Change to the Stand Rule Cracks Down on Fake Handballs

[Demonland 72,213]

 

[rjay 24,929]

Who is running the show at the AFL since Scott moved on?

Seems to be a rudderless ship.

[Salems Lot 2,535]

Good tweak though 

[Nascent 9,215]

Can't access the article so not sure on the specific details, are they just going to call play on in these instances?

[Cranky Franky 2,061]

1 hour ago, Salems Lot said:

Good tweak though 

Yes very sensible move

[Kick_It_To_Pickett 3,293]

Isn’t this just a reversion to an old rule. There was a stage, mid 00’s if I remember correctly, where it was deemed ‘play on’ if you gestured to handball. Happy to stand corrected, but I believe this was a rule in the past. Either way, I very good rule tweak. 

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 hour ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Isn’t this just a reversion to an old rule. There was a stage, mid 00’s if I remember correctly, where it was deemed ‘play on’ if you gestured to handball. Happy to stand corrected, but I believe this was a rule in the past. Either way, I very good rule tweak. 

as far as i remember, only if you moved off the line. of course when opponents started standing to the left or the right it became hard to actually know where the [censored] line was, and for the sake of keeping the game moving the umpires got very lax in setting out the mark properly as they used to do. these days the kicker cribs grossly around the mark a lot especially when the mark is outside the corridor. it drives me spare. the "line" should always be a straight line from the centre of the goals to the mark then extending back

as for the standing on the mark. i would only pay the 50m if the opponent moved fwd of the mark or more than 1 pace laterally left or right. and only play-on if off the mark. for the fake play-on let the umpire use his common sense and just reset

[picket fence 17,170]

I agree, presuming to fake a handball... Play on!

[In Harmes Way 7,783]

The thing I like about the stand rule is players taking a set shot at goal without defenders running at them as they come in to take their kick. My view is there were multiple examples of the defender running over the mark, disrutping the kicker and never getting pinged for it. Glad to see that stamped out. Couldn't really care less about the rule otherwise in general play and glad to see 50m penalty infringments removed.

[YesitwasaWin4theAges 6,703]

16 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Isn’t this just a reversion to an old rule. There was a stage, mid 00’s if I remember correctly, where it was deemed ‘play on’ if you gestured to handball. Happy to stand corrected, but I believe this was a rule in the past. Either way, I very good rule tweak. 

Same old AFL rehashing old rules into new ones, they can't help them selves.

[Ollie fan 3,408]

The changes are sensible, but still overly finicky. But they need to change more. For a start, the nominating a Ruckman rule is ridiculous; if they really want to stop a third man up, and I don’t really understand why they want to, then you just penalise a team if two people compete at the same ruck contest. And the one that really drives me crazy is the 30 second rule. You are supposed to play on quite quickly around the field but you are given 30 seconds to prepare a shot for goal. Fair enough I suppose. But when the kick is then an attempt to pass to another player – as was once brilliantly exploited by ANB - the team is given another 30 seconds, and that is ridiculous. It should be limited to 1 thirty second allowance per forward 50 entry. 

[Big Col 1,347]

2 hours ago, Ollie fan said:

The changes are sensible, but still overly finicky. But they need to change more. For a start, the nominating a Ruckman rule is ridiculous; if they really want to stop a third man up, and I don’t really understand why they want to, then you just penalise a team if two people compete at the same ruck contest. And the one that really drives me crazy is the 30 second rule. You are supposed to play on quite quickly around the field but you are given 30 seconds to prepare a shot for goal. Fair enough I suppose. But when the kick is then an attempt to pass to another player – as was once brilliantly exploited by ANB - the team is given another 30 seconds, and that is ridiculous. It should be limited to 1 thirty second allowance per forward 50 entry. 

1/Totally agree re Ruck contests

2/ If they stopped the clock after a mark / free kick when going for goal until the ball hits foot or hand, then you’d eliminate this type of time wasting.

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 hour ago, Big Col said:

1/Totally agree re Ruck contests

2/ If they stopped the clock after a mark / free kick when going for goal until the ball hits foot or hand, then you’d eliminate this type of time wasting.

good idea on point 2.   player would have to nominate he's going for a goal, say within 5 seconds. then ump signals time off. if he doesn't nominate then he gets the usual 5 seconds (or whatever it is). if he nominates then doesn't shoot for goal, no probs. 

all sounds too sensible.

p.s, if he does nominate and the game clock is stopped he still only gets a max of 30 secs, else play-on signalled

[Willmoy1947 4,090]

Any rule changes about how umpires could be under increased scrutiny in view of last year's revelations??

[monoccular 17,431]

Sensible tweak to an overly officious rule, but as always there will be 1000 different interpretations - 

[Demon Disciple 12,141]

Here’s an idea, just get rid of the friggin 50m penalty for encroaching the ‘area’ all together. A stupid rule that never should have been brought in in the first place.

And get rid of the farcical “stand” rule too whilst we’re at it.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Demon Disciple

[pitmaster 3,560]

Once again an ill-thought-out AFL sponsored rule change triggers unintended consequences and is rapidly scrapped/modified/reinterpreted due to the creative ways of coaches and players.

It is both amusing and predictable.

It's a sensible change if you want 'stand' to stand, but really, who needed 'stand' in the first instance?

Oh, and the protected area rule? I'm with DD. Scrap it.

[layzie 33,814]

INTERPRETATION. Yes, I know it's a funny word AFL Rules committee but we need to have less of this in an umpire's job description. Not more.