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

Remove this Banner Ad

Elmer_Judd said:
If the AFL has any sense of theatre, they would fixture Richmond to play down at GMHBA Stadium/Kardinia Park in 2023.

The outrage and melts from Tiger posters here and Dimma would be delish !
Click to expand...
would even be happy to play them at Marvel. Dimma would sook it up and run to Caroline Wilson to write a story about how mean the big bad AFL are in not letting them play all their games at the MCG
 
caveman72 said:
would even be happy to play them at Marvel. Dimma would sook it up and run to Caroline Wilson to write a story about how mean the big bad AFL are in not letting them play all their games at the MCG
Click to expand...

Off course you’d be happy at Marvel cause it’s not the MCG where you get stage fright 100% of the time in finals against us.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Falcon3518 said:
Off course you’d be happy at Marvel cause it’s not the MCG where you get stage fright 100% of the time in finals against us.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

Falcon3518 said:
Off course you’d be happy at Marvel cause it’s not the MCG where you get stage fright 90% of the time.
Click to expand...
Why you change your post didn't want to look like a dumbass?
I'm guessing you would know a bit about stage fright
 

Log in to remove this ad.

FC Koln said:
I think Gerard Whateley sums it up best, if you could've did something to stop Richmond before the statue on the mark rule, you would've, you couldn't, so the statue on the mark rule was brought in to prompt/assist Geelong in moving the ball quicker where previously only Richmond could. You see the AFL knew that the way to put Richmond's defence under pressure was quicker ball movement and it was obvious to them that the other teams (Geelong in particular) needed some help in that area, because, again, if you could've moved it quicker without having to be prompted/assisted, you would've.



You guys didn't have to adapt post statue on the mark rule though because all it did for you is add something to your game that only Richmond could do before, that being, moving the ball quickly.

So the 2020 premiers had to improve their clearance game in 2021 because as we know the top 6 in 2021 were the top 6 clearance winning teams, while Geelong who always had a good clearance game (but were still beaten by Richmond in 3 finals) just had an ability added to their game.

The Geelong flag in 2022 is truly the company flag. I guess it would be nice to see the Geelong fans acknowledge the company's part in their flag rather than pretend they did it all by themselves, because that's just not true.
Click to expand...

You haven't explained what the 'stand' rule prevented Richmond doing that was so revolutionary? What did the tiggies do on the mark that was so damn crucial to their success?

It must have been something pretty amazing if not being able to do it reduced them to also rans?
 
caveman72 said:
Why you change your post didn't want to look like a dumbass?
I'm guessing you would know a bit about stage fright
Click to expand...
Those big scary goalposts make Tiger players and supporters shake in very fear so stage fright is to be expected
 
To the supporters of the Richmond Football Club: your actions are disgusting and embarrassing. Your entitlement and arrogance are truly staggering, and your ridiculous conspiracy theories only serve to undermine the integrity of the game.

It is time for you to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities. Your behavior is damaging not only to the reputation of the Richmond Football Club, but to the entire Australian Football League.

If you continue down this path, you risk alienating not only the other clubs and their fans, but also the players, coaches, and officials who work tirelessly to make the game what it is.

Consider this a warning. Change your ways, or face the consequences.
 
caveman72 said:
Why you change your post didn't want to look like a dumbass?
I'm guessing you would know a bit about stage fright
Click to expand...

I edited it for accuracy. It’s 100% not 90%


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
maskmcgee said:
To the supporters of the Richmond Football Club: your actions are disgusting and embarrassing. Your entitlement and arrogance are truly staggering, and your ridiculous conspiracy theories only serve to undermine the integrity of the game.

It is time for you to take a step back and reevaluate your priorities. Your behavior is damaging not only to the reputation of the Richmond Football Club, but to the entire Australian Football League.

If you continue down this path, you risk alienating not only the other clubs and their fans, but also the players, coaches, and officials who work tirelessly to make the game what it is.

Consider this a warning. Change your ways, or face the consequences.
Click to expand...

