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

Remove this Banner Ad

Anthony80

Debutant
Suspended
Nov 20, 2022
50
56
AFL Club
Richmond
It’s also true that everybody has their issues but the severity matters especially going into specific games. I don’t think any top 8 teams had it worse than us in 2019. Only a couple had it worse overall in the whole comp I’m pretty sure it was insignificant teams like saints and Freo or something. So I think it definitely affects our record and perception of dominance.
GWS comes to mind, their story that season was very similiar to our tale.
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
36,600
40,702
AFL Club
Geelong
Yeah, I’m just trying to figure out why you think we weren’t dominant. Are you using stats or eye test? We both had close call wins, our closest was the port 2020 prelim over there by 6 points. So I’d say the comp was around the mark for both of us since you won by 5.

It’s also true that everybody has their issues but the severity matters especially going into specific games. I don’t think any top 8 teams had it worse than us in 2019. Only a couple had it worse overall in the whole comp I’m pretty sure it was insignificant teams like saints and Freo or something. So I think it definitely affects our record and perception of dominance.

Richmond are a pretty unique case imo cause of our big difference in H&A and finals performances. People either remember us as the H&A team or finals team based on what they value. Cats and Pies seem to remember us as the beatable H&A team. I think it’s cause their previous great teams were dominant in that area. But could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com


Same reason I don’t think we were dominant after 2008. St Kilda finished ahead of us in 2009. Collingwood in 2010-11.

Like Richmond 17-20, we were the dominant side across the period but there was no season after 2008 where we were ahead of the curve and had to be reigned in.

As I’ve said Richmond were a great side because they put themselves in that top 4 and then turned it on at finals time, it’s not a knock on them.

Hawthorn were the same: they lost 5 and 6 home and away games in 14-15, they were on top in 13 but only by a game. They weren’t a side that was running away from everyone that had to be brought back. Yes they were the overall dominant side too

That’s my point. These sides are all great teams, among the best in modern footy, no argument.

But then and now there has never been a reason for the afl to try and restrict any of them. Make the game more attractive, sure, but I doubt at any of these stages have they ever sat down and said ‘we have to do something about this they’re just too damn good.’
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
9,716
21,626
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
it was bought in to exterminate good ol fair n square legitimate intimidation,the Tigers and Hawks were/are masters of it,always have been,bullying soft private school boys with perception into submission, so they had to tamper with it to cater to all those whingeing moms and dads paying exorbitant fees to get they're deluded offspring a wiff of self entitlement coupled with a barrel load of fake self-esteem without being challenged
Can't argue with that. Think there might be a job for you at one of 'those school', counsellor?, chaplin?
 

Cdog71

Premiership Player
Sep 21, 2017
4,135
9,831
AFL Club
Richmond
The stand rule would’ve come in regardless
2020 was at the Gabba
Richmond had won 40 odd at the G and then it stopped, there’s no doubt the top four this year was best four teams and the stand rule had nothing to do with the margin of the GF.
But from that many wins at the G to nothing without a great change in the line up…anyone who thinks it wasn’t a targeted idea isn’t looking at objectively
 

Noidnadroj

Club Legend
Dec 8, 2020
2,541
10,050
AFL Club
Richmond
Why do you make out like this is the only time this has ever happened?

Who decided the dissent rule rule should just become an area of focus with no trial or anything?

Nevermind the fact that the stand rule actually WAS trialled in pre-season matches; when else are they supposed to trial it? What is this process they should have been going through to get it ready? They had the best part of a month at least in the pre-season and trial period to get used to it and trial it in matches before the first game of the season. How much time do you need for a rule change? What do they need to do, extend the preseason trial period by longer than they do for every other year - when there are other rule changes?

How did the dissent rule go when it was also rushed in ?

And do you honestly believe a handful of practise games is adequate to make a significant change to the way the game has been played for 135 years?

