Rules Should the stand rule be abolished?

[Bjo187]

Yep it was a great rule introduction from hocking, that and the longer area to kick in from really improved the spectacle. The only thing I would improve is for the umpire to be in better positions to call play on quicker when the kicker goes off their line, especially for set shots.

In saying all that, anybody that doesn't see the positive affect of the stand rule knows next to nothing about football, tactics and game styles.

 

[FISTO]

So let's not fix up so many of the ****ed up rule changes of past.
That makes no effing sense.

It is your opinion that they messed up with the rule changes, not mine.

What I find interesting is that you want the same organisation who apparently “****ed up rule changes of the past” to continue to make more changes…
Now that makes no effing sense.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

No, but it should be relaxed slightly. A player in possession of the footy can act faster than the umpire is able to communicate.

If a player in possession feigns taking off and the player on the mark instinctively moves, that should be allowed.
We've seen in games where players exploit the lag time when the umpire hasn't yet called 'play on'.

Agreed.

I also would like to see it removed inside the 50m arc. Shouldn’t be something a defender has to navigate, as we’ve already made the almost impossible for defenders with no arm interference, no boundary line as a friend and the hands in the back rule that’s continually ignored for forwards, but upheld against defenders.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

anybody that doesn't see the positive affect of the stand rule knows next to nothing about football, tactics and game styles.

That's very ironic, since the rule hasn't changed any of the trends of the game. It's still played around flooding tactics, and scoring continues to fluctuate down. It's also uglier, with paranoid players not moving off the mark when it's play-on. or the umpires messing up and not calling play-on, umpires screaming, "STAND" 24/7 and more umpire intervention.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Not gonna straddle the barbed wire fence on this one. The rule still makes me as bandy as a bandicoot I tell ya. Barry Crocker of a rule.

Players should be encouraged to compete and pit their wits against each other. The stand on the mark rule has had the opposite effect. Bloke standing on the mark is rendered useless.

The rule is all froth and no beer.

Turf it.

 

[LTT]

Yep it was a great rule introduction from hocking, that and the longer area to kick in from really improved the spectacle. The only thing I would improve is for the umpire to be in better positions to call play on quicker when the kicker goes off their line, especially for set shots.

In saying all that, anybody that doesn't see the positive affect of the stand rule knows next to nothing about football, tactics and game styles.

That last sentence is pretty bold given some AFL premiership coaches have criticized it. Just for perspective, how many AFL premierships have you coached

 

[Bjo187]

That last sentence is pretty bold given some AFL premiership coaches have criticized it. Just for perspective, how many AFL premierships have you coached

No doubt coaches that benefited from their team using the man on the mark as an extra player in their zone defence.

 

[Obeanie1]

No doubt coaches that benefited from their team using the man on the mark as an extra player in their zone defence.

So do you think a player being frozen on the spot until the umpire calls play on is a good spectacle?

I and many others don't think so.

Would you be happy losing a game or final because the umpire took too long to call play on and the kicker ran around the mark and it just got through?

It is a horrible look and a horrid rule.

And as soon as a team gets shafted by poor umpiring of a poor rule the AFL will do back flips within weeks. It's how they operate.

 

[Ceehook]

Its a very netball like rule

Plenty of players were penalised for moving just one foot, like it was straight out of the Squid games, Red light Green light , that was the straight out ridiculous part

for such a significant change it should have been trialled in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL for a season , which I think shows it was very politically motivated and not a move that was aimed at improving the game

the 6 6 6 rule stopped teams from parking the bus right from the centre bounce and I think that was enough to open the game up

I'm for players on the mark moving from side to side , dropping back or jumping up marking the ball carrier think about what they are doing , its creates a small amount of pressure, adds to the contest , we tune into to see a contest not a lane work session form training

 

[Bjo187]

So do you think a player being frozen on the spot until the umpire calls play on is a good spectacle?

I and many others don't think so.

Would you be happy losing a game or final because the umpire took too long to call play on and the kicker ran around the mark and it just got through?

It is a horrible look and a horrid rule.

And as soon as a team gets shafted by poor umpiring of a poor rule the AFL will do back flips within weeks. It's how they operate.

