Yeh, what qualifies Dimma to speak with any authority about football matters?
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Damien Hardwick
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Neil Balme explained very well last year on SEN116 the impacts on the team, and the adjustments they’ve had to make as a result of the stand rule.
Sure the 17 v is 18 is nonsense for all but a few moments.
The man on the mark is fixed until the ump calls play on. Those few seconds gives the player a break from pressure and is given time to make a decision and the kick is under no pressure. So for those few moments there is 17 v 17 plus the guy with the ball under no pressure ....oh and the man on the mark spectating
There was one play in our game on the weekend in the 2nd quarter where the Hawks player ran 10 meters and was able to deliver the ball with no pressure on the kick
And that's why the game is fked.
I expected decent crowds early in the season and then watch the numbers tumble.
It's hard to watch, when a player can run 10-15 metres without any pressure till the umpires call play on.
Just watch!
When we have the ball we will be called to go and play on immediately but when the opposition have it they will have a week.
They have now isolated the Dimma interview on RFC site so for direct viewing click below:
www.richmondfc.com.au
Talking Tigers: Dimma in the studio
Dimma provides an in-depth, fascinating insight into how the Tigers are shaping up for the 2022 season following a longer pre-season build-up, focusing on several individual players, as well as an overall team perspective.
Yep. We had manic pressure that started with the man on the mark. We tried to force kicks in a certain direction - generally long to a contest. We created the turnover and dominated repeat i50's. The stand rule reduces that pressure on the man in possession. They can kick short either side of the man on the mark, or play on and go past them. That reduced pressure stifles our pressure. Teams can exit their D50 easier.
I agree - the club's poor attitude towards the stand rule makes the issue worse than it should be.
Our players stand on the mark with a defeatist attitude. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Why does the man on the mark have to look so deflated? His intensity disappears. His muscle tone relaxes. His focus dips. Legs relaxed. He looks like he feels like a sub sitting on the bench.
Instead, players should stand on the mark with their focus 100% on the kicker. Their muscles should be tensed up and ready for recruitment. The millisecond they hear the call to play on, they should already be anticipating to sprint like Steve Morris at the kicker.
I never see our players sprint like Steve Morris the second they're allowed to.
Why not?
Even if we don't make it, we'll increase perceived pressure holistically. The opposite won't feel as safe next time they take a mark.
And sometimes we will make it because the kicker thinks he has all day, and we'll turn it over purely because of this attitude.
You guys defending the stand rule's impact should look at the man on the mark and think about what he CAN do instead of whinging about what he can't do.
We choose to take the 18th player off the field with our poor attitude, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Last edited:
Pfft... Neil Balme, Damien Hardwick. We need someone that knows something about footy dammit!
The aspect for me about the stand rule that takes it from being stupid and annoying to being abhorent and infuriating is the time taken for the ump to call play on. Before the stand rule the ump would, albeit extremely inconsistently, call play on if a player swatted a a fly off his face while looking for options downfield, his wrist and elbow straying off his line. Now, the player with the ball runs in, takes 2 big strides sideways and another over the mark before the umpire reluctantly calls play on, all the while while the man on the mark's body language says 'are you for fair dinkum? You make me stand here like a goose and you won't even call play-on until a week after he's moved off his line?' So the effect is 2 fold, dumb rule unnecessarily in favour of attacking side, wrongly/ poorly adjudicated in a way that further favours the attacking side.
This is especially pronounced when Dylan Grimes is on the mark. He is poised like a coiled spring and ready to launch horizontally to tackle oppo player who runs within range and strays of his line. Being the ultimate professional, the play on call usually doesn't come when it should, so he doesn't.
This is especially pronounced when Dylan Grimes is on the mark. He is poised like a coiled spring and ready to launch horizontally to tackle oppo player who runs within range and strays of his line. Being the ultimate professional, the play on call usually doesn't come when it should, so he doesn't.
Hey Oldie, was that your question about Stacky?
Talking Tigers: Episode 1, 2022
Talking Tigers is back bigger, brighter and bolder than ever, kicking off 2022 with an extra-special guest.
Pick it up from about the 31 minute mark for Dimma. Worth a listen.
Well yeah, exactly - why should body language ever say 'are you for fair dinkum?'
You can just see some players (at times) are annoyed at the rule and annoyed at the umpires for not calling play on fast enough - but these are pointless attitudes that don't help them win. It's in the attitude category of having a sook, which means it can be controlled and done better.
