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

[Sttew]

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

One man team? No Dusty, no Richmond? Bit unfair on the others but an accurate assessment by you. Dimma is lost without Dusty

 

[Falcon3518]

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.

No run and gun teams play on more so it’s redundant. Kick marking sides mark, stop play then get a further run up to bomb it. They get more distance than they normally would, like Jeremy Cameron bombing them from 50.

 

[Falcon3518]

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

Excuse me what? You guys have praised that move. Why are you taking it as a negative? F me man.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Falcon3518]

One man team? No Dusty, no Richmond? Bit unfair on the others but an accurate assessment by you. Dimma is lost without Dusty

Yeah that’s why he’s the finals GOAT. Nobody else has done that. We don’t win any flags without him.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Grrr]

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

It was fast and direct, much like Richmond and Melbourne played when they were at their peaks. Geelong added class and mobility to their forward line in Cameron and Stengle so you could kick it long and get it in quickly, it didn't have to be pretty. Previously you worked if forward more systematically to primarily Hawkins.

 

[Falcon3518]

It was fast and direct, much like Richmond and Melbourne played when they were at their peaks. Geelong added class and mobility to their forward line in Cameron and Stengle so you could kick it long and get it in quickly, it didn't have to be pretty. Previously you worked if forward more systematically to primarily Hawkins.

He assumes anything Richmond supporters say is a negative. Even when we praise his team he just can’t see it.

Geelong adapted really well and played better more exciting footy. Good on them.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Cdog71]

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.

Offside(if that’s the right word)is the same for everyone and affects all players equally the stand rule is about one player.
I really don’t like it I don’t know that it was brought in because of Richmond winning 40 odd games in a row at the G or not or if you guys trialed the rule before the Trading in players before the 2021 season.
I don’t really give a stuff.
I just think it’s a crap rule and it’s merit isn’t inline with the spirit of a level playing field, so to speak.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

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.

This again? SHOW ME THE LINK

 

[Danw0w]

Another Richmond whinge-fest. Pathetic.

Is this how it's going to be after every season in which Richmond don't win the flag? It's getting extremely tedious.

What makes you think that this has anything to do with Richmond not winning the flag?

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

What makes you think that this has anything to do with Richmond not winning the flag?

just the vibe

 

[PhatBoy]

Offside(if that’s the right word)is the same for everyone and affects all players equally the stand rule is about one player.
I really don’t like it I don’t know that it was brought in because of Richmond winning 40 odd games in a row at the G or not or if you guys trialed the rule before the Trading in players before the 2021 season.
I don’t really give a stuff.
I just think it’s a crap rule and it’s merit isn’t inline with the spirit of a level playing field, so to speak.

Lol.

Saying it’s the same for all players is like saying the stand rule is the same for all players because they’re all subject to it at some point.

The offside rule means that a single or multiple players can’t be involved. The marker rule means two players can’t move but many times that will only be one and for much of rugby league history it was just one.


Not really sure what’s not in the spirit of anything.

Before the stand rule if you want to moan about the restriction on the guy manning the mark, how about the idea that anyone casually strolling by the guy with the ball was penalised just for being there. Is that in the spirit of the game?

Isolating only two people to compete for ball-ups - is that in the spirit of the game?

You could make that complaint about dozens of rules

 

[Cdog71]

Lol.

Saying it’s the same for all players is like saying the stand rule is the same for all players because they’re all subject to it at some point.

The offside rule means that a single or multiple players can’t be involved. The marker rule means two players can’t move but many times that will only be one and for much of rugby league history it was just one.


Not really sure what’s not in the spirit of anything.

Before the stand rule if you want to moan about the restriction on the guy manning the mark, how about the idea that anyone casually strolling by the guy with the ball was penalised just for being there. Is that in the spirit of the game?

Isolating only two people to compete for ball-ups - is that in the spirit of the game?

You could make that complaint about dozens of rules

I don’t care if you don’t agree or anyone else.
Having one player not able to participate in the game when the ball has renterd play because the player has come off the line.
Is a s**t rule that disadvantages that one player and not one of your points suit that circumstance.

No you can’t make that argument for other rules because that is the only rule where one player is only allowed to engage the game when an umpire allows him to.
The potential for match fixing and impact on the game that Umpire now has by holding the man on the mark for even and extra second would not see the bloody light of day in any European or American professional sport.

It’s a blight on the Game.
..there I said. That’s how strongly I feel about it.

