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

[Sttew]

Do you think the stand rule still would've been introduced if Geelong won the 2020 flag?

Will this rule someday be removed, and if so, when?

What I don’t get is why Geelong, mercilessly bundled out of the finals in 2021, was able to adapt its game plan to beat all in 2022. Yet poor Richmond blames a rule change for its demise.

AFL is about adapting, finding a new edge to beat the best. Poor Richmond is stuck in a time warp and when that happens you simply come up with conspiracy theories to explain ineptitude.

Mods, why do we need the 117th conspiracy thread by Richmond supporters? Kill it now

 

[Sttew]

...because it favours kick, mark football that Geelong employed until 2021 instead of run and gun or pressure football that the rest of the competition uses.

EFA

 

[Dazb86]

Not the first rule change after a flag and won't be the last

 

[freddy mercury]

What on Gods green earth?

check the afl website they have an important dates section, some clubs are back today so you can keep an eye on social media and other channels for your football fix. The season is still 4 months away, do you like cricket?

 

[Oscarman]

What I don’t get is why Geelong, mercilessly bundled out of the finals in 2021, was able to adapt its game plan to beat all in 2022. Yet poor Richmond blames a rule change for its demise.

AFL is about adapting, finding a new edge to beat the best. Poor Richmond is stuck in a time warp and when that happens you simply come up with conspiracy theories to explain ineptitude.

Not sure why it's all about Richmond when Geelong changed their style purely to beat Melbourne in finals. Turns out you didn't need to, but anyway...

 

[L_W_P]

The only thing that frustrates me about the stand rule is how anal we are for the bloke to be on the mark but not for the man with the ball to stay on his line, especially in defence.

The number of times a bloke takes a mark in the back pocket, turns 45 degrees and moves backwards toward the centre of the ground is staggering.

Keep an eye on it next season and it'll drive you nuts watching half backs creep 3-4 steps off their line while the bloke on the mark (or any forwards that take possession) are pulled up relentlessly by the umpire to keep them on their lines.

 

[Football Tragic]

Leppa is on record (SEN) stating that when he was leaving the club, he sat down with Hocking to discuss how to stop Richmond's defensive strategy and to find a way to reduce congestion. Because Hocking felt, Richmond was the best team at defending ball movement he wanted to know what strategies Richmond employed to achieve that. Leppa helped. He told him that Richmond's lateral movement on the mark reduced inboard kicking and teams cutting back into the corridor forcing them to kick it long down the line.

So Hocking brought in the stand rule.

Unfortunately, this rule does nothing to stop congestion. In fact it's just shifted the congestion further down the field. Scoring is not up and neither is ball movement. It is a failure. All the rule does is take the player on the mark out of play completely which is counter intuitive to how players have been taught to play the game.

The rule/s did assist Geelong's style of play. They used short kicks to cut through the corridor before moving into their F50. This enabled them to do their game plan more freely. The 6-6-6 rule (which I actually think is a good rule
) also magnified one of the Cat's strengths - their midfield too.

Call it a conspiracy or call it a coincidence, Hocking has been directly quoted stating the stand rule was created to defeat Richmond's 'Manning the Mark' defense. He specifically singled out Richmond. Now his overall reasoning behind creating the rule may have been in all good intentions one to reduce congestion but the way he actively sort out to nullify Richmond's defensive strategy while also magnifying Geelong's attacking game plan, leaves a bad taste in many Tigers supporters mouths.

 

[Grrr]

The only thing that frustrates me about the stand rule is how anal we are for the bloke to be on the mark but not for the man with the ball to stay on his line, especially in defence.

The number of times a bloke takes a mark in the back pocket, turns 45 degrees and moves backwards toward the centre of the ground is staggering.

Keep an eye on it next season and it'll drive you nuts watching half backs creep 3-4 steps off their line while the bloke on the mark (or any forwards that take possession) are pulled up relentlessly by the umpire to keep them on their lines.

I agree. What about the out of bounds on the full/deliberate free where the player standing the mark has to have one foot on the boundary line. The kicker is never lined up out of bounds unless they are having a shot for goal which automatically gives him at least a two meter head start on their opponent. The amount of time you see they kicker at least level with the marker, gaining an extra 15m before he kicks it is a joke. Sometimes the umps don't even blow time on...

