Analysis Would the stand rule still have been introduced if Geelong had won the 2020 premiership?

[STPer18]

The stand rule caused Tom Lynch to kick over the post from 4 metres out, or so I'm led to believe.

 

[CrowToon]

How to stay relevant years later. Let the glory days go fellas.

 

[Grin]

Does it say something about the 50+ NRL players at any given time who have a contract with another team for the following season?

I don't know what that has to do with this other than very awkward attempt to deflect.
What it says is that Hocking does not recognise conflict of interest, at least when it comes to himself. You insisted that he and the AFL wouldn't be foolish enough to employ someone who used his position to advance vested interests. But Steven Hocking can't even recognise such a thing, at least when it comes to himself. Surely this is indicative that he was a very poor choice for the role.
I very much doubt, in hindsight, the AFL would employ him again for the role. The new rules may have been completely justified, but he was just so hopelessly compromised.
The fact that you and every other Geelong supporter on this thread continue to defend him because he's part of team Geelong further supports this view.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don't know what that has to do with this other than very awkward attempt to deflect.
What it says is that Hocking does not recognise conflict of interest, at least when it comes to himself. You insisted that he and the AFL wouldn't be foolish enough to employ someone who used his position to advance vested interests. But Steven Hocking can't even recognise such a thing, at least when it comes to himself. Surely this is indicative that he was a very poor choice for the role.
I very much doubt, in hindsight, the AFL would employ him again for the role. The new rules may have been completely justified, but he was just so hopelessly compromised.
The fact that you and every other Geelong supporter on this thread continue to defend him because he's part of team Geelong further supports this view.

Defend him for being employed.

Yeah.

You can’t make this s**t up.

 

[Grrr]

That is an interesting stat. Don't know that it totally contradicts though. Setting up for repeated sprints through smart positioning over endurance running to position will give you less total kms on paper but that doesn't mean it's less taxing

Good point, but the majority of the repeat sprint running was by our small forwards, Castagna, Butler and Rioli who are all very quick and have great endurance. Also half forwards Graham and Lambert and even Jack Riewoldt was good at it. Martin rarely did it, nor Cotchin and Prestia. The backs set up so well behind the ball the the game was played in one half seemingly. When the ball got out the back, we got scored against. This is where the stand rule hindered Richmond (as it did other sides), and one reason we leaked like a sieve at times this year.

 

[Anthony80]

So, how did you get to a 17pt lead with the stand rule hampering you so much?

By moving the ball quicker like only we could before the stand rule.

It seems you don't understand that the stand rule was not brought in to help the Tigers offensively but to hinder the Tigers on the defensive end by not allowing us to apply our pressure from the mark and prompting teams like Geelong (when in situations like rnd 15) to move the ball quicker by taking on the "statue" on the mark when there is no risk in doing so.

In my opinion Geelong don't win in rnd 15 without the stand rule, without the stand rule it would've went just like the '19 PF & '20 GF. Like Gerard Whateley said after the '20 GF: "we've all seen this movie before," and rnd 15 would've been a rerun of that movie but for the stand rule brought in to prompt teams (in particular Geelong, that's why you guys were trialling at KP) to move the ball quicker.

 

[Anthony80]

The stand rule caused Tom Lynch to kick over the post from 4 metres out, or so I'm led to believe.

This thread is not about the ARC and how the AFL has not got the technology to overrule the umpire in the Lynch case.

 

[STPer18]

This thread is not about the ARC and how the AFL has not got the technology to overrule the umpire in the Lynch case.

It's about the stand rule. My hypothesis is if the man on the mark was able to move side to side and stood a couple of metres to his right (Lynch's left), it may have led to him kicking the ball slightly more right and through the goals rather than over the post, effectively costing Richmond their entire season. It's all interconnected and part of the greater plan to sabotage the Tigers - wake up sheeple!

 

[PhatBoy]

By moving the ball quicker like only we could before the stand rule.

It seems you don't understand that the stand rule was not brought in to help the Tigers offensively but to hinder the Tigers on the defensive end by not allowing us to apply our pressure from the mark and prompting teams like Geelong (when in situations like rnd 15) to move the ball quicker by taking on the "statue" on the mark when there is no risk in doing so.

