning LBR.
You think there has been an interpretation change, and this has brought super strictness suddenly into the game?
I invite you to look at this video



and you will see a game decided by a player who shuffled one short step. This incident occurred in 2012.
Strictness has always been with us my friend; not that it was applied consistently by the umpires.
Click to expand...


He took the mark, then deviated about 3 steps off his line when running back. No Play On was called. It would have been right now.


It wasn't until he wheeled around to actually take the kick that the umpire called Play On. Capture+_2021-07-06-20-36-45~2.png Capture+_2021-07-06-20-36-18~3.png
 
Last edited:
Lavender Bushranger said:
The Stand rule wasn't introduced for fairness though. It was introduced to provide an advantage to the player with the ball.

The change in interpretation after about R6 of that player going off his line, has negated that advantage.

So the whole thing has ended up being a total waste of time.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree but all rules in every sport should have fairness in mind above all else. That's why I didn't like the rule from the start.
 
I agree that fairness should be an underling principle. But it is nebulous concept in terms of what equals what and is thus fair.

The 'pause' may have been allowed for many years but my argument is that it is time to recognize that the pause allows time for congested floods to move to a different area to be flooded. The 'pause' should be truncated to allow only enough time to walk back from the mark, and then play-on should be called immediately.
I went searching the rule book to see what guidance is given to umpires as to the length of the pause. Hard to put my finger on the clause number. Anyone out know the definitive answer? (We do know that in a shot for goal the 'kicking-for-goal-pause got lengthened to accommodate Matthew Lloyd. A poor rule change if ever I saw one).
 
VascoDaGamer said:
I agree that fairness should be an underling principle. But it is nebulous concept in terms of what equals what and is thus fair.

The 'pause' may have been allowed for many years but my argument is that it is time to recognize that the pause allows time for congested floods to move to a different area to be flooded. The 'pause' should be truncated to allow only enough time to walk back from the mark, and then play-on should be called immediately.
I went searching the rule book to see what guidance is given to umpires as to the length of the pause. Hard to put my finger on the clause number. Anyone out know the definitive answer? (We do know that in a shot for goal the 'kicking-for-goal-pause got lengthened to accommodate Matthew Lloyd. A poor rule change if ever I saw one).
Click to expand...
Fairness (of the rules) is when a rule isn't made to advantage one player over a player from the opposition, it's pretty straight forward. The stand rule was made to give the kicker an advantage over the man on the mark, for example. Even when calling play on quickly the kicker still has the advantage because he has to move before the umpire notices and makes his call and only then the player on the mark can react, but by then it's usually too late. It goes against what sport is.

I don't like the 30 seconds goal kicking rule (which isn't actually a rule) either. Why should someone kicking for goal and no-one else get 30 seconds? Matthew Lloyd was a reason for putting a time limit on goal kicking, before then there wasn't one, it was always a 'reasonable time', just like everywhere else on the field.

As it is today normal field kicking (ie, not shots for goal) has a 'reasonable time' as it's limit (rule 20.2). Is it 'reasonable' that someone should have to kick the ball before he's decided who to kick it to? Surely, if you're going to give a goal kicker time to brush his hair, break wind, pull up his socks and take a few deep breaths, when he already knows where's he's going to kick it, you should also give time to a player up the field to peruse the field to find a teammate in a good position to kick the ball to.

Having said all that it's probably best left for a different discussion.
 
Bombers v Adelaide at the speed-dome; this should be good.

  • Bombers score a point early.
  • Adelaide kick in to a short target
  • STAND call
  • Pause, to wait for next target
  • Kick to short target and umpire calls, NOT 15. Kick backwards to goal square.
  • Kick to short target in other pocket.
  • Pause, to wait for next target
  • both sides flood to between the arcs
  • Kick to short target
  • Mark.
  • Pause.
  • Kick to short target and umpire calls, NOT 15. Kick backwards to goal square.
  • Rinse and repeat.
  • It took 25 kicks to get out of the Adelaide back 50.
  • Already to give up on watching Pauses
  • Reaches for remote...click

Essendon coach comes to quarter time huddle and says "Guys, don't kick points ...plezze".
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

VascoDaGamer said:
Bombers v Adelaide at the speed-dome; this should be good.

