Should all the rules introduced by current Geelong CEO Stephen Hocking be reversed?

[PetterdHoisted]

By Richmond supporters who genuinely believe their team's demise post 2020 was because of rule changes by the AFL, and not natural attrition and the fact the game had moved on

remember early on when the AFL refused to say who had conceived of STAND?

a little later the AFL suddenly made it very clear who was the architect of STAND.

success has many fathers, failure is an orphan

 

[Mr Meow]

remember early on when the AFL refused to say who had conceived of STAND?

a little later the AFL suddenly made it very clear who was the architect of STAND.

success has many fathers, failure is an orphan

Richmond fell off a cliff and it had everything to do with being a 4 letter word starting with s; nothing to do with a 5 letter word starting with s that the umpires call out.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Loving all the SHocking conspiracies surfacing again. It usually happens after a big Cats win. Not sure why it has happened this time - we got Walloped by GWS in our last outing.

Whatever the reason - keep 'em coming!

 

[CharacterFirst]

I'm looking forward to seeing what Tom Harley can come up with.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Remove the stand rule and I guarantee you scoring will go down almost immediately.

Stand rule has almost completely taken away the short kick down the line to a loose player, now its more sideways or long to a contest.
I'd hazard a guess it would actually increase scoring to remove it (team retain the ball but move it forward - like the hawks mastered during the 3peat)

 

[Sttew]

yes, you can manage CoI, you must in fact, to retain credibility

basically do the opposite of what SHocking did

You are hopelessly biased and have spent way too much time on the Richmond Board listening to nuts pontificating about the "CFL" and what Steve Hocking allegedly did to poor old Richmond. If there was any substance to the crap you espouse wouldn't you think the AFL might have changed what he brought in? He's been gone from the AFL for 4 years now.

 

[Sttew]

remember early on when the AFL refused to say who had conceived of STAND?

No. Should we?

 

[randyzany]

You are hopelessly biased and have spent way too much time on the Richmond Board listening to nuts pontificating about the "CFL" and what Steve Hocking allegedly did to poor old Richmond. If there was any substance to the crap you espouse wouldn't you think the AFL might have changed what he brought in? He's been gone from the AFL for 4 years now.

I've seen Tiggie posters constantly talking about the CFL while having no clue what it means as I've never come across anyone spelling out specifically what the actual letters in the acronym stand for. Have had no success in finding out via google.

Is it Cats Football League, Corrupt Football League?

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Interesting article here about the contentious Hocking rule which a lot of good judges are saying is a rort.



"The stand rule had its shot, and it missed. It's time for the AFL to ditch it.

It’s a rule that freezes defenders in place and penalises them for doing what they’re literally paid to do: apply pressure. It’s a rule that punishes effort and awareness."

https://www.theroar.com.au/2025/07/17/the-stand-rule-had-its-shot-and-it-missed-its-time-for-the-afl-to-ditch-it/

 

[Grin]

A lot of very defensive Cat supporters in this thread

 

[Simche]

I think the constant flip flopping on rules is more damaging to the game than just letting it naturally evolve. For example I have no idea why we had 20 years of 'hands in the back' being adjudicated as a push and then seemingly just turfing that rule out for no apparent reason.

I suppose the rule that I most hate is the stand rule and the protected area. It was brought in to increase scoring but objectively it just hasn't worked as coaches have just adapted to flood back quicker and deeper, so while it has increased the speed of transition between the arcs, it has led to congested 50s. The other element is the removal of any goalkicking skill required given the significant zone around a player negating any angle. The final element is how punitive the punishment is for players encroaching on that zone which I see as highly technical and paid when the player has very limited influence on the play itself (i.e. a player can be 10 meters away and caught in a zone where they are pinged).

I honestly think we're getting to the point where if we want to increase scoring we either need to do one of two things, either limit the number of players in zones of the field (which would be nightmarish for umpires) or completely eliminate the bench to create such significant fatigue late in quarters and games that players simply cannot get themselves back in such serious numbers (I would introduce a substitute system for injuries).