In my opinion Geelong don't win in rnd 15 without the stand rule, without the stand rule it would've went just like the '19 PF & '20 GF. Like Gerard Whateley said after the '20 GF: "we've all seen this movie before," and rnd 15 would've been a rerun of that movie but for the stand rule brought in to prompt teams (in particular Geelong, that's why you guys were trialling at KP) to move the ball quicker.

Yeah see I think we would have won by more because 16 years ago we beat you by 28 goals and I think THAT game was the one that would have time travelled into the future and had an impact rather than games from 2017,19,20.

 

[Anthony80]

Yeah see I think we would have won by more because 16 years ago we beat you by 28 goals and I think THAT game was the one that would have time travelled into the future and had an impact rather than games from 2017,19,20.

You flogged us in the '19 H&A game also.
But we all know our record against Geelong on the biggest stage in recent times, before the stand rule.

 

[PhatBoy]

You flogged us in the '19 H&A game also.
But we all know our record against Geelong on the biggest stage in recent times, before the stand rule.

So the absence of the stand rule didn’t apply home and away 2019 but it did in the final?

If I didn’t know better I’d say you beat us because you outplayed us in the PF that year.

And here I am finding out it’s because of the pre-existing man on the mark rule and it’s ability to only become a factor in the finals.

Tell me do you guys have a rotating roster of who gets to blame the stand rule for a given result?

Like in 2023 are we going to have to set our watches to the 20 minutes after a Tigers game finishes and take bets on ‘ok guys which poster is going to blame a 10 goal defeat on the man on the mark standing still this week?’

 

[Sttew]

You flogged us in the '19 H&A game also.
But we all know our record against Geelong on the biggest stage in recent times, before the stand rule.

Last decade. Get with the times. Richmond hasn't won a final this decade. Maybe they might have but for the stand rule

 

[Anthony80]

If I didn’t know better I’d say you beat us because you outplayed us in the PF that year.

You outplayed us in the 1st half, we got our pressure game up and going in the second, and when that happened, without the stand rule to prompt Geelong to move the ball quicker, I just knew Geelong were done. But, if the stand rule was around in '19 & '20 to prompt you guys to move the ball quicker because there was no risk in doing so when the man on the mark is a "statue," you guys win two more flags because both games woulda went like rnd 15 this season.

 

[Anthony80]

Last decade. Get with the times. Richmond hasn't won a final this decade.

I can't argue with that.

Maybe they might have but for the stand rule

I believe we would've if we weren't hindered. Imagine you guys had to play the best version of Richmond in rnd 15.

 

[Dr Tigris]

So why aren't you blaming Leppa as the Richmond supporters all seem to agree that he was the architect of the conspiracy to prevent their rolling maul?

I presume this is a serious question .

Because Leppa wasn't the guy running the AFL rules. And SHocking wanted the low down on why the Tigers worked, so he could stop that style of play.
This isn't hard. Steve Hocking was the rules boss at the AFL and introduced a series of untested rules intended to create a certain style of play. In doing that he wanted to negatively impact another style of play.

The conspiracy theories are because Geelong played his preferred style and he came from and went back to Geelong.

My theory is AFLX. That was his and Gil's baby. It went down like a lead balloon. But his rule changes are all intended to create that open (666), free flowing, low pressure (stand rule) style of play. Whether he liked that kick mark low pressure style irrespective of the Cats or not I don't know. But that he introduced AFLX, which is that style but faster - which the Cats didn't like - means I reckon it's a more game style preference.

I love the contests and hate the no pressure AFLX style. So I don't like the stand rule because it can lead to a stop start low pressure keepings off style (not the flowing style he wants).

But I acknowledge that the teams that really want to win use the no pressure and protected space of the stand rule to create a fast running attacking style. Essentially it allows set plays aimed at breaking open defensive set ups. That forces teams to drop defenders further back and so you get an elongated defensive structure. Which can make scoring really hard. So no increase in scoring, because the stand rule discourages the risky defensive pressure the Tigers had that he set out to break. He succeeded, but 2nd order consequences are that this leads to a much deeper and passive defense.

Good thing is the stand rule rewards great foot skills to hit targets. Bad thing it encourages more defensive tactics and reduces the ability to create contests.

 

[Sttew]

I presume this is a serious question .