I said previously the umpiring of it needs to be improved, but the actual rule is superb and has opened the game up big time.

Its a very netball like rule


I'm for players on the mark moving from side to side , dropping back or jumping up marking the ball carrier think about what they are doing , its creates a small amount of pressure, adds to the contest , we tune into to see a contest not a lane work session form training

I think the 17 other players in the team defence can add enough pressure without some idiot on the mark pivoting left and right jumping around and cutting off every potential low and flat kick through the middle of the ground.

 

[RUNVS]

the 6 6 6 rule stopped teams from parking the bus right from the centre bounce and I think that was enough to open the game up

It stopped teams parking the bus for one centre bounce. If a goal was not kicked within 20 seconds of that centre bounce then the rule is pointless. So assuming there are lets say 25 goals in a match that is a total of around 7 and a bit minutes in a 120 minute game where the rule had any impact on the game.

 

[Obeanie1]

I said previously the umpiring of it needs to be improved, but the actual rule is superb and has opened the game up big time.



I think the 17 other players in the team defence can add enough pressure without some idiot on the mark cutting pivoting left and right cutting off every potential low and flat kick through the middle of the ground.

Taking a player out of the game to stand impotent on the mark is superb?

Sounds like you made the rule yourself.

In the past another teammates would position themselves to provide a block for their teammatesto gain an extra meter or two to kick. THAT was superb teamwork.

This isn't.

Are you still playing BTW?

Would like to hear from players on their thoughts.

 

[RUNVS]

I personally think 15 a side is the way to go and would fix almost all on field issues with the game but since the AFL is not willing to make such a drastic change what they have done with the stand rule at least improves the flow of the game a bit.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I personally think 15 a side is the way to go and would fix almost all on field issues with the game but since the AFL is not willing to make such a drastic change what they have done with the stand rule at least improves the flow of the game a bit.

Most issues have arisen since the AFL started changing rules. The look of the game was an AFL issue, they told the media to make it an issue so they could change the sport. The Fans never stopped going ever, they never ever spoke or were worried about the look of the game. They went and watched and they left the game with one of two emotions, as a winner or as a loser.

The sport was fine and never needed touching. Evolution is about the existing game being played by evolving people. Rule changes do nothing but change the sport, rule changes are not evolution.
All rule changes have done to Aussie rules is change the sport to a new sport called AFL.
The fans never asked or wanted any of the rule changes.

 

[RUNVS]

Most issues have arisen since the AFL started changing rules.

That just isn't true. Go back to the rules of 1995 for instance and I bet you scoring would be a lot lower.

 

[Biased99]

If the rule was seen to be (or actually was) working to the disadvantage of a particular team (as noted by myriad conspiracy theory-type posts on a forum such as Bigfooty), then yes, abolish it for the good of the game.

But I'm just not seeing that single team being disadvantaged, nor its supporters continually starting threads or conspiracy theories about it, so on that basis it should probably stay.

 

[GoldbergsGold]

Its a very netball like rule

Plenty of players were penalised for moving just one foot, like it was straight out of the Squid games, Red light Green light , that was the straight out ridiculous part

for such a significant change it should have been trialled in the VFL/SANFL/WAFL for a season , which I think shows it was very politically motivated and not a move that was aimed at improving the game

the 6 6 6 rule stopped teams from parking the bus right from the centre bounce and I think that was enough to open the game up

I'm for players on the mark moving from side to side , dropping back or jumping up marking the ball carrier think about what they are doing , its creates a small amount of pressure, adds to the contest , we tune into to see a contest not a lane work session form training

But even the 666 rule hasn't stopped flooding, and scores have continued to fluctuate down. These rule changes are a detriment to the game, it's made it more unwatchable with how over regulated it all is. Umpires were even penalizing players with 50 metre penalties just for shrugging their shoulders.

 

[Jugada]

One of the better rules to come in. Just makes sense that the person would have to actually be on the mark of where the free kick was given. Not wandering 15m left or right to close off space

 

[greatwhiteshark]

That just isn't true. Go back to the rules of 1995 for instance and I bet you scoring would be a lot lower.

Did the fans stop going? They didn't care until the AFL told them they need to care. I have never ever left a game and said I am glad we won today but the look of the game was an issue for me today. What fan would ever say that?
Why is high scoring required?
Where was the poll done that said High scoring must happen for me to like AFL?