I’m happy for minor tweaks to be rushed in on the back of limited testing, but any major rule change should follow a very strict process:

1. How about we start by discussing it with the rules committee and not bypassing them? That’s where I’d start.

2. Test in practise matches and pre-season games for at least 2 and preferably 3 seasons. Test for a season at VFL level. Analyse the data. See what trends emerge. Decide if it needs more analysis or not. Make sure you don’t solve one problem and create another. The 6-6-6, play on from a point, stand rule … have barely moved the needle on scoring.

A months testing is laughable. The process used is laughable (one man recommends it and it’s implemented without the rules committee involved).

Yes, there has been some good rule changes but with the current cowboy approach is it any wonder over the last period of time we’ve had:

1. Dissent rule. Comes and goes.

2. Hands in the back. Comes and goes.

3. Ruckman no prior if taking out of ruck. Comes
and goes.

4. 3rd man up. Has come and it’s a stupid rule
that needs to go.

5. Nominating ruckman. A stupid rule that needs to go.

6. Sub-rule. Rushed in and a season later gone.

Too many others to mention.

Just implement a professional process. Multiple years of testing. Proper analysis. Expert discussion.

The ‘stand’ rule is embarrassing. I hate it. Hate it takes a player out of the contest. Hate it costs 50m if you even backtrack away from the kicker a little late. Hate hearing ‘staaannndddd’ 200 times a game. Hate a player taking a mark 50m out ends up kicking from 51m as they just run around to the side. Basically hate everything about it.

Did it help ball movement? Who knows? Was it stand? Or was it more teams implementing aggressive styles as thats how recent flags have been won, and stagnant styles haven’t got the job done? It hasn’t increased scoring.

Anyway…. just discuss potential changes with a wide range of experts, test them thoroughly, analyse the data properly and then consider implementing rule changes. Cowboy process is what gets us stupid rule changes constantly.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
36,600
40,702
AFL Club
Geelong
How did the dissent rule go when it was also rushed in ?

And do you honestly believe a handful of practise games is adequate to make a significant change to the way the game has been played for 135 years?

I’m happy for minor tweaks to be rushed in on the back of limited testing, but any major rule change should follow a very strict process:

1. How about we start by discussing it with the rules committee and not bypassing them? That’s where I’d start.

2. Test in practise matches and pre-season games for at least 2 and preferably 3 seasons. Test for a season at VFL level. Analyse the data. See what trends emerge. Decide if it needs more analysis or not. Make sure you don’t solve one problem and create another. The 6-6-6, play on from a point, stand rule … have barely moved the needle on scoring.

A months testing is laughable. The process used is laughable (one man recommends it and it’s implemented without the rules committee involved).

Yes, there has been some good rule changes but with the current cowboy approach is it any wonder over the last period of time we’ve had:

1. Dissent rule. Comes and goes.

2. Hands in the back. Comes and goes.

3. Ruckman no prior if taking out of ruck. Comes
and goes.

4. 3rd man up. Has come and it’s a stupid rule
that needs to go.

5. Nominating ruckman. A stupid rule that needs to go.

6. Sub-rule. Rushed in and a season later gone.

Too many others to mention.

Just implement a professional process. Multiple years of testing. Proper analysis. Expert discussion.

The ‘stand’ rule is embarrassing. I hate it. Hate it takes a player out of the contest. Hate it costs 50m if you even backtrack away from the kicker a little late. Hate hearing ‘staaannndddd’ 200 times a game. Hate a player taking a mark 50m out ends up kicking from 51m as they just run around to the side. Basically hate everything about it.

Did it help ball movement? Who knows? Was it stand? Or was it more teams implementing aggressive styles as thats how recent flags have been won, and stagnant styles haven’t got the job done? It hasn’t increased scoring.

Anyway…. just discuss potential changes with a wide range of experts, test them thoroughly, analyse the data properly and then consider implementing rule changes. Cowboy process is what gets us stupid rule changes constantly.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
For starters it hasn’t been a rule for that long. The previous mark rule, as we knew it, was brought in in the early 1930s.

