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

[Falcon3518]

I know it's an overly used phrase around here, but I actually feel dumber for having read your post.
Not only do your comments demonstrate an extraordinary lack of knowledge about the basics of AFL football, they completely miss the point.

You’d think they would understand and be sympathetic considering they got done in the 08 GF cause Hawks used the cheap rushed behind tactic and hence had to change the rules. AFL does this all the time to stop reigning premiers from winning again, especially when you’ve won 3.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

You’d think they would understand and be sympathetic considering they got done in the 08 GF cause Hawks used the cheap rushed behind tactic and hence had to change the rules. AFL does this all the time to stop reigning premiers from winning again, especially when you’ve won 3.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Incorrect. Geelong was beaten in 2008 by a better-on-the-day side. We missed some easy shots, they took their chances and deserved to win.
See - it's not that hard to admit another team was better than your own.

I don't know why you'd expect me (as a Cats fan) to support your various whinges about conspiratorial rule-changes.

 

[Falcon3518]

Incorrect. Geelong was beaten in 2008 by a better-on-the-day side. We missed some easy shots, they took their chances and deserved to win.
See - it's not that hard to admit another team was better than your own.

I don't know why you'd expect me (as a Cats fan) to support your various whinges about conspiratorial rule-changes.

Lol ‘Incorrect’ aye? They got 23 points, they were scared to actually play the game cause they knew you were better. But anyway the point is the AFL change the rules very often to disadvantages the reigning premiers. Haven’t had a look but did your 07-11 team have any rule changes that disadvantaged you? Would be strange if they didn’t.

Btw the ‘better side on the day’ argument is used by lazy people who don’t actually want to analyse the game for the reasons they lost. Not surprising you say it.

If I said to my client’s their business performance for the year is good or bad ‘just cause it is’ I wouldn’t have a job.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Lol ‘Incorrect’ aye? They got 23 points, they were scared to actually play the game cause they knew you were better. But anyway the point is the AFL change the rules very often to disadvantages the reigning premiers. Haven’t had a look but did your 07-11 team have any rule changes that disadvantaged you? Would be strange if they didn’t.

Btw the ‘better side on the day’ argument is used by lazy people who don’t actually want to analyse the game for the reasons they lost. Not surprising you say it.

If I said to my client’s their business performance for the year is good or bad ‘just cause it is’ I wouldn’t have a job.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No mate. They weren’t scared of anything. They attacked us when they could, absorbed when they had to, and played better football. That’s the simple truth of it.

No one needs to make an excuse for us in that game. We don’t have one.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Lol ‘Incorrect’ aye? They got 23 points, they were scared to actually play the game cause they knew you were better. But anyway the point is the AFL change the rules very often to disadvantages the reigning premiers. Haven’t had a look but did your 07-11 team have any rule changes that disadvantaged you? Would be strange if they didn’t.

Btw the ‘better side on the day’ argument is used by lazy people who don’t actually want to analyse the game for the reasons they lost. Not surprising you say it.

If I said to my client’s their business performance for the year is good or bad ‘just cause it is’ I wouldn’t have a job.

Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You seriously believe the 2008 GF was won by Hawthorn BECAUSE THEY RUSHED BEHINDS? Had nothing to do with talent, commitment, fitness, teamwork, motivation - right? It was all about the rushed behinds. Give me a break.

And no - "better on the day" is not lazy. Lazy is claiming far-fetched conspiracies off the field caused your team to fail.

 

[Anthony80]

No mate. They weren’t scared of anything. They attacked us when they could, absorbed when they had to, and played better football. That’s the simple truth of it.

No one needs to make an excuse for us in that game. We don’t have one.

I always remember Cam Mooney saying that '07 was for the fans and '08 was going to be for the players. I was shocked when I heard that and straight away thought that was a very selfish thing to say, and you guys actually played that way lol!

I remember the game for Clinton Young's injury though, because I had $20 on him to win the Norm Smith which he would've if he didn't get injured.