When 90% of main board threads are about Geelong this is what happens. They should moved to the Geelong board. It’s not just us who are sick of it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lunchlady Doris said:
You haven't explained what the 'stand' rule prevented Richmond doing that was so revolutionary? What did the tiggies do on the mark that was so damn crucial to their success?

It must have been something pretty amazing if not being able to do it reduced them to also rans?
Click to expand...

To be serious for a minute … it’s not what Richmond did, it’s what other teams couldn’t do. The ‘state of the game’ was farked because teams couldn’t move the ball effectively with the way teams implemented defensive grids, guarding space, manning the mark corridor side to stop inward ball movement and force teams down the line etc… scores were dwindling and so on ….

Oh…. Except Richmond…. Richmond could move the ball quickly, could generate loads of inside-50’S with minimal possessions, and could create huge scores off forward half turnovers as teams couldn’t ‘escape’ Richmond’s press as they were constantly forced down the line.

But Richmond’s style didn’t rely on precise ball movement. Richmond were happy to ‘give the ball back’ to the opposition in their defensive half as they knew by far our biggest scoring avenue was scores from forward half turnovers. It’s why we happily conceded clearances as a hacked kick forward into our possession usually resulted in a score.

This style was developed and honed in the pre-season of 2017… chaos footy. Make mistakes. Apply pressure. Kick it to contests. And so on … it delivered a dynasty as no other team was able to execute the same style consistently, and it was the only style that could handle the pressure cooker of finals footy and win regularly where defence is king.

So the ‘stand’ rule was introduced to help teams move the ball more effectively to create a ‘better looking’ spectacle and higher scores. Basically to help teams play more corridor football by making the man on the mark not able to defend corridor kicks. It was designed to reduce ‘down the line’ kicks. It was designed to help overcome defences grids.

So it was designed to help teams execute what Richmond had been executing for 4-years, because teams couldn’t do it themselves, so an artificial rule was introduced.

None of the above is in dispute. I don’t believe it was done to specifically hinder Richmond - the prime objective was to enable other teams to play like Richmond to make the game faster and more attractive to watch.

So of course the natural outcome is the areas of the game that Richmond gave scant regard to for 4-years … clearance and ball retention …. became more important as all teams could now move the ball, so Richmond’s major competitive advantage was gone.

So the stand rule isn’t about stopping Richmond from doing what won us 3 flags. It was about bringing in a rule to assist teams move the ball so they could play a style proven by Richmond necessary to win finals and flags in modern footy. And walah …. Demons win a flag playing high speed and aggressive footy, then in 2022 Geelong do the same.

So the stand rule is labelled a success as more teams are now transitioning the ball more effectively. They are able to penetrate defensive grids. They are not able to defend the ground as efficiently.

Richmond didn’t need the stand rule to play a style that wins finals and flags …. Other teams did and it has paid dividends thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Noidnadroj said:
To be serious for a minute … it’s not what Richmond did, it’s what other teams couldn’t do. The ‘state of the game’ was farked because teams couldn’t move the ball effectively with the way teams implemented defensive grids, guarding space, manning the mark corridor side to stop inward ball movement and force teams down the line etc… scores were dwindling and so on ….

Oh…. Except Richmond…. Richmond could move the ball quickly, could generate loads of inside-50’S with minimal possessions, and could create huge scores off forward half turnovers as teams couldn’t ‘escape’ Richmond’s press as they were constantly forced down the line.

But Richmond’s style didn’t rely on precise ball movement. Richmond were happy to ‘give the ball back’ to the opposition in their defensive half as they knew by far our biggest scoring avenue was scores from forward half turnovers. It’s why we happily conceded clearances as a hacked kick forward into our possession usually resulted in a score.

This style was developed and honed in the pre-season of 2017… chaos footy. Make mistakes. Apply pressure. Kick it to contests. And so on … it delivered a dynasty as no other team was able to execute the same style consistently, and it was the only style that could handle the pressure cooker of finals footy and win regularly where defence is king.