  • Bombers score a point early.
  • Adelaide kick in to a short target
  • STAND call
  • Pause, to wait for next target
  • Kick to short target and umpire calls, NOT 15. Kick backwards to goal square.
  • Kick to short target in other pocket.
  • Pause, to wait for next target
  • both sides flood to between the arcs
  • Kick to short target
  • Mark.
  • Pause.
  • Kick to short target and umpire calls, NOT 15. Kick backwards to goal square.
  • Rinse and repeat.
  • It took 25 kicks to get out of the Adelaide back 50.
  • Already to give up on watching Pauses
  • Reaches for remote...click

Essendon coach comes to quarter time huddle and says "Guys, don't kick points ...plezze".
Click to expand...

Any coach would be delighted if it takes the opposition 25 short kicks to clear their defensive 50.

It's precisely what team zone defence is designed to achieve.


The AFL haven't helped with the rapid fire 'play on' calls either. If the player with the ball had more time (which they did have previously), in conjunction with the Stand rule, they could be more creative with how they move the ball.

Now they have a couple of seconds only to assess the team defence in place and decide whether to bite off a risky corridor kick. Of course they don't do that because the risk is too high - so they're left with a long kick down the line to a contest or a chip kick sideways.


The new interpretation of Play On has rendered the Stand rule a complete waste of time.
 
Good morning LBR.
The evidence in my post shows that rapid fire 'play on' calls were not occurring if the player just takes a few paces back and then does not move off the line. He is allowed to pause for far too long. When he has paused for a while the opportunity to be creative has disappeared. Hence we see 25 side-ways kicks just to get to the defensive arc.
If he is not going to use his freedom from tackle, that a short-kick-sideways-mark gives him, then we need to make him hurry-up. Use it or lose it.

The problem with the elongated pause, being allowed by Umpires, is that the time is used for both teams to re-locate and congest.

There has been no new interpretation of play-on. It is just being more consistently called if the player moves off the line.

W should not be allowing a time-pause if the player with the player with the ball is doing nothing but wait for team defence/attacks to be structured.
 
Last edited:
VascoDaGamer said:
Good morning LBR.
The evidence in my post shows that rapid fire 'play on' calls were not occurring if the player just takes a few paces back and then does not move off the line. He is allowed to pause for far too long. When he has paused for a while the opportunity to be creative has disappeared. Hence we see 25 side-ways kicks just to get to the defensive arc.
If he is not going to use his freedom from tackle, that a short-kick-sideways-mark gives him, then we need to make him hurry-up. Use it or lose it.

The problem with the elongated pause, being allowed by Umpires, is that the time is used for both teams to re-locate and congest.

There has been no new interpretation of play-on. It is just being more consistently called if the player moves off the line.

W should not be allowing a time-pause if the player with the player with the ball is doing nothing but wait for team defence/attacks to be structured.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree.

Completely and utterly disagree.


The pause only occurs because the defence is already in place.

Occasionally inexperienced players will miss an opportunity to play on quickly, but otherwise it only happens because team defence is already in place.

They don't move it slowly for a laugh.


This is why the Stand rulebwas brought in. To make moving the ball through the zone defence easier. There's one less player as part if the team defence.

Because they're now called to play on so quickly, only having a 17 man tram defence doesn't hurt as much.
 
Last edited:
You are entitled to disagree.


So what I am going to give is a list of pauses that are entirely unjustified. They are unjustified because it is impossible to call these first two examples 'reasonable time' for delay.

