-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The stand rule???
- Thread starter yandb
- Start date
No question Balme hates the stand rule, as does everyone at Richmond. Leigh Matthews reckons it is great. For every person you find in the AFL industry who hates it you can find another who likes it. None of those things really tell us anything about the positives or negatives of the rule.
'