Because Leppa wasn't the guy running the AFL rules. And SHocking wanted the low down on why the Tigers worked, so he could stop that style of play.
This isn't hard. Steve Hocking was the rules boss at the AFL and introduced a series of untested rules intended to create a certain style of play. In doing that he wanted to negatively impact another style of play.

The conspiracy theories are because Geelong played his preferred style and he came from and went back to Geelong.

My theory is AFLX. That was his and Gil's baby. It went down like a lead balloon. But his rule changes are all intended to create that open (666), free flowing, low pressure (stand rule) style of play. Whether he liked that kick mark low pressure style irrespective of the Cats or not I don't know. But that he introduced AFLX, which is that style but faster - which the Cats didn't like - means I reckon it's a more game style preference.

I love the contests and hate the no pressure AFLX style. So I don't like the stand rule because it can lead to a stop start low pressure keepings off style (not the flowing style he wants).

But I acknowledge that the teams that really want to win use the no pressure and protected space of the stand rule to create a fast running attacking style. Essentially it allows set plays aimed at breaking open defensive set ups. That forces teams to drop defenders further back and so you get an elongated defensive structure. Which can make scoring really hard. So no increase in scoring, because the stand rule discourages the risky defensive pressure the Tigers had that he set out to break. He succeeded, but 2nd order consequences are that this leads to a much deeper and passive defense.

Good thing is the stand rule rewards great foot skills to hit targets. Bad thing it encourages more defensive tactics and reduces the ability to create contests.

Why is this wonderful conspiracy theory confined to Big Footy? Why haven't we read about it anywhere else? Why haven't journalists latched onto it? Why hasn't 60 Minutes done a hard hitting expose on how and why the AFL conspired against Richmond FC? Because it's bulltish! Maybe Richmond falling off its perch was an unintended consequence, but I prefer to think Richmond fell off its perch because its premiership champions either retired, left or just got old and ordinary.

 

[Anthony80]

but I prefer to think Richmond fell off its perch because its premiership champions either retired, left or just got old and ordinary.

So the Tigers became too old, too slow and too bad, while the team we were beating on the biggest stage when they were too young, too quick and too bad, became too old, too slow and too good? That doesn't make sense, and like Judge Judy says: "if it doesn't make sense it's not true."

It makes more sense to say that Richmond have not been allowed to be the best version of themselves, and that's a version that wasn't even supposed to win the flag in '19 without Rance but still did, and then won it all in '20 again, much to the AFL's chagrin.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

By moving the ball quicker like only we could before the stand rule.

It seems you don't understand that the stand rule was not brought in to help the Tigers offensively but to hinder the Tigers on the defensive end by not allowing us to apply our pressure from the mark and prompting teams like Geelong (when in situations like rnd 15) to move the ball quicker by taking on the "statue" on the mark when there is no risk in doing so.

In my opinion Geelong don't win in rnd 15 without the stand rule, without the stand rule it would've went just like the '19 PF & '20 GF. Like Gerard Whateley said after the '20 GF: "we've all seen this movie before," and rnd 15 would've been a rerun of that movie but for the stand rule brought in to prompt teams (in particular Geelong, that's why you guys were trialling at KP) to move the ball quicker.

It was brought in to hinder all defences. Geelong's included. Richmond was called out by name as the dominant side at the time. If Geelong had just won 3 flags they would have said it was brought in to hinder Geelong's defense.

This is the afl equivalent of raving about Hillary Clinton's emails

 

[PhatBoy]

You outplayed us in the 1st half, we got our pressure game up and going in the second, and when that happened, without the stand rule to prompt Geelong to move the ball quicker, I just knew Geelong were done. But, if the stand rule was around in '19 & '20 to prompt you guys to move the ball quicker because there was no risk in doing so when the man on the mark is a "statue," you guys win two more flags because both games woulda went like rnd 15 this season.

So when we were beating you earlier that season you just thought you wouldn’t bother getting your pressure game up.

If the stand rule was around on 19-20 you would have beaten us and won both flags because you were a better team than everyone else including us.

 

[PhatBoy]

So the Tigers became too old, too slow and too bad, while the team we were beating on the biggest stage when they were too young, too quick and too bad, became too old, too slow and too good? That doesn't make sense, and like Judge Judy says: "if it doesn't make sense it's not true."