I suppose at the heart of the issue is that there is no real reward for teams and coaches playing attacking football. Coaches don't care if they win by kicking 5 goals or 15 and the way team defences are coached these days there is a real focus on keeping opposition teams below a certain threshold as almost a first aim. Something I'd look at is potentially introducing points for teams exceeding a points mark (maybe 120?), even in a loss, which could be something that changes the coaching behaviours.

Anyway, I don't think Hocking has ruined the game. I think the intent behind the rule changes was right but they just haven't really worked and I think alternative rule changes or just reverting back will be no more successful in trying to bring back the free scoring eras like the 80s and 90s.

 

[PhatBoy]

A lot of very defensive Cat supporters in this thread

A lot of very permanently offended tigers ones on this board.

 

[Mr Meow]

A lot of very defensive Cat supporters in this thread

Another post about Geelong supporters.

Obsessed.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I think the constant flip flopping on rules is more damaging to the game than just letting it naturally evolve. For example I have no idea why we had 20 years of 'hands in the back' being adjudicated as a push and then seemingly just turfing that rule out for no apparent reason.

I suppose the rule that I most hate is the stand rule and the protected area. It was brought in to increase scoring but objectively it just hasn't worked as coaches have just adapted to flood back quicker and deeper, so while it has increased the speed of transition between the arcs, it has led to congested 50s. The other element is the removal of any goalkicking skill required given the significant zone around a player negating any angle. The final element is how punitive the punishment is for players encroaching on that zone which I see as highly technical and paid when the player has very limited influence on the play itself (i.e. a player can be 10 meters away and caught in a zone where they are pinged).

I honestly think we're getting to the point where if we want to increase scoring we either need to do one of two things, either limit the number of players in zones of the field (which would be nightmarish for umpires) or completely eliminate the bench to create such significant fatigue late in quarters and games that players simply cannot get themselves back in such serious numbers (I would introduce a substitute system for injuries).

I suppose at the heart of the issue is that there is no real reward for teams and coaches playing attacking football. Coaches don't care if they win by kicking 5 goals or 15 and the way team defences are coached these days there is a real focus on keeping opposition teams below a certain threshold as almost a first aim. Something I'd look at is potentially introducing points for teams exceeding a points mark (maybe 120?), even in a loss, which could be something that changes the coaching behaviours.

Anyway, I don't think Hocking has ruined the game. I think the intent behind the rule changes was right but they just haven't really worked and I think alternative rule changes or just reverting back will be no more successful in trying to bring back the free scoring eras like the 80s and 90s.

Good post and discussion
I used to be in the just stop fiddling with the rules camp but I can see logic in making refinements
The other thing is that tribunals act in some ways like the courts do in creating law insofar that their interpretations (especially around tackling) are having a greater impact than any of the recent Hocking changes.

The other discussion worth having is whether high scoring is indeed the lofty goal the game should be aiming to achieve

 

[Grin]

Another post about Geelong supporters.

Obsessed.

Fancy talking about Geelong in a Geelong thread.

Triggered.

 

[Mr Meow]

Fancy talking about Geelong in a Geelong thread.

Triggered.

Keep up the good work.

 

[Tom14]

I think the constant flip flopping on rules is more damaging to the game than just letting it naturally evolve. For example I have no idea why we had 20 years of 'hands in the back' being adjudicated as a push and then seemingly just turfing that rule out for no apparent reason.

I suppose the rule that I most hate is the stand rule and the protected area. It was brought in to increase scoring but objectively it just hasn't worked as coaches have just adapted to flood back quicker and deeper, so while it has increased the speed of transition between the arcs, it has led to congested 50s. The other element is the removal of any goalkicking skill required given the significant zone around a player negating any angle. The final element is how punitive the punishment is for players encroaching on that zone which I see as highly technical and paid when the player has very limited influence on the play itself (i.e. a player can be 10 meters away and caught in a zone where they are pinged).