 

[PhatBoy]

I always remember Cam Mooney saying that '07 was for the fans and '08 was going to be for the players. I was shocked when I heard that and straight away thought that was a very selfish thing to say, and you guys actually played that way lol!

I remember the game for Clinton Young's injury though, because I had $20 on him to win the Norm Smith which he would've if he didn't get injured.

And his play within the game still haunts him. He and Brad Ottens both missed easy goals - Ottens when he had a teammate unmarked in the goal square - that they still talk about to this day. We bottled it, Hawthorn played a great game marshalled perfectly by Luke Hodge and purely and simply were better than us when it counted.

The result irks me but giving a simple appraisal of why they won and ceding credit to the winning team doesn’t. It’s not that difficult

 

[Falcon3518]

You seriously believe the 2008 GF was won by Hawthorn BECAUSE THEY RUSHED BEHINDS? Had nothing to do with talent, commitment, fitness, teamwork, motivation - right? It was all about the rushed behinds. Give me a break.

And no - "better on the day" is not lazy. Lazy is claiming far-fetched conspiracies off the field caused your team to fail.

That’s not the point I’m trying to make but whatever and no it’s not just of rushed behinds mate. You keep putting words in my mouth or you have a serious comprehension issue because there is not one thing I’ve said on BF that you don’t misinterpret.

I’m going to make it super clear for you, AFL changes the rules so one team doesn’t dominate it isn’t Richmond or Geelong specific imo. Is it the only reason why we were s**t in 2021 and 2022 and you won the flag in 2022? No but it was a contributing factor even if it is minor. Dunno why this brothers you so much who’s gives a s**t.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

That’s not the point I’m trying to make but whatever and no it’s not just of rushed behinds mate. You keep putting words in my mouth or you have a serious comprehension issue because there is not one thing I’ve said on BF that you don’t misinterpret.

I’m going to make it super clear for you, AFL changes the rules so one team doesn’t dominate it isn’t Richmond or Geelong specific imo. Is it the only reason why we were s**t in 2021 and 2022 and you won the flag in 2022? No but it was a contributing factor even if it is minor. Dunno why this brothers you so much who’s gives a s**t.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

They don’t do it for that reason. They do it if they see something that they believe is having a noticeable impact on the spectacle because at the end of the day, they make money from people enjoying what they watch.

They’re a business. They aren’t going to employ changes directly to stop arguably their biggest cash cow (along with Collingwood and West Coast) from succeeding anymore than they would deliberately try and stop GCS or GWS from succeeding and opening up the potential markets in their locations. If anything a club like st Kilda who are unsuccessful but have history and are never likely to gain a much bigger following than they have right now, which sits at a mediocre level, would be the most likely to get sabotaged by the league from being ‘too successful’

Aside from the ridiculous Melbourne prelim final arrangement in 2004 they never did anything to restrict Brisbane and they abolished that rule soon after anyway. They didn’t do anything to restrict us or Hawthorn. West coast made an obscene amount of finals series from 1991-2007 and won 3 flags and made a couple of other grand finals: they never tried to limit their success.

 

[Falcon3518]

They don’t do it for that reason. They do it if they see something that they believe is having a noticeable impact on the spectacle because at the end of the day, they make money from people enjoying what they watch.

They’re a business. They aren’t going to employ changes directly to stop arguably their biggest cash cow (along with Collingwood and West Coast) from succeeding anymore than they would deliberately try and stop GCS or GWS from succeeding and opening up the potential markets in their locations. If anything a club like st Kilda who are unsuccessful but have history and are never likely to gain a much bigger following than they have right now, which sits at a mediocre level, would be the most likely to get sabotaged by the league from being ‘too successful’

Aside from the ridiculous Melbourne prelim final arrangement in 2004 they never did anything to restrict Brisbane and they abolished that rule soon after anyway. They didn’t do anything to restrict us or Hawthorn. West coast made an obscene amount of finals series from 1991-2007 and won 3 flags and made a couple of other grand finals: they never tried to limit their success.