It makes more sense to say that Richmond have not been allowed to be the best version of themselves, and that's a version that wasn't even supposed to win the flag in '19 without Rance but still did, and then won it all in '20 again, much to the AFL's chagrin.

Yes because everyone plays to their maximum all the time.

Who cares if we got older - we got better and we still had younger players coming in and changing the dynamic of the team. The fact that a core of a dozen blokes all got a year or two older doesn’t change the fact that we also fielded a number of young guys who changed our team.


For a side that’s at the top to not keep winning, you don’t have to get ‘older and worse’ you just get worse. You stop playing to the same level for whatever reason or other teams go past you. There doesn’t have to be a black and white explanation of why it happens but you seem so desperate to find it

 

[Anthony80]

So when we were beating you earlier that season you just thought you wouldn’t bother getting your pressure game up.

We had injuries that game.

If the stand rule was around on 19-20 you would have beaten us and won both flags because you were a better team than everyone else including us.

You guys woulda won both flags those seasons.

It was brought in to hinder all defences. Geelong's included. Richmond was called out by name as the dominant side at the time. If Geelong had just won 3 flags they would have said it was brought in to hinder Geelong's defense.

You were 26 pts against worse off this season than in '19, so your defence statiscally is pretty much the same.
But we're talking about the stand rule being brought in to hinder Richmond because all the other teams were just going through the motions on the mark where as Richmond pressured, so obviously the stand rule was brought in to hinder only one team and not the rest that were just going through the motions on the mark, so for them nothing really changed, and only Richmond could no longer be the best version of themselves.

 

[Anthony80]

You stop playing to the same level for whatever reason or other teams go past you. There doesn’t have to be a black and white explanation of why it happens but you seem so desperate to find it

We all know (even you) the reason that Richmond aren't the best version of themselves though.

 

[PhatBoy]

We had injuries that game.

You guys woulda won both flags those seasons.

You were 26 pts against worse off this season than in '19, so your defence statiscally is pretty much the same.
But we're talking about the stand rule being brought in to hinder Richmond because all the other teams were just going through the motions on the mark where as Richmond pressured, so obviously the stand rule was brought in to hinder only one team and not the rest that were just going through the motions on the mark, so for them nothing really changed, and only Richmond could no longer be the best version of themselves.

Do you have literally any proof at all that it was ‘brought in to hinder Richmond.’

That’s like saying t20 was brought in to hinder the Australian test side because they happened to be the best at the time and they haven’t been for most of the time since.

Correlation doesn’t equal causality. It was brought in to try and improve the game and your inability to cope with the fact that your team hasn’t stayed at the top won’t change that

 

[PhatBoy]

We all know (even you) the reason that Richmond aren't the best version of themselves though.

Because The umpire says stand.

F*** off mate. Stop making excuses and grow a set.


Why have Geelong and Sydney stayed at or near the top for 16 and 18 seasons respectively? Have there been no rule changes in that time that apply to them? Have they played to different rules while Richmond are subject to rules that others aren’t?

They adapt. They find a way. And the years we have been less successful or missed the finals altogether in 2015, sure as s**t doesn’t owe anything to any rule book. We played s**t football and got what we deserved.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Why is this wonderful conspiracy theory confined to Big Footy? Why haven't we read about it anywhere else? Why haven't journalists latched onto it? Why hasn't 60 Minutes done a hard hitting expose on how and why the AFL conspired against Richmond FC? Because it's bulltish! Maybe Richmond falling off its perch was an unintended consequence, but I prefer to think Richmond fell off its perch because its premiership champions either retired, left or just got old and ordinary.

Sorry, are you suggesting that the AFL media actually do serious journalism and ask hard questions of the AFL?

Just stop and think about the rule changes recently.

Have any been trialled?
Have any worked entirely as intended?
Has scoring increased?


the AFL introduce rule changes without serious thought or interaction with other parties (clubs, players, umpires). They change interpretations week to week and even across around. This isn't a conspiracy, it's what they do. Half baked amateur, narcissistic, and poorly thought through. And notice the media rarely say anything negative. they are all in on the game, because the AFL control it. It's just how the AFL works. If you think that there haven't been alto of rule changes, and that all of those has been well thought through and introduced in well structured and careful manner, then good for you. To me, and many others, the AFL is a bunch of cowboys who live in some incestuous world where they can control their reality. The "Boys Club".