The fact is they brought it in via the same process almost every rule change is brought in: before the pre-season games.

There are rule changes or variations every year without fail. Regardless of the process they use to make the decision to implement it, ‘a handful of trial matches’ is what they use every time.
 

Noidnadroj

Club Legend
Dec 8, 2020
2,541
10,050
AFL Club
Richmond
For starters it hasn’t been a rule for that long. The previous mark rule, as we knew it, was brought in in the early 1930s.

The fact is they brought it in via the same process almost every rule change is brought in: before the pre-season games.

There are rule changes or variations every year without fail. Regardless of the process they use to make the decision to implement it, ‘a handful of trial matches’ is what they use every time.

Last touch out of bounds? Currently being trialled in AFLW and I think SANFL, not yet brought in.

Mandating 3 x players in each 50m arc at every stoppage? Being trialled in multiple lower competitions.

Longer goal square trialled in multiple late seasons VFL matches and never implemented.

Expanded 6-6-6 rule so it applies at ball Ups and boundary throw ins being trialled in state league competitions.

9-point super goal and play on from ball hitting post trialled in multiple pre-seasons and never implemented - albeit maybe more novelty rules than serious consideration.

Don’t know about many others. Anyway… to me there’s a difference between a rule tweak, and a significant shift to the way our game is played. Anything significant should require more than a month and a few practise matches to decide it’s a winner… and probably should be discussed by the actual committee put in place to discuss rule changes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
36,600
40,702
AFL Club
Geelong
Last touch out of bounds? Currently being trialled in AFLW and I think SANFL, not yet brought in.

Mandating 3 x players in each 50m arc at every stoppage? Being trialled in multiple lower competitions.

Longer goal square trialled in multiple late seasons VFL matches and never implemented.

Expanded 6-6-6 rule so it applies at ball Ups and boundary throw ins being trialled in state league competitions.

9-point super goal and play on from ball hitting post trialled in multiple pre-seasons and never implemented - albeit maybe more novelty rules than serious consideration.

Don’t know about many others. Anyway… to me there’s a difference between a rule tweak, and a significant shift to the way our game is played. Anything significant should require more than a month and a few practise matches to decide it’s a winner… and probably should be discussed by the actual committee put in place to discuss rule changes.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com


Last touch out of bounds would be the biggest rule change in history. Limited tackles in rugby league would be the only one in the same hemisphere in Australian footballing history. That would warrant a hell of a lot of trialling.
 

Noidnadroj

Club Legend
Dec 8, 2020
2,541
10,050
AFL Club
Richmond
Last touch out of bounds would be the biggest rule change in history. Limited tackles in rugby league would be the only one in the same hemisphere in Australian footballing history. That would warrant a hell of a lot of trialling.

I actually think last touch will come in within the next couple of seasons. Having watched it in the AFLW I don’t mind it. We are already pretty close to there with the way they adjudicate deliberate OOB now. And this just removes the controversy. It’s only between the arcs.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

PhatBoy

Hall of Famer
May 5, 2016
36,600
40,702
AFL Club
Geelong
I actually think last touch will come in within the next couple of seasons. Having watched it in the AFLW I don’t mind it. We are already pretty close to there with the way they adjudicate deliberate OOB now. And this just removes the controversy. It’s only between the arcs.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com


I don’t go much on it. The game reward ball control but it has never ever punished a lack of it like rugby league or union - knock ons etc - and aside from spoils generally the ball going out is simply through a lack of ball control so I wouldn’t be in favour of it but I can see why others would
 

Falcon3518

Premiership Player
Mar 13, 2022
4,218
2,305
AFL Club
Richmond
I actually think last touch will come in within the next couple of seasons. Having watched it in the AFLW I don’t mind it. We are already pretty close to there with the way they adjudicate deliberate OOB now. And this just removes the controversy. It’s only between the arcs.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Instead of last touch, I would just make it if the ball is kicked and goes over the line without a teammate 10-15m in the area it’s a free for the other team. I think this would make it clear as to what is a free and what isn’t.