Hawks had the rushed behind rule, lions had cola and you guys had father-sons, they may not all be on field changes to stop a team dominating. I think I heard one of you say the 3rd man up rule hindered you guys or something, could be wrong. Equalisation is part of AFL it’s just a fact they don’t want a team dominating, they say it. Salary Cap and Draft are the big ones.

But yeah the coaches tend to make the game ‘ugly’ which is how we won. Whether they changed it cause we dominated or wanted the game to ‘look better’. Fact is AFL didn’t want us playing that way anymore and we lost our advantage. Same outcome in the end and the AFL is happy with it. Up to us to adjust again now.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

Hawks had the rushed behind rule, lions had cola and you guys had father-sons, they may not all be on field changes to stop a team dominating. I think I heard one of you say the 3rd man up rule hindered you guys or something, could be wrong. Equalisation is part of AFL it’s just a fact they don’t want a team dominating, they say it. Salary Cap and Draft are the big ones.

But yeah the coaches tend to make the game ‘ugly’ which is how we won. Whether they changed it cause we dominated or wanted the game to ‘look better’. Fact is AFL didn’t want us playing that way anymore and we lost our advantage. Same outcome in the end and the AFL is happy with it. Up to us to adjust again now.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

The rushed behind rule wasn’t to stop Hawyhorn: they only used it in one game. The afl just saw it as a bad look and they were right but it didn’t bother me either I don’t care much about how the game looks anyway.

The father son augmentation wasn’t brought in to stop us: we don’t have this production line of guys having kids and sending them into elite talent academies in order to draft them on the cheap. The AFL decided that clubs should at least have to give something up in order to do it. No damage done.

Brisbane hadn’t won a flag for 12 seasons when COLA was scrapped.

The third man up rule wasn’t to ‘stop’ Geelong it was simply exemplified by us as we had the main exponent of it in the league. We weren’t targeted by it.

 

[Sky]

Incorrect. Geelong was beaten in 2008 by a better-on-the-day side. We missed some easy shots, they took their chances and deserved to win.
See - it's not that hard to admit another team was better than your own.

I don't know why you'd expect me (as a Cats fan) to support your various whinges about conspiratorial rule-changes.

Bullshit I was 11yo and we lost cause a team rushed behinds over the line. We should’ve won 4 in 5 years.

 

[My Tilly]

Never liked the rule and sure hope they get rid of it. Completely alters the sport. Really is a different game we watch compared to a decade ago.

 

[Sky]

No mate. They weren’t scared of anything. They attacked us when they could, absorbed when they had to, and played better football. That’s the simple truth of it.

No one needs to make an excuse for us in that game. We don’t have one.

We were s**t mate but if you look back 14 years later and think that’s not a flag we should’ve won you’re a mad man

 

[PhatBoy]

Bullshit I was 11yo and we lost cause a team rushed behinds over the line. We should’ve won 4 in 5 years.

No we didn’t mate.

They kicked 18 goals from 43 inside 50s.

They won because they deserved to.

 

[Boxhead_31]

By moving the ball quicker like only we could before the stand rule.

It seems you don't understand that the stand rule was not brought in to help the Tigers offensively but to hinder the Tigers on the defensive end by not allowing us to apply our pressure from the mark and prompting teams like Geelong (when in situations like rnd 15) to move the ball quicker by taking on the "statue" on the mark when there is no risk in doing so.

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.

So, the stand rule only came into effect in the last quarter of the game?

 

[Sky]

No we didn’t mate.

They kicked 18 goals from 43 inside 50s.

They won because they deserved to.

We lost because I didn’t watch it mate. We are 4-1 in gf’s I actually watched.