  1. Listen to the commentator say "...he has taken a nice mark and is back off the mark ready to kick, and his team-mates (and their opponents) are streaming back. He is looking for options. He ignores a short lead. He does not want to kick down the line to Jake Lever.............." Why do we allow this pause? It is unreasonable time. And it simply rewards the half-forwards to choose to congest down to the half-back line because they know that they can get back into their forward line during the world-wide-wait pause, that the a short chip kick-mark sets up.
  2. A player at the 55 metre mark keeps looking over his shoulder at the time-display on the scoreboard. Why do we allow this unreasonable delay? If a player is back off the mark he should be made to kick.
So there you are LBR, two cues as to when a pause is unreasonable. When you hear the commentator use the word streaming. Or when you see eyes darting back and forth to the shot-clock.

CALL
  • Use or lose it.
  • Play-on.
 
Last edited:
VascoDaGamer said:
You are entitled to disagree.


So what I am going to give is a list of pauses that are entirely unjustified. They are unjustified because it is impossible to call these first two examples 'reasonable time' for delay.

  1. Listen to the commentator say "...he has taken a nice mark and is back off the mark ready to kick, and his team-mates (and their opponents) are streaming back. He is looking for options. He ignores a short lead. He does not want to kick down the line to Jake Lever.............." Why do we allow this pause? It is unreasonable time. And it simply rewards the half-forwards to choose to congest down to the half-back line because they know that they can get back into their forward line during the world-wide-wait pause, that the a short chip kick-mark sets up.
  2. A player at the 55 metre mark keeps looking over his shoulder at the time-display on the scoreboard. Why do we allow this unreasonable delay? If a player is back off the mark he should be made to kick.
So there you are LBR, two cues as to when a pause is unreasonable. When you hear the commentator use the word streaming. Or when you see eyes darting back and forth to the shot-clock.

CALL
  • Use or lose it.
  • Play-on.
Click to expand...
Watching the Roos v Bombers game and it is clear that the Roos have decided on the team plan to utilize the STAND rule by making very short kicks to a certain target. Just watched 15 kicks in a row to move 50 metres. No risk involved because the payer with the ball pauses www until the structure/lead/target appears to his desire. This takes FOREVER guys. There is no congestion. And what is more there is no REAL football for 2 minutes.

I ask again ....a mark justifies having freedom to kick in any direction you wish, but where is it written that you can pause, pause, pause.
Use it of lose it.
 
A bit off topic, but a terrible 50m penalty against the Pies yesterday, when a player went over the mark - even though the ump didn't set the mark or give the usual 'stand' direction. In isolation, probably to the letter of the law, but why do they usually give a chance to the player on the mark to get in the right position? Every single game you see players move forward until the ump calls stand and that's what the player does. (Plus, I saw a number of players go through 'protected zones' without consequence - another rule that is applied very randomly). I'm not usually an umpire basher, because I think the problems with umpiring come from above, but these decisions don't help.
 
Yep the old "exclusion zone" rule that gets applied every now and then.
Some games you see it payed 3-4 times then other games not once even though it definitely happens.
 
BomberManU said:
A bit off topic, but a terrible 50m penalty against the Pies yesterday, when a player went over the mark - even though the ump didn't set the mark or give the usual 'stand' direction. In isolation, probably to the letter of the law, but why do they usually give a chance to the player on the mark to get in the right position? Every single game you see players move forward until the ump calls stand and that's what the player does. (Plus, I saw a number of players go through 'protected zones' without consequence - another rule that is applied very randomly). I'm not usually an umpire basher, because I think the problems with umpiring come from above, but these decisions don't help.
Click to expand...
Drives me insane how umpires let things go for weeks and weeks until players abd coaches assume the interpretation has changed - then just randomly pay one out of the blue!

It was a clear 50 - but they haven't paid one of them for about 18 months!!
 