 

[Cdog71]

And why isn’t the player allowed to react to the ball carrier and make that judgement.
If the penalty for doing it incorrectly or before the ball has come off the line is an50 mtr penalty.
The player is not allowed to react to the game until the Umpire gives permission.

In Athletics your penalised for reacting more quickly than .8 of a sec to the starting gun (something close to that) because it’s not humanely possible to react that quickly.
There is no way an umpire reacting and then voicing a word and the player has to react to that is in the spirit of two players competing on a level playing field.

 

[Dr Tigris]

How was the rule meant to help Geelong?

At the time, didn't we move the ball too slowly and were too old? So how was a rule designed to speed up the game going to benefit a side who liked to control the ball?

My view, not necessarily help Geelong. But to help the kick mark style. When it was introduced the media reported that SHocking watched finals in 2020 and was infuriated by Trent Cotchin controlling the mark and forcing players to go wide. He didn't like the pressure style - see AFLX and no pressure as the goal.

There is/was a style of play that the AFL HQ likes. That style wasn't the high pressure chaos, fast play style. So they introduced a rule change that slowed the game down - i.e. rewarded frees/marks. This means that teams will want to hit targets and control the ball more. It also means that the ability of teams like the Dogs and Richmond (and others now) to apply super pressure is lessened (you get a break and can reset without pressure).

So given Geelong played a kick mark style anyway it benefited them. But also the Eagles played that style - they just fell off a cliff anyway.

The idea it would speed to game up shows how poorly the AFL introduce rule changes. The obvious way to counter the rule is to fall back and defend in depth, forcing short wide passes. (Someone should have told Dimma Hardwick this in 20-21) So teams run from behind and try to run and carry into the space behind the man on the mark to break the defensive structures that logically follow from the stand rule.

The stand rule killed the style Richmond and the 2016 Dogs won premierships with.

But as the game has evolved teams have moved towards a hybrid of high pressure and controlling the ball.

So following the OP; If Geelong had won in 2020 with SHocking been as annoyed by his preferred style winning and not made the untested change in rules?

 

[Dr Tigris]

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.

Exactly.

My take is simply that he wants something like AFLX. But that style isn't popular and is easily beaten. So he changed rules to make the game more like what he wanted.

That it was the Richmond game plan he looked at is interesting. Feeds conspiracy theories. But then if you don't like how the game is evolving, and you can control the rules, then logically you will change the rules to benefit the game style you like. The Geelong connection? Who knows, but they play the kick mark style.

 

[Danw0w]

Lol.

Saying it’s the same for all players is like saying the stand rule is the same for all players because they’re all subject to it at some point.

The offside rule means that a single or multiple players can’t be involved. The marker rule means two players can’t move but many times that will only be one and for much of rugby league history it was just one.


Not really sure what’s not in the spirit of anything.

Before the stand rule if you want to moan about the restriction on the guy manning the mark, how about the idea that anyone casually strolling by the guy with the ball was penalised just for being there. Is that in the spirit of the game?

Isolating only two people to compete for ball-ups - is that in the spirit of the game?

You could make that complaint about dozens of rules

You have seemed to fine a staunch defender of the stand rule. What are your thoughts when a player being pinged for 50, just because he moved a step backwards or sideways?

In my view, the player does not infringe on the ball carriers ability to move and use the ball on his mark. It does not cause harm to another player nor does it create an unfair advantage for the player‘s team, unless defending is unfair.

The only justification I see for introducing, is to improve the look of the game, which only the media ever seemed to have a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that it has improved the game, and myself and many others agree that a 50 for such a minor infringement makes the game look worse.

You mentioned the ruck rule in your post. That rule intends to improve the look of the game by allowing the ruck men a chance to express their skill (and to a lesser extend, to prevent harm to players). Even still, there are many fans who argued against it because it removes a previously legitimate tactic.

However, the stand rule not improved the standard of the game and that was apparent as early on as the 2021 pre season, yet the rule remainied. The only purpose the rule serves is to nullify a perfectly legitimate tactic for no benefit to the game and that doesn’t seem very in the spirit of game.

 

[PhatBoy]

I don’t care if you don’t agree or anyone else.
Having one player not able to participate in the game when the ball has renterd play because the player has come off the line.
Is a s**t rule that disadvantages that one player and not one of your points suit that circumstance.

No you can’t make that argument for other rules because that is the only rule where one player is only allowed to engage the game when an umpire allows him to.
The potential for match fixing and impact on the game that Umpire now has by holding the man on the mark for even and extra second would not see the bloody light of day in any European or American professional sport.

It’s a blight on the Game.
..there I said. That’s how strongly I feel about it.