Would’ve been 5-0 if we were better than Richmond but no shame in losing to a dynasty

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Bullshit I was 11yo and we lost cause a team rushed behinds over the line. We should’ve won 4 in 5 years.

I think your response is in good humour, but I'll just add that of the 23 behinds registered, according to some analysis I read somewhere, 11 were rushed, and of those 11, just 7 would have been "illegal" according to the current interpretation.
In short, I think the "rushed behind" narrative has been overblown.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

7 illegal? The very next game in 2009 that would’ve been 7 shots infront of goal for deliberate rushed mate. Bring that rule in a week earlier in the 2008 prelim and we beat Hawthorn by 8 goals mate.

...or the defender decides not to rush it.

 

[Sky]

...or the defender decides not to rush it.

Which is pressure and creates turnovers against the reigning premiers that went 21-1

4 goal win to Geelong mate

 

[geelong_crazy26]

The stand on the mark rule was introduced to add speed and scoring power to the game. If this according to Richmond fans was the collapse of the Richmond side.. then you need better adaptability than that.

Rule changes are based on holistic appearance and trends of the game across all teams and rounds, not based off 1 club with very few exceptions ( only one that springs to mind is hawks rushing points 08).

 

[Noidnadroj]

Well I do.

Because anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that someone appointed to the roles he has been appointed to doesn’t get those roles if he has a history of letting personal issues get in the way of something he is tasked with doing.

If Ben Gale did that because there was a general consensus that it was negatively impacting the game then good luck to him.

Teams find ways to deal with it.

Using someone as an example isn’t proof of a conspiracy it’s proof that they need to use someone as an example.

I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy … but regardless of who or how these are the facts:

1. Steve Hocking and his family played for, worked for and love Geelong.

2. As an AFL employee Hocking introduced the stand rule as he noticed teams like Richmond and their captain Cotchin defended the mark very well, stifling ball movement which was a key
plank of their 3 x flags.

3. The rule was introduced with limited testing and without consultation with the actual rules committee.

4. A year after he introduced it he went back to work at his beloved Geelong.

If you believe that’s an appropriate process of checks and balances for a billion dollar professional sport to make a very significant change to the way the game is played that’s fine.

I don’t.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[PhatBoy]

I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy … but regardless of who or how these are the facts:

1. Steve Hocking and his family played for, worked for and love Geelong.

2. As an AFL employee Hocking introduced the stand rule as he noticed teams like Richmond and their captain Cotchin defended the mark very well, stifling ball movement which was a key
plank of their 3 x flags.

3. The rule was introduced with limited testing and without consultation with the actual rules committee.

4. A year after he introduced it he went back to work at his beloved Geelong.

If you believe that’s an appropriate process of checks and balances for a billion dollar professional sport to make a very significant change to the way the game is played that’s fine.

I don’t.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Everyone in the industry has an affiliation to or loyalty to a club.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy … but regardless of who or how these are the facts:

1. Steve Hocking and his family played for, worked for and love Geelong.

2. As an AFL employee Hocking introduced the stand rule as he noticed teams like Richmond and their captain Cotchin defended the mark very well, stifling ball movement which was a key
plank of their 3 x flags.

3. The rule was introduced with limited testing and without consultation with the actual rules committee.

4. A year after he introduced it he went back to work at his beloved Geelong.

If you believe that’s an appropriate process of checks and balances for a billion dollar professional sport to make a very significant change to the way the game is played that’s fine.

I don’t.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

"as he noticed teams like Richmond and their captain Cotchin defended the mark very well, stifling ball movement which was a key
plank of their 3 x flags."

...is not a fact.

 

[Anthony80]

The stand on the mark rule was introduced to add speed and scoring power to the game.

It was brought in to promote quicker ball movement, but Richmond didn't need help in that regard, we were doing just fine.
So it seems like you agree with me, that it was brought in "to add speed" to the game, which is really no different to me saying it was brought in to prompt teams to move the ball quicker where previously only Richmond could?