I don't get people not liking the stand rule

Previously players moved side to side and even forward to prevent players playing on. The game has improved in this area with more quick ball movement and more long shots at goal

My only issue with it is in big games the players can't hear the umpires yell stand

Can't believe they didn't look to clarify the Advantage rule.

Whistle blows, stop play. One guy grabs ball and plays on.

Sometimes brought back if it doesn't work out as advantage, other times it is play on

Unless it is instantaneous play on then you take your free kick. You can't wait 5 seconds and then decide to play on.

I have zero clarity on this rule and it really pisses me off

10 hours ago, DubDee said:

I don't get people not liking the stand rule

Previously players moved side to side and even forward to prevent players playing on. The game has improved in this area with more quick ball movement and more long shots at goal

My only issue with it is in big games the players can't hear the umpires yell stand

The task for 'the man on the mark' used to be to put pressure on the kicker without moving forward over the mark. This could mean standing, waving arms, jumping up or moving sideways if the kicker attempted to move off his line. If the umpire called "play on", the man on the mark could move toward the kicker in whatever direction to apply more pressure or to tackle. This ruling was accepted and applied throughout many decades, possibly a century, before it was deemed too restrictive on the kicker! If you research and watch the games that are held up as classic examples of Australian Rules (eg the 1989 GF), you will notice that the old rule was applied successfully throughout. The umpire could pay a 15 metre penalty if the man on the mark encroached. Supporters, umpires and players throughout the capital cities and the whole country knew how the rule worked. If it ain't broke...

Furthermore, the umpire would most often indicate to the kicker and the man on the mark where the mark was by standing close to the spot and pointing. How often do you see that happen now? The umpire would also indicate the 'line' for kicking over the mark (remember that notion?) and if the kicker deviated, the umpire would immediately call "play on"!

Edited Friday at 21:433 days by waynewussell

furthermore to my furthermore... before the Stand rule... back in time, there was no necessity for the opposition team to man the mark. If the opposition players in the vicinity ran on in the direction that the kicker was going to kick, there was no penalty. It would be considered poor play because it would allow the player with the ball to run further forward to advantage. The coach would quite likely drag the player who didn't man the mark to prevent this play-on, however, there was nothing in the rules to prevent the opposition team from leaving the mark, as long as the defending players didn't run over the mark! Now we have a 50 metre penalty for almost any movement, in any shape or form, by the opposition player(s). This is more like the playground 'freeze' games we used to play at primary school. This is not sensible, mature rule changing to better the game!

While I might disagree with the odd point, @waynewussell makes a lot of sense. If they are going to penalise players for not standing on the mark, how about making it clear to players and spectators where the mark actually is AND stop the player with the ball from playing from a position miles inboard from a reasonable line of play.

3 hours ago, waynewussell said:

The task for 'the man on the mark' used to be to put pressure on the kicker without moving forward over the mark. This could mean standing, waving arms, jumping up or moving sideways if the kicker attempted to move off his line. If the umpire called "play on", the man on the mark could move toward the kicker in whatever direction to apply more pressure or to tackle. This ruling was accepted and applied throughout many decades, possibly a century, before it was deemed too restrictive on the kicker! If you research and watch the games that are held up as classic examples of Australian Rules (eg the 1989 GF), you will notice that the old rule was applied successfully throughout. The umpire could pay a 15 metre penalty if the man on the mark encroached. Supporters, umpires and players throughout the capital cities and the whole country knew how the rule worked. If it ain't broke...

I agree with all this.

But the stand rule has noticeably increased the speed of the game and made ball movement easier and enabled kicks into the corridor and more shots on goal from 50m. The enforcement of it, is an issue however.

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

I don't get people not liking the stand rule

Prior to the stand rule the game was close to being unwatchable. It was just too difficult to move the ball.

Edited Saturday at 01:083 days by lorn

2 hours ago, sue said:

.....how about making it clear to players and spectators where the mark actually is AND stop the player with the ball from playing from a position miles inboard from a reasonable line of play.

Exactly. So many times the man odd standing in the mark while the player with the free out mark is metres to one side of it and then plays in. The rule that you can play on FROM BEHIND THE MARK needs to be enforced if the stand rule is going to work.

The reasoning behind most of there changes, however, is to shorten the games. These obvious reason for the longer games is the breaks after a goal, which seems to be now out to a minute or even longer. But perish the thought that we reduce advertising time!

On 29/10/2025 at 12:49, Demonstone said:

Here you go.

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

On 29/10/2025 at 12:49, Demonstone said:

Here you go.

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

Great research Demonstone! Amazing number of changes. The 1964 rule that coaches could address players at quarter time surprised me. I went to many matches in the fifties and thought the coach (Norm Smith) was always there at every break. Did players just gather and chat at quarter time? Older readers help my old memory lapse on this one.

9 hours ago, Bobby McKenzie 2 said:

Great research Demonstone! Amazing number of changes. The 1964 rule that coaches could address players at quarter time surprised me. I went to many matches in the fifties and thought the coach (Norm Smith) was always there at every break. Did players just gather and chat at quarter time? Older readers help my old memory lapse on this one.

The late Greg Parke would have a ciggie.

20 hours ago, lorn said:

Prior to the stand rule the game was close to being unwatchable. It was just too difficult to move the ball.

Now, with the stand rule, the game IS unwatchable!

On 31/10/2025 at 22:15, DubDee said:

Can't believe they didn't look to clarify the Advantage rule.

Whistle blows, stop play. One guy grabs ball and plays on.

Sometimes brought back if it doesn't work out as advantage, other times it is play on

Unless it is instantaneous play on then you take your free kick. You can't wait 5 seconds and then decide to play on.