If you feel like you're a threat with every fibre of your body... it'll show. The oppo will sense it. The Grimes 'coiled spring' example you provided is no surprise considering he's the master at being in the moment, but it wasn't the norm across the team last year, I don't think. Even Shane Edwards, the ultimate dedicated team player, was losing muscle tension when he was on the mark. That tells me the attitude comes from the top. From Dimma.
It's time to get over it and play to the edge within the rules they set. You're on the mark? Bang - you're in their head. You're about to pounce and kill.
Sure, you can't impact other players on the ground - so forget about that and focus 100% mental energy on conditioning the kicker to feel uncomfortable. That's what you can do. Be ready to pounce. And look ready to pounce. One way to look ready to pounce is by standing like it's the start of a 100m sprint. "On your marks, get set..." with eyes on the oppo and ears on the whistle. The crouching tiger. Mentally emit a vibe that the oppo faces immediate danger if they take half a second too long to make a decision. This can only increase anxiety, it can't decrease anxiety in the oppo.
How long is our player "out of the game" after the disposal? Depending on how long the coaches think that player is "out of the game", perhaps even make it a rule to always make physical contact with the kicker after they dispose of the ball, even if it's just a soft hand to the forearm 2 seconds after they kick, purely as a mental tool to help our aggressive mindset and to condition the oppo to expect some form of confrontation if they take too long. That's something, and something is better than nothing. What else can they do that's better? Don't say they should do nothing when they can do something.
I'd also predict umpires will sometimes call play on slightly quicker if the players look more poised. The tone set by body language should put pressure on everyone to move it on quicker. Why not? What's the downside to being fully focused when you're 5 metres away from the ball? I hate the mindset that we're a man down. We're not a man down, that's just in our heads. There's still things we can do. Perceived pressure on top of that list.
IMO our suboptimal manning of the mark stems from a feeling inside the club that the AFL is disadvantaging us with rule changes, and this was the straw that's broke the camel's back. True? False? If it's true, we're letting the AFL win by sooking about it instead of behaving like we're above it and like it doesn't affect us. Dimma's comment suggests we haven't flicked a switch in this area yet, but I hope we do.
I feel exactly the same way tigersnake. As soon as the player takes a step off his line, the man on the mark should be able to as well. The umpire doesn't need to call "play on" -- he only needs to become involved if the man on the mark moves too soon. As soon as the player with the ball takes a step, it's automatically play on.
Yep. Every time we stood the mark, we'd firstly get up on the mark in a hurry and also move sideways inboard a couple of metres just to impose on the space of any player trying to run the overlap possession. Just enough to cause a hesitation which then forced a lot more long kicks down the boundary line to a contested situation. STAAAAAAND completely *smile* with the pressure capability and the ball carrier now has the time n opportunity to pick his nose n scratch his agates before contemplating his options to resume play.
That's a call they should have updated 20 years ago. But the flogs at HQ aren't smart enough to figure out how to adjust or cancel a ruling without first making six new rules to over ride n countermand the existing rule.
The trouble is that the combination of the rule both being designed to stop the man on the mark impacting the kick AND the fact the designer of the rule had indirect control over the umpiring of it, means the person taking the free kick would have to have an unforeseeable brain fade in order for the man on the mark’s actions to have any genuine impact on the passage of play.
I admire your commitment to effort but the French put loads of effort and resources into building the Maginot Line before WW2 so that any invading German troops would be stopped from directly invading France in the event of a war. The trouble was, that Hitler’s army, acting suspiciously like Hocking’s man in possession, simply navigated their way safely around the wall with almost no resistance, because the series of heavy fortifications that was the Maginot Line could not be moved laterally to cover an alternative line of invasion. And according to the wikipedia page I have pasted below, the Maginot Line has since become a metaphor for expensive efforts offering a false sense of security.
Maginot Line - Wikipedia
It is arguable at a stretch that the most constructive thing the man on the mark can do is display frustrated body lanuage to protest the stupidity of the rule.
You can no longer consistently get frontal pressure upon a player with a free kick or mark because he can simply safely navigate around it. This being the case, is it not better to focus effort on alternative fortifications, and escape plans in the event of a turnover?….You know, sort of like Dunkirk.
Last edited:
I asked how close he was to playing seniors after a good performance on the wing in the VFL & if we could have an update on his progress.