I don’t want to see tackles over the line, handballs/ballspills on the boundary give frees to the other team.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Sky

Prince Pretty
Feb 14, 2021
3,320
5,943
ADL
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Raptors, Storm, Chelsea
Yeah, I’m just trying to figure out why you think we weren’t dominant. Are you using stats or eye test? We both had close call wins, our closest was the port 2020 prelim over there by 6 points. So I’d say the comp was around the mark for both of us since you won by 5.

It’s also true that everybody has their issues but the severity matters especially going into specific games. I don’t think any top 8 teams had it worse than us in 2019. Only a couple had it worse overall in the whole comp I’m pretty sure it was insignificant teams like saints and Freo or something. So I think it definitely affects our record and perception of dominance.

Richmond are a pretty unique case imo cause of our big difference in H&A and finals performances. People either remember us as the H&A team or finals team based on what they value. Cats and Pies seem to remember us as the beatable H&A team. I think it’s cause their previous great teams were dominant in that area. But could be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
I’m sorry, but we gave you hiding after hiding after hiding. And yet I will only remember Richmond as the team who beat us in three finals in three years.

I guess what I’m saying is I actually respect Richmond Football Club unlike other Geelong fans
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

lumpinee

MK ULTRA
Jul 18, 2019
3,317
4,859
across the park from commission flats
AFL Club
Richmond
was bought in because Shockings still scarred & haunted from being legitimately intimidated for years on end by Hawthorn & WCE back in the day and couldnt "Stand" around to witness another 2 decades of the privates being crushed when it counted,saw the writing on the wall,all that money doesnt & hasnt bought hardness, so what to do ?i know, take the player from the opposition closest to that opponent with the ball out of the equation all together,a masterstroke ?,now all those mommies and daddies in the stands can sleep easier in the knowledge that precious will never be challenged and hes all the protection and delusional entitlement that theyre money was promised to buy
 

fpm84

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 7, 2005
13,761
36,572
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Dallas Mavs, West Ham
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.

Was the stand rule also the reason why we didn’t lose again for the rest of the season?

Was the stand rule why Richmond went on to lose to the likes of North and GC, and then choked away an elimination final?
 

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
9,716
21,626
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
Last touch out of bounds would be the biggest rule change in history. Limited tackles in rugby league would be the only one in the same hemisphere in Australian footballing history. That would warrant a hell of a lot of trialling.
The last touch rule has been in the SANFL since 2016 and hasn't affected the game particularly, SA posters might like to correct me?
I think this stand rule is far more detrimental, but mainly due to the ridiculously strict interpretation of it.
 

Anthony80

Debutant
Suspended
Nov 20, 2022
50
56
AFL Club
Richmond
Was the stand rule also the reason why we didn’t lose again for the rest of the season?
I'm sure that the stand rule is the reason you guys beat Richmond in rnd15. I don't know how your other games went, what I do know though is that in a tight last quarter a team that is behind would find there was no risk in moving the ball quicker and playing on after a mark when one player is not allowed to participate in the game until the umpire allows him.
Was the stand rule why Richmond went on to lose to the likes of North and GC, and then choked away an elimination final?
I believe so, yes. But not only those games, but Carlton rnd1, St. Kilda, Sydney etc., only Melbourne had our number.
Many times I watched the mighty Tigers before the stand rule ramp up their pressure in the last quarter and we were gone (Geelong knows that movie), this is an ability we lost when the stand rule was introduced, because it became easier for teams to move the ball quicker when assisted by the stand rule to regain momentum.

Some people suggest that winning clearances became more important when the stand rule was introduced, and that was not a strongpoint for Richmond during our successful run, we all know that it didn't have to be.

Anyway I'm hoping the pathetic looking statue on the mark rule is here to stay now just so I can see how we go with Taranto & Hopper.

If they get rid of the statue on the mark rule now after Richmond sign two players they believe will address a weakness when previously the weakness didn't stop Richmond from winning flags, what are we gonna say then?
 