I have zero clarity on this rule and it really pisses me off

There is no consistency applied to the interpretation to this rule. As it stands advantage cannot be paid after a mark. The ball should be given back to the marking player BEHIND THE MARK. However, Raffertys rules apply.

The main problem with the advantage rule is the alternative. If it were to be abolished altogether, clubs would regularly give away "professional" free kicks to hold up play.

On 29/10/2025 at 16:11, Dees_In_October said:

The rule states: "It will operate similar to SANFL in the sense that if a player blocks an opponent or doesn't play the ball before it crosses the line, a normal boundary throw-in will occur instead of a last disposal free kick."

I'd think that includes shepherding instead of playing the ball.

This is where the rule falls down, more subjective interpretation for the umpires to decide on. Just make it last disposal, if it goes out and you couldn't get to it because the opposition is shepherding it, bad luck.

On 29/10/2025 at 17:10, leuc.opogon said:

If they are set on reducing delays in the game (which a lot of these changes seem to be addressing), an obvious thing they haven't changed is the resetting of the 30 second countdown clock for repeated goal attempts. I hate this rule as it currently stands. The number of times someone milks the clock at the end of a close game when they have a set shot opportunity from outside 50 m that they then pass off to someone else. I say if you pass it off, the 30 second clock should not be reset so say player A uses 20 seconds of the countdown clock then passes to player B. Player B would then only have 10 seconds to take the shot on goal.

I guess this rule could have potential consequences though if you milked the clock for the full 30 seconds and then hoiked a high ball into the hotspot that was marked by your teammate who than has to essentially play on immediately. Probably would be a bit farcical. Much like most of the AFL rule changes.

Nah, defenders should just man up so they can't chip it for another 30 second shot. If you have possession of the ball you have the right to wind the clock down.

On 29/10/2025 at 19:22, Macca said:

Shrugging in the tackle will be impossible to adjudicate properly, especially in terms of being consistent

Just another grey area that will be even more grey now

Definition of a shrug? (open to interpretation) There are other ways to deal with the duckers ... including suspensions

No prior at all has been suggested but that creates other obvious problems

A solution for continuous play is to reduce the amount of players on the field ... the grounds are way too small for 36 super-fit players. It's a 19th century way of thinking

Won't happen but 16 a side would fix most of the congestion issues ... but for whatever reason the league seems to be obsessed with 18 a side

Imagine watching soccer if it was 13 a side? It would be a congested mess

Rugby League went to 13 a side in 1908 for a reason. As did the VFA when it went to 16 a side in the early 1950's

Tradition? That went out the window decades ago

Macca I've been harping on about this for 10-15 years now! There are too many players on the field, it's not 1905 anymore with 18 part timers who don't leave their area of the ground, 36 players running up and down all day and coming off for rests after 7 minutes of burst play is ridiculous. It should reduce to 16 as a minimum, I wouldn't be against at least considering reducing it to 15 or 14.

I know coaches will try and just drop players back into defence to clog up the Oppo forward line and score on fast break like soccer but that is happening anyway. The main benefit of reduced players is that zone defence becomes less effective as the zone is stretched more allowing accurate kicks to pick through the defence easier. So it forces defenders to go more man on man which is one of the main things missing in the modern game for mine.

The congestion in the modern game means there is far less space for players to work in and hence far less instances of individual brilliance compared to previous decades. Just look at this year's goal of the year nominations for an example of how bland the game has become.

I agree with your other point about the interpretation of the shrug as well. I thought there was already a rule about a player ducking into a tackle (which isn't adjudicated properly). How is adding another layer of subjectivity in going to help things? Adjudicate the current rules properly and you won't need to keep adding more to fix things.

32 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Macca I've been harping on about this for 10-15 years now! There are too many players on the field, it's not 1905 anymore with 18 part timers who don't leave their area of the ground, 36 players running up and down all day and coming off for rests after 7 minutes of burst play is ridiculous. It should reduce to 16 as a minimum, I wouldn't be against at least considering reducing it to 15 or 14.

I know coaches will try and just drop players back into defence to clog up the Oppo forward line and score on fast break like soccer but that is happening anyway. The main benefit of reduced players is that zone defence becomes less effective as the zone is stretched more allowing accurate kicks to pick through the defence easier. So it forces defenders to go more man on man which is one of the main things missing in the modern game for mine.

The congestion in the modern game means there is far less space for players to work in and hence far less instances of individual brilliance compared to previous decades. Just look at this year's goal of the year nominations for an example of how bland the game has become.

I agree with your other point about the interpretation of the shrug as well. I thought there was already a rule about a player ducking into a tackle (which isn't adjudicated properly). How is adding another layer of subjectivity in going to help things? Adjudicate the current rules properly and you won't need to keep adding more to fix things.

The problem is that most are latched on to 18 a side (nearly all the supporters as well)

Your post is a good one but may not attract many 'likes'. People just don't like change and would see reducing the numbers on the field as an assault on the sport

It's a bridge too far for most and doesn't even get talked about. But 18 a side is the root cause of all the problems with the sport

It's a game of keepings off anyway so why not have a game that's not messy or overcrowded? (and a lot easier to umpire?)

All the cosmetic changes solves nothing. It ends up being a crowded sport again

Edited 14 hours ago14 hr by Macca

On 30/10/2025 at 00:11, Tom Dyson said:

5-10 minutes saved per game won't be the difference in helping thousands more fans to tune in.

Those that are watching are watching and those that aren't won't just because of these changes.

Most of these changes seem unnecessarily arbitrary and will only make the overall product worse given umpiring adjudication will be annoyingly inconsistent.

It's got nothing to do with the fans. It's all about the tv networks.