Tell them to get closer to their opponent and not let them mark the ball then.

 

[PhatBoy]

You have seemed to fine a staunch defender of the stand rule. What are your thoughts when a player being pinged for 50, just because he moved a step backwards or sideways?

In my view, the player does not infringe on the ball carriers ability to move and use the ball on his mark. It does not cause harm to another player nor does it create an unfair advantage for the player‘s team, unless defending is unfair.

The only justification I see for introducing, is to improve the look of the game, which only the media ever seemed to have a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that it has improved the game, and myself and many others agree that a 50 for such a minor infringement makes the game look worse.

You mentioned the ruck rule in your post. That rule intends to improve the look of the game by allowing the ruck men a chance to express their skill (and to a lesser extend, to prevent harm to players). Even still, there are many fans who argued against it because it removes a previously legitimate tactic.

However, the stand rule not improved the standard of the game and that was apparent as early on as the 2021 pre season, yet the rule remainied. The only purpose the rule serves is to nullify a perfectly legitimate tactic for no benefit to the game and that doesn’t seem very in the spirit of game.

I couldn’t give a f*** about the stand rule.

It’s a rule, same as every other one that’s been brought into the game over 160 years. I simply piss myself laughing at how much moaning gets done over it by people making up reasons and excuses for not being dominant


There is a reason 90 per cent of the people cutting themselves about it support the same team

 

[STPer18]

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


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I'm not allowed to, I upset someone and now half my posts are getting deleted. A little sensitive are the Tiggies these days.

 

[Strange Cat]

FMD the tigers supporters just can’t move on

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I don't give a toss about who brought the rule in but for me I hate it in its current form. I can see some merit in the concept of not wanting players to sink backwards guarding space sort of, but the strictness of the do not move aspect of it is idiotic.

If the player with the ball can move on his natural arc to kick the ball, or the player moves to go inboard, or to fake a handball to milk a 50m, then the player on the mark should be able to move similarly. It is not hard to police, a few metres either way would take away that ridiculous advantage the player with the ball has because his opponent is completely stationary.

So stupid is it I have seen a player on the mark penalised 50m when he overbalanced trying not to move and planted his foot not more than 30cm laterally to balance himself or fall over. He stood there waving his arms around like a kid in a playground trying not to overbalance, it looked hilarious, but good on the ump, he got his 50. How anyone can say this has improved footy is beyong me, (with due respect).

If you're not sure how someone can say it improves footy then maybe Tim Watson can say it for you?

Do most AFL fans need to eat humble pie on rule changes?

“He got a lot of abuse from a lot of fans....”

www.sen.com.au

 

[Grrr]

I couldn’t give a f*** about the stand rule.

It’s a rule, same as every other one that’s been brought into the game over 160 years. I simply piss myself laughing at how much moaning gets done over it by people making up reasons and excuses for not being dominant


There is a reason 90 per cent of the people cutting themselves about it support the same team

It's not about being dominant or not, it's about changing the game so much die hards like myself sit there watching agame that is so opposite to how it should be played that I lose interest to quite a degree in football. I sat through 37 years of shite, as did many other Richmond supporters, you think we are cutting ourselves up because we haven't won a flag in 2 years.

As I have said there may be some merit to it, but it is the strictness of the enforcement of the rule that is so frustrating.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Exactly.

My take is simply that he wants something like AFLX. But that style isn't popular and is easily beaten. So he changed rules to make the game more like what he wanted.

That it was the Richmond game plan he looked at is interesting. Feeds conspiracy theories. But then if you don't like how the game is evolving, and you can control the rules, then logically you will change the rules to benefit the game style you like. The Geelong connection? Who knows, but they play the kick mark style.

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?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

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

A style that the rule favours so strongly that Geelong completely abandoned the game style. Cool story

 

[Grrr]

If you're not sure how someone can say it improves footy then maybe Tim Watson can say it for you?

Do most AFL fans need to eat humble pie on rule changes?

“He got a lot of abuse from a lot of fans....”

www.sen.com.au

For every Tim Watson there are far more who thinks it detrimental. It is the most hated rule introduced that I can remember. But that article mainly talks about the 6-6-6 rule, which I have no problem with, it is a minor adjustment.

As I have said, make some degree of movement for argument sake 2-3m either way laterally and the problem with 50m will go away unless the player pushes it too far. The players would very quickly work out what is allowable and what isn't and the ball carrier would not have the advantage that they have. It is the only non grey area rule in our game, yet it has the harshest penalty, it makes no sense.