Shai

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 30, 2013
6,469
5,214
Brisbane
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oz Bball, Equest, Net, Tenn, Voll
I'm sure that the stand rule is the reason you guys beat Richmond in rnd15. I don't know how your other games went, what I do know though is that in a tight last quarter a team that is behind would find there was no risk in moving the ball quicker and playing on after a mark when one player is not allowed to participate in the game until the umpire allows him.

I believe so, yes. But not only those games, but Carlton rnd1, St. Kilda, Sydney etc., only Melbourne had our number.
Many times I watched the mighty Tigers before the stand rule ramp up their pressure in the last quarter and we were gone (Geelong knows that movie), this is an ability we lost when the stand rule was introduced, because it became easier for teams to move the ball quicker when assisted by the stand rule to regain momentum.

Some people suggest that winning clearances became more important when the stand rule was introduced, and that was not a strongpoint for Richmond during our successful run, we all know that it didn't have to be.

Anyway I'm hoping the pathetic looking statue on the mark rule is here to stay now just so I can see how we go with Taranto & Hopper.

If they get rid of the statue on the mark rule now after Richmond sign two players they believe will address a weakness when previously the weakness didn't stop Richmond from winning flags, what are we gonna say then?
What I'm going to ask instead is, was the 3rd man up rule that Richmond used so well made redundant when Geelong became successful with that same tactic?
 

Falcon3518

Premiership Player
Mar 13, 2022
4,218
2,305
AFL Club
Richmond
Remember folks, Richmond are absolutely not obsessed with Geelong.

And totally don't care about the Cats winning the 2022 flag.

Not at all.

No siree.

Absolutely not.

Yep, you can tell cause this thread has a cats to Richmond ratio of like 3 to 1. 🤣 But nah you guys aren’t obsessed bahaha


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 

Osho

Literally
Jul 9, 2021
2,615
2,652
AFL Club
GWS
What I love about this theory is it's Richmond supporters telling the footy world they honestly believe Dimma Hardwick is a one-trick pony and can't develop another gameplan.
He managed to change up his bedroom plan and strategy pretty comprehensively.

Is the mind fully focused, one wonders?
 

Meteoric Rise

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 4, 2008
6,669
17,221
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
For those Geelong supporters wrongly claiming:

A) The demise of Richmond FC, and

B) That this demise was somehow due to D Hardwick’s post marital relationship with a younger woman

it can now be revealed the whole Geelong Football club are engaging in extra-marital affairs, or worse, trying to do so but unsuccessfully. 😁
1669417498054.png


 
Last edited:

Piggy Smalls

Unofficial SFA Fantasy Pig
Nov 30, 2018
4,655
10,939
AFL Club
Fremantle
I'm sure that the stand rule is the reason you guys beat Richmond in rnd15. I don't know how your other games went, what I do know though is that in a tight last quarter a team that is behind would find there was no risk in moving the ball quicker and playing on after a mark when one player is not allowed to participate in the game until the umpire allows him.

I believe so, yes. But not only those games, but Carlton rnd1, St. Kilda, Sydney etc., only Melbourne had our number.
Many times I watched the mighty Tigers before the stand rule ramp up their pressure in the last quarter and we were gone (Geelong knows that movie), this is an ability we lost when the stand rule was introduced, because it became easier for teams to move the ball quicker when assisted by the stand rule to regain momentum.

Some people suggest that winning clearances became more important when the stand rule was introduced, and that was not a strongpoint for Richmond during our successful run, we all know that it didn't have to be.

Anyway I'm hoping the pathetic looking statue on the mark rule is here to stay now just so I can see how we go with Taranto & Hopper.

If they get rid of the statue on the mark rule now after Richmond sign two players they believe will address a weakness when previously the weakness didn't stop Richmond from winning flags, what are we gonna say then?
You’ll probably have a cry about it and then spend a solid week trying to undermine another team’s success on an Internet forum because it’s just so unfair?
 

Remove this Banner Ad