 

[ibd77]

EFA

Don't edit my post then re-quote me SFB!

 

[Sttew]

Leppa is on record (SEN) stating that when he was leaving the club, he sat down with Hocking to discuss how to stop Richmond's defensive strategy and to find a way to reduce congestion. Because Hocking felt, Richmond was the best team at defending ball movement he wanted to know what strategies Richmond employed to achieve that. Leppa helped. He told him that Richmond's lateral movement on the mark reduced inboard kicking and teams cutting back into the corridor forcing them to kick it long down the line.

So Hocking brought in the stand rule.

Unfortunately, this rule does nothing to stop congestion. In fact it's just shifted the congestion further down the field. Scoring is not up and neither is ball movement. It is a failure. All the rule does is take the player on the mark out of play completely which is counter intuitive to how players have been taught to play the game.

The rule/s did assist Geelong's style of play. They used short kicks to cut through the corridor before moving into their F50. This enabled them to do their game plan more freely. The 6-6-6 rule (which I actually think is a good rule
) also magnified one of the Cat's strengths - their midfield too.

Call it a conspiracy or call it a coincidence, Hocking has been directly quoted stating the stand rule was created to defeat Richmond's 'Manning the Mark' defense. He specifically singled out Richmond. Now his overall reasoning behind creating the rule may have been in all good intentions one to reduce congestion but the way he actively sort out to nullify Richmond's defensive strategy while also magnifying Geelong's attacking game plan, leaves a bad taste in many Tigers supporters mouths.

Then ******* adapt instead of crying over split milk.

Cats had to adapt when the 3rd man-up rule was introduced. It almost killed off Blicavs' career, but he and the club adapted.

IMO, what we saw in 2021 with Melbourne and 2022 with Geelong suggests the rule has improved the game as a spectacle

 

[Sttew]

Don't edit my post then re-quote me SFB!

If you post inaccuracies then you will be 'EFA'd' Geelong's game style in 2022 was not stop start

 

[PhatBoy]

Leppa is on record (SEN) stating that when he was leaving the club, he sat down with Hocking to discuss how to stop Richmond's defensive strategy and to find a way to reduce congestion. Because Hocking felt, Richmond was the best team at defending ball movement he wanted to know what strategies Richmond employed to achieve that. Leppa helped. He told him that Richmond's lateral movement on the mark reduced inboard kicking and teams cutting back into the corridor forcing them to kick it long down the line.

So Hocking brought in the stand rule.

Unfortunately, this rule does nothing to stop congestion. In fact it's just shifted the congestion further down the field. Scoring is not up and neither is ball movement. It is a failure. All the rule does is take the player on the mark out of play completely which is counter intuitive to how players have been taught to play the game.

The rule/s did assist Geelong's style of play. They used short kicks to cut through the corridor before moving into their F50. This enabled them to do their game plan more freely. The 6-6-6 rule (which I actually think is a good rule
) also magnified one of the Cat's strengths - their midfield too.

Call it a conspiracy or call it a coincidence, Hocking has been directly quoted stating the stand rule was created to defeat Richmond's 'Manning the Mark' defense. He specifically singled out Richmond. Now his overall reasoning behind creating the rule may have been in all good intentions one to reduce congestion but the way he actively sort out to nullify Richmond's defensive strategy while also magnifying Geelong's attacking game plan, leaves a bad taste in many Tigers supporters mouths.

Is there any actual evidence of this? I have searched high and low for it but the only references to it seem to come from Richmond fans having a pixelated flog online somewhere - ‘I remember an interview with Justin Leppitsch yadayadayada’ but the only evidence I can find of any correlation between the two is that they once appeared on the same podcast.

Additionally, the most minute amount of research will tell you that Hocking didn’t come into the AFL job and start changing rules off his own bat. He was tasked by the AFL specifically to try and make the game more attractive. It’s not like he walked in and said ‘ok guys as a business, we need to shut down this Richmond revival that is making the league millions.’

He was appointed to the job and like any employee he was given responsibilities and trying to make the game better to watch was one of them.

If some teams can adapt to a player being told to stand still for a few seconds I don’t see why others can’t.