BomberManU said:
A bit off topic, but a terrible 50m penalty against the Pies yesterday, when a player went over the mark - even though the ump didn't set the mark or give the usual 'stand' direction. In isolation, probably to the letter of the law, but why do they usually give a chance to the player on the mark to get in the right position? Every single game you see players move forward until the ump calls stand and that's what the player does. (Plus, I saw a number of players go through 'protected zones' without consequence - another rule that is applied very randomly). I'm not usually an umpire basher, because I think the problems with umpiring come from above, but these decisions don't help.
Click to expand...
The problem is the umpires need to make too many decisions, have too much going on in their heads to adjudicate all infringements properly and fairly and there's interpretations and so many 50/50's.
 
What I am saying is that assessing options is OK BUT the umpire has to look at all aspects of what is occurring.
Let me give an example from last night; all operated by Connor Rozee.
Step 1 ... he gets a mark or a free kick
Step 2 .... he walks back 5 steps from the defender and at the same time diverges 2 or 3 steps to the right. This leaves the guy on STAND right out of the line of play.
Step 4 ...Connor pauses to assess options down field
Step 5... Connor pivots and handballs to another attacker at 3 o'clock and running fast.
Step 6 .. the handball receiver hits up a leading forward who has had time to get set with blockers and lead into space.

In summary, the umpire makes a mistake in step 2; he should have called an immediate play-on for stepping off the line. The umpire makes a second mistake in step 4 in allowing time to assess options. Rozee was not assessing options, he was waiting for the set-up by the attacker at 3 o'clock, and the hit-up man getting a blocker.

This tactic eventually lead to 4 goals by the Power.
Do we want our game to head towards Gridiron with its playbooks and number calling?

ps Thank you LBR for your engagement on this www_blight. Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
VascoDaGamer said:
What I am saying is that assessing options is OK BUT the umpire has to look at all aspects of what is occurring.
Let me give an example from last night; all operated by Connor Rozee.
Step 1 ... he gets a mark or a free kick
Step 2 .... he walks back 5 steps from the defender and at the same time diverges 2 or 3 steps to the right. This leaves the guy on STAND right out of the line of play.
Step 4 ...Connor pauses to assess options down field
Step 5... Connor pivots and handballs to another attacker at 3 o'clock and running fast.
Step 6 .. the handball receiver hits up a leading forward who has had time to get set with blockers and lead into space.

In summary, the umpire makes a mistake in step 2; he should have called an immediate play-on for stepping off the line. The umpire makes a second mistake in step 4 in allowing time to assess options. Rozee was not assessing options, he was waiting for the set-up by the attacker at 3 o'clock, and the hit-up man getting a blocker.

This tactic eventually lead to 4 goals by the Power.
Do we want our game to head towards Gridiron with its playbooks and number calling?

ps Thank you LBR for your engagement on this www_blight. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

I guess it comes down to how individuals want the game to look like.

That's why the AFL has no hope of 'fixing' the game. If you ask 5 people what the game should look like, you'll get 6 different answers.

I'm an offence guy. In all sports.

Now that doesn't mean that high scores are the priority and more goals means a better game.

I've posted about this before..

IMO, the good sports are ones where good offence beats good defence
Where no matter how good the defense is, the offence can win out if it's good enough.

I'm talking about play by play scenarios during games.

NBA, NFL, baseball, athletics, swimming, F1, cricket, MMA, soccer - all sports where the offence has the advantage.

In the AFL, the issue is that good offence no longer beats good defence. Defence wins. It used to be the opposite, but now it's not.

Therein lies the problem.

It means the superstars aren't worth paying to see. The superstars used to rip games apart with individual brilliance and kick 10 - now they get 18 short kicks across the half back line. Even the superstars are boring.

So back to the stand rule, although the AFL screwed it up as usual, I think they were on the right track. And it's why I disagree with you.

It's needs to be harder to defend in the AFL. Currently, it's too easy. The advantage is with the defending team. The main reason is that you very, very rarely have to defend on your own. It's too easy to double team and 'team defend'.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Ending congestion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top