 

[RUNVS]

Did the fans stop going? They didn't care until the AFL told them they need to care. I have never ever left a game and said I am glad we won today but the look of the game was an issue for me today. What fan would ever say that?
Why is high scoring required?
Where was the poll done that said High scoring must happen for me to like AFL?

So you would be happy if teams averaged 50 points a game? That is what would happen if the AFL completely removed the deliberate out of bounds rule or the out of bounds on the full rule, not to mention removing the rush behind rule, removing the 6-6-6 rule and making it almost impossible to get a holding the ball like it was back in the 90's.

Would you be happy if the ball really struggled to get out of congestion to the point where most AFL games were just rolling mauls?

 

[Coach_Required]

Rule is unnecessary but just like a lot of rule changes in the past 10 years.

It does nothing to improve scoring or help teams' key forwards kick a bag.

 

[Coach_Required]

So you would be happy if teams averaged 50 points a game? That is what would happen if the AFL completely removed the deliberate out of bounds rule or the out of bounds on the full rule, not to mention removing the rush behind rule, removing the 6-6-6 rule and making it almost impossible to get a holding the ball like it was back in the 90's.

Would you be happy if the ball really struggled to get out of congestion to the point where most AFL games were just rolling mauls?

The holding the ball rule today is still wrong. If you take a tackler on and the ball spills out it should be considered a free kick. Instead, they call play on 8/10 times. The only holding the ball interpretation that they call with any confidence is the "you dragged it in" even though 3 opponents are holding it in.

AFL don't want umpires calling holding the ball as they see it as stopping the flow of a game. Hence why the dragged it in rule is one of their favourites because the player is deemed to have stopped the flow.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

So you would be happy if teams averaged 50 points a game? That is what would happen if the AFL completely removed the deliberate out of bounds rule or the out of bounds on the full rule, not to mention removing the rush behind rule, removing the 6-6-6 rule and making it almost impossible to get a holding the ball like it was back in the 90's.

Would you be happy if the ball really struggled to get out of congestion to the point where most AFL games were just rolling mauls?

You are the one that is using scoring as your point. Scoring on average is considerably lower than before all these rule changes. Thats factual. You mentioned 1995 and the average was 94 points per game. Last year it was 83 points per game. in 2000 we averaged 103, before that you had to go back to 91 and 92 to average over 100.

The deliberate out of bounds has simply just given the ball to the opposition instead of them actually winning the ball, has nothing to do with congestion. Rewarding the opposition for and not making them earn it is just kids footy stuff.
The rush behind rule again has nothing to do with congestion, it actually gave your opponent a score and was changed because of one match. Good sample size that was by the suits. Never needed changing.
The 6-6-6 rule I actually like and have no issue with that.
Impossible to get a holding the ball? we now reward tacklers who tackle high with holding the ball.
Congestion most of the time is caused by umpires taking to long to throw it up and not paying free kicks when they are there. Stop asking players to knock it out, just run in and throw it up. And no ruck nominations and any number of people can go for the ruck knock. Another two rules which created the congestion.

 

[RUNVS]

The holding the ball rule today is still wrong. If you take a tackler on and the ball spills out it should be considered a free kick. Instead, they call play on 8/10 times. The only holding the ball interpretation that they call with any confidence is the "you dragged it in" even though 3 opponents are holding it in.

AFL don't want umpires calling holding the ball as they see it as stopping the flow of a game. Hence why the dragged it in rule is one of their favourites because the player is deemed to have stopped the flow.

Calling more holding the balls would open up the game. I remember not so long ago, probably mid 2000's, players were given ages and ages to get rid of the ball and because it was so unlikely to get called "holding the ball" players would take the ball and try and run with it instead of kicking it out of the pack, and because they tried to run with it they got caught more, which lead to another ball up and more congestion.

 

[Saint]

Keep the stand rule, but also go back to enforcing the rule about not grabbing people who have taken a mark or been awarded a free kick. They did a good job a few years ago of stamping it out, but it needs to come back.

Anyone trying to slow the play of the game for the sake of slowing the play should be penalised.