 

[Grrr]

Then ******* adapt instead of crying over split milk.

Cats had to adapt when the 3rd man-up rule was introduced. It almost killed of Blicavs' career, but he and the club adapted.

IMO, what we saw in 2021 with Melbourne and 2022 with Geelong suggests the rule has improved the game as a spectacle

Agree adapt, which is what Richmond had to do as we were diabolical in the early rounds of the season. But it was difficult to watch when your team is being constantly 50'd for things that 'new' to football. We adapted by seasons end.

And while I agree Geelong had to adapt to the third man up rule (which I think is a dumb rule) but it is relatively minor in regards to how many times it happens a match and how little effect on the game it had comparative to the stand rule. Plus 50m were almost never given.

Up to a point I agree with the stand rule but it is just way to strictly enforced. If it stops sides like Richmond folding back into space, perhaps a good thing by making more attacking football. But when you can get a 50m penalty by faking a handpass and milking the rule when the player takes one naturally instinctive step sideways then it is a farce. When you can play on and be passed your man because the umps are way to slow on the whistle because instead of watching the ball carrier they are watching the man on the mark to see if he takes half a step sideways then it is a farce.

Allow 2-3 metres lateral movement and it will not impede the game and will give players a more natural reaction and stop pointless 50m penalties, which people are surely not in favour of for such trivial things. It will also stop the ump from having to control one of the most important parts of our game, which again surely is a good thing.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Leppa is on record (SEN) stating that when he was leaving the club, he sat down with Hocking to discuss how to stop Richmond's defensive strategy and to find a way to reduce congestion. Because Hocking felt, Richmond was the best team at defending ball movement he wanted to know what strategies Richmond employed to achieve that. Leppa helped. He told him that Richmond's lateral movement on the mark reduced inboard kicking and teams cutting back into the corridor forcing them to kick it long down the line.

So Hocking brought in the stand rule.

Unfortunately, this rule does nothing to stop congestion. In fact it's just shifted the congestion further down the field. Scoring is not up and neither is ball movement. It is a failure. All the rule does is take the player on the mark out of play completely which is counter intuitive to how players have been taught to play the game.

The rule/s did assist Geelong's style of play. They used short kicks to cut through the corridor before moving into their F50. This enabled them to do their game plan more freely. The 6-6-6 rule (which I actually think is a good rule
) also magnified one of the Cat's strengths - their midfield too.

Call it a conspiracy or call it a coincidence, Hocking has been directly quoted stating the stand rule was created to defeat Richmond's 'Manning the Mark' defense. He specifically singled out Richmond. Now his overall reasoning behind creating the rule may have been in all good intentions one to reduce congestion but the way he actively sort out to nullify Richmond's defensive strategy while also magnifying Geelong's attacking game plan, leaves a bad taste in many Tigers supporters mouths.

Shouldn't be too hard to provide the link to this record, so where is it?
Or is it a Richmond fan Mandela effect?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Honestly Richmond football was fuggin horrible to watch, like a rolling maul crossed with netball. Made me pine for a knock on rule.

Glad they killed it, and Richmond with it.

 

[Iago]

Leppa is on record (SEN) stating that when he was leaving the club, he sat down with Hocking to discuss how to stop Richmond's defensive strategy and to find a way to reduce congestion. Because Hocking felt, Richmond was the best team at defending ball movement he wanted to know what strategies Richmond employed to achieve that. Leppa helped. He told him that Richmond's lateral movement on the mark reduced inboard kicking and teams cutting back into the corridor forcing them to kick it long down the line.

So Hocking brought in the stand rule.

Unfortunately, this rule does nothing to stop congestion. In fact it's just shifted the congestion further down the field. Scoring is not up and neither is ball movement. It is a failure. All the rule does is take the player on the mark out of play completely which is counter intuitive to how players have been taught to play the game.

The rule/s did assist Geelong's style of play. They used short kicks to cut through the corridor before moving into their F50. This enabled them to do their game plan more freely. The 6-6-6 rule (which I actually think is a good rule
) also magnified one of the Cat's strengths - their midfield too.