I honestly think we're getting to the point where if we want to increase scoring we either need to do one of two things, either limit the number of players in zones of the field (which would be nightmarish for umpires) or completely eliminate the bench to create such significant fatigue late in quarters and games that players simply cannot get themselves back in such serious numbers (I would introduce a substitute system for injuries).

I suppose at the heart of the issue is that there is no real reward for teams and coaches playing attacking football. Coaches don't care if they win by kicking 5 goals or 15 and the way team defences are coached these days there is a real focus on keeping opposition teams below a certain threshold as almost a first aim. Something I'd look at is potentially introducing points for teams exceeding a points mark (maybe 120?), even in a loss, which could be something that changes the coaching behaviours.

Anyway, I don't think Hocking has ruined the game. I think the intent behind the rule changes was right but they just haven't really worked and I think alternative rule changes or just reverting back will be no more successful in trying to bring back the free scoring eras like the 80s and 90s.

I like the stand rule because it is good for my team

They should crackdown on cheating on the mark/protected area more imo.

 

[strand_victor]

Ah yes. The Richmond tin-foil hat theory that Hocking bought in these specifically to stop Richmond.

Have mates who are Richmond supporters who never shut up about it.

Curious breed the Tiger supporter.

I wonder what Long Live HFC thinks of the Steve Hocking out to get Richmond conspiracy theory? LoL

 

[Long Live HFC]

I wonder what Long Live HFC thinks of the Steve Hocking out to get Richmond conspiracy theory? LoL

I’m not that familiar with that one; but I did think it was accepted the clear of the mark rule was a direct result of hawks players putting 2 players on the mark (the second at 90 degrees on the inside). Happy to be wrong if thats not what happened, but regardless it wasnt anti-hawthorn, it was anti a tactic which slowed the game down and made it uglier. That’s the root cause of many a rule change imo.

But yeah, conspiracy theories are for losers.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

That is fascinating. Thank you so much for finding and posting this. TheRoar are likely the most objective and comprehensive source of journalism you can find. Dave Harding is levels above where Mike Sheehan ever got to.

Moron.

Calm down. The poll results speak for themselves.

 

[Mr Meow]

Calm down. The poll results speak for themselves.

Your expert witness is a "journalist" from TheRoar.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Your expert witness is a "journalist" from TheRoar.

You can't deny that Hocking has always been a Geelong man through and through and that his appointment was a mistake.
Scoring hasn't increased , only 50m penalties have.
The hands allowed in the back change was also dumb that opened up a can of worms.

 

[Mr Meow]

You can't deny that Hocking has always been a Geelong man through and through and that his appointment was a mistake.
Scoring hasn't increased.

You never actually respond to my points, which means you acknowledge their merit. Also, scoring was trending heavily down between 2017 and 2020 (even adjusting for quarter size), which stopped in 2021. It's right here in this thread.

 

[Mr Meow]

Nice work.

If we add 25% to 2020 to account for shortened quarters, that's about 74 points. So 2019-2020 around 76 average per team (heavily declining from 2017's 87), 2021 it spikes a little and then 2022-2025 we are at least up to a steady 81-82. Who knows, maybe we were going to keep the 2017-2020 decline without rule changes and teams would be down to a late 60s average by now - then we're talking about a few goals difference per game.

Aristotle Pickett here you go. The raw data is quoted and my summary is something simple enough that you should be able to understand it.

2016-2017 average of 86.5 per team. Scoring heavily declines to 74 per team by 2019-2020. Rule changes, we then get back to 82 per team since (instead of continuing to decline further below 74).

 

[Sttew]

You can't deny that Hocking has always been a Geelong man through and through and that his appointment was a mistake.
Scoring hasn't increased , only 50m penalties have.
The hands allowed in the back change was also dumb that opened up a can of worms.

IYFO. If Hocking hadn’t taken the Geelong CEO job he’d probably be CEO of the AFL now. He was highly respected within the AFL, I know that for an absolute fact