So the ‘stand’ rule was introduced to help teams move the ball more effectively to create a ‘better looking’ spectacle and higher scores. Basically to help teams play more corridor football by making the man on the mark not able to defend corridor kicks. It was designed to reduce ‘down the line’ kicks. It was designed to help overcome defences grids.

So it was designed to help teams execute what Richmond had been executing for 4-years, because teams couldn’t do it themselves, so an artificial rule was introduced.

None of the above is in dispute. I don’t believe it was done to specifically hinder Richmond - the prime objective was to enable other teams to play like Richmond to make the game faster and more attractive to watch.

So of course the natural outcome is the areas of the game that Richmond gave scant regard to for 4-years … clearance and ball retention …. became more important as all teams could now move the ball, so Richmond’s major competitive advantage was gone.

So the stand rule isn’t about stopping Richmond from doing what won us 3 flags. It was about bringing in a rule to assist teams move the ball so they could play a style proven by Richmond necessary to win finals and flags in modern footy. And walah …. Demons win a flag playing high speed and aggressive footy, then in 2022 Geelong do the same.

So the stand rule is labelled a success as more teams are now transitioning the ball more effectively. They are able to penetrate defensive grids. They are not able to defend the ground as efficiently.

Richmond didn’t need the stand rule to play a style that wins finals and flags …. Other teams did and it has paid dividends thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...
Just to note, scoring didn't increase because of this rule so it's technically a fail.

I don't see how any footy supporter could agree with the stand rule being a good one - it's one of the worst rules ever introduced.
 
Noidnadroj said:
To be serious for a minute … it’s not what Richmond did, it’s what other teams couldn’t do. The ‘state of the game’ was farked because teams couldn’t move the ball effectively with the way teams implemented defensive grids, guarding space, manning the mark corridor side to stop inward ball movement and force teams down the line etc… scores were dwindling and so on ….

...

So the ‘stand’ rule was introduced to help teams move the ball more effectively to create a ‘better looking’ spectacle and higher scores. Basically to help teams play more corridor football by making the man on the mark not able to defend corridor kicks. It was designed to reduce ‘down the line’ kicks. It was designed to help overcome defences grids.

So it was designed to help teams execute what Richmond had been executing for 4-years, because teams couldn’t do it themselves, so an artificial rule was introduced.
Click to expand...

So Richmond could kick inboard, but no one else could? Because Richmond didn't care if they gave up possession?

This was nothing to do with any Richmond manning the mark tactic, but horizontal movement that every team was doing.

Noidnadroj said:
None of the above is in dispute. I don’t believe it was done to specifically hinder Richmond - the prime objective was to enable other teams to play like Richmond to make the game faster and more attractive to watch.

So of course the natural outcome is the areas of the game that Richmond gave scant regard to for 4-years … clearance and ball retention …. became more important as all teams could now move the ball, so Richmond’s major competitive advantage was gone.

So the stand rule isn’t about stopping Richmond from doing what won us 3 flags. It was about bringing in a rule to assist teams move the ball so they could play a style proven by Richmond necessary to win finals and flags in modern footy. And walah …. Demons win a flag playing high speed and aggressive footy, then in 2022 Geelong do the same.

So the stand rule is labelled a success as more teams are now transitioning the ball more effectively. They are able to penetrate defensive grids. They are not able to defend the ground as efficiently.

Richmond didn’t need the stand rule to play a style that wins finals and flags …. Other teams did and it has paid dividends thus far.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is - other teams are now doing it better than Richmond?
 
Lunchlady Doris said:
So Richmond could kick inboard, but no one else could? Because Richmond didn't care if they gave up possession?

This was nothing to do with any Richmond manning the mark tactic, but horizontal movement that every team was doing.



So what you're saying is - other teams are now doing it better than Richmond?
Click to expand...

Looks like I’ll have to say it slowly.

Richmond sacrificed winning clearances and had a playing list and style developed and honed over 4-years that won games via scores from turnover. Other teams were better than Richmond at clearances and scoring from clearances as we didn’t need to win those to win games of footy.

AFL introduced a rule that enabled teams to more easily retain possession and move the ball. So with every team now able to move the ball and have less turnovers, clearances became more important as a source of scoring. Richmond’s style and playing list wasn’t strong on this area…. it’s not something you can just switch on overnight.

So this off-season we traded for 2 x big bodied clearance players as it’s not an area a team can’t sacrifice any more as we did from 2017-20.

And it wasn’t that Richmond kicked in-board where others didn’t. Richmond moved quickly from the back half, handballed forward and happily kicked to contests, as we trusted our backline to handle any turnovers as pressure through the middle was always high.

But the stand rule meant with teams able to transition through the corridor the pressure was reduced and the ball often came in with no pressure, hence we conceded scores too easily.

So previously losing clearances didn’t hurt us, and kicking to contests and potentially losing possession in our forward half didn’t hurt us as teams couldn’t ‘escape’ and we’d score from turnover. The ‘stand’ rule changed both those things and we’ve had to update our playing list accordingly.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
Noidnadroj said:
Looks like I’ll have to say it slowly.

Richmond sacrificed winning clearances and had a playing list and style developed and honed over 4-years that won games via scores from turnover. Other teams were better than Richmond at clearances and scoring from clearances as we didn’t need to win those to win games of footy.

AFL introduced a rule that enabled teams to more easily retain possession and move the ball. So with every team now able to move the ball and have less turnovers, clearances became more important as a source of scoring. Richmond’s style and playing list wasn’t strong on this area…. it’s not something you can just switch on overnight.

So this off-season we traded for 2 x big bodied clearance players as it’s not an area a team can’t sacrifice any more as we did from 2017-20.

And it wasn’t that Richmond kicked in-board where others didn’t. Richmond moved quickly from the back half, handballed forward and happily kicked to contests, as we trusted our backline to handle any turnovers as pressure through the middle was always high.

But the stand rule meant with teams able to transition through the corridor the pressure was reduced and the ball often came in with no pressure, hence we conceded scores too easily.

So previously losing clearances didn’t hurt us, and kicking to contests and potentially losing possession in our forward half didn’t hurt us as teams couldn’t ‘escape’ and we’d score from turnover. The ‘stand’ rule changed both those things and we’ve had to update our playing list accordingly.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Click to expand...

Yep, so Richmond aren't good enough. Got it.
 
Lunchlady Doris said:
Yep, so Richmond aren't good enough. Got it.
Click to expand...
One of these “delusional” Richmond fans you Cats people fear writes you a novel and you respond with the one liner. Classy.

They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t because nothings good enough for you aye? Low tier troll
 
Sky said:
One of these “delusional” Richmond fans you Cats people fear writes you a novel and you respond with the one liner. Classy.

They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t because nothings good enough for you aye? Low tier troll
Click to expand...

Mate writing a novel doesn’t make a post correct.

The bottom line is that it all comes across as moaning and excuse making.

Pointing that out isn’t trolling.
 
Sky said:
One of these “delusional” Richmond fans you Cats people fear writes you a novel and you respond with the one liner. Classy.

They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t because nothings good enough for you aye? Low tier troll
Click to expand...

Have a sook campaigner.

Boils down to - on the current even playing field - everyone under the same rules - Richmond can't compete. Their midfield isn't good enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cleansweep17
  • Poll
Which decade had the best AFL/VFL rules?
Replies
12
Views
340
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
Dazzler9
Swans have ten premierships
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
2K
Cyclops
C
PowerfulPies2023
Premiership radar - Geelong and Sydney look like their teams of yesteryear
Replies
10
Views
542
Mr Meow
M
Elmer_Judd
Analysis How different would today's AFL landscape be if the 1989 merger between Fitzroy and Footscray went ahead, and would that club have been succesful ?
2 3
Replies
73
Views
5K
Coolangatta
Coolangatta
newcs
The "It's not fair that we have to play Geelong in Geelong" thread.
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
393
Views
12K
Chat Pile
Chat Pile
Jascave
Fixture How would you do Round 1 of the 2024 AFL Premiership Season?
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
5K
Coach_Required
Coach_Required
bzparkes
Would original expansion clubs have greater support if they named themselves after a state/area?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top