Call it a conspiracy or call it a coincidence, Hocking has been directly quoted stating the stand rule was created to defeat Richmond's 'Manning the Mark' defense. He specifically singled out Richmond. Now his overall reasoning behind creating the rule may have been in all good intentions one to reduce congestion but the way he actively sort out to nullify Richmond's defensive strategy while also magnifying Geelong's attacking game plan, leaves a bad taste in many Tigers supporters mouths.

So it is Leppa's fault?

 

[Cdog71]

It’s strange to me that a rule is in place that disadvantages one player. The man on the mark.
In any other game when the ball renters play all Players can engage.
Whether it’s a free throw in BBall or a throw in in soccer or whatever.
But in Aussie Rules Football now one play cannot engage until the umpire allows it. It’s not for any other aspect if the game or player on the field.

If a player is 70 mtr out runs off his line at pace moving forward the reaction time from the umpire or deliberate reaction time of the umpire can easily result in the ball travelling and extra 5 mtr or more.

That has the potential for bias and match fixing and if anyone thinks that’s just a conspiracy theory have a look at the Betting scandal at the moment.
It’s disgusting they where allowed to implement it that there isn’t some sortve accountability to the Heritage of the sport.

 

[PhatBoy]

It’s strange to me that a rule is in place that disadvantages one player. The man on the mark.
In any other game when the ball renters play all Players can engage.
Whether it’s a free throw in BBall or a throw in in soccer or whatever.
But in Aussie Rules Football now one play cannot engage until the umpire allows it. It’s not for any other aspect if the game or player on the field.

If a player is 70 mtr out runs off his line at pace moving forward the reaction time from the umpire or deliberate reaction time of the umpire can easily result in the ball travelling and extra 5 mtr or more.

That has the potential for bias and match fixing and if anyone thinks that’s just a conspiracy theory have a look at the Betting scandal at the moment.
It’s disgusting they where allowed to implement it that there isn’t some sortve accountability to the Heritage of the sport.

Well no that’s not true there are heaps of rules in rugby league and union about player engagement. If a player is in front of a kicker on his own team in rugby league he can’t be involved in any sort of play and has to either run back behind his kicker away from the other team or stand and wait for the kicker to run past him. Markers can’t move until the ball has left the tackled player’s hands.

 

[Falcon3518]

Do you think the stand rule still would've been introduced if Geelong won the 2020 flag?

Will this rule someday be removed, and if so, when?

Well idk, people reckon it benefitted Richmond more lol. We would’ve won regardless, Dusty is that good. Took his dad to pass away and injuries for the rest of comp to finally win a flag.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

Richmond. I don't think I'm allowed to type anything else.

Don’t lie you are itching to post another 2022 premiership photo.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

Honestly Richmond football was fuggin horrible to watch, like a rolling maul crossed with netball. Made me pine for a knock on rule.

Glad they killed it, and Richmond with it.

Media changed their tune in this for some reason. 17-18 they said it was ugly and the AFL brought in 666 to open it up. 19/20 they said it’s high octane exciting fast footy. Like who really cares anyway as long as your team wins.

Geelong went a bit faster and chaotic this year. Which is ‘uglier’ but you don’t mind do you? Better than slow perfect footy you played pre 22 and it paid off.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Hoops]

...because it favours kick, mark football that Geelong employs instead of run and gun or pressure football that the rest of the competition uses.

I would say the opposite, it's easier to run and gun with players not allowed within cooee of the mark and the only guy who is can't move.

 

[ibd77]

I would say the opposite, it's easier to run and gun with players not allowed within cooee of the mark and the only guy who is can't move.

Well a lot of teams quickly adopted the 5 meter rule from the mark so the stand rule isn't in play but it still opens up the 45 degree short kick and mark tactic used very well by the Cats.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Shouldn't be too hard to provide the link to this record, so where is it?
Or is it a Richmond fan Mandela effect?

Yes interested in this evidence

 

[Sttew]

Media changed their tune in this for some reason. 17-18 they said it was ugly and the AFL brought in 666 to open it up. 19/20 they said it’s high octane exciting fast footy. Like who really cares anyway as long as your team wins.

Geelong went a bit faster and chaotic this year. Which is ‘uglier’ but you don’t mind do you? Better than slow perfect footy you played pre 22 and it paid off.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Explain what was chaotic about Geelong’s game in 2022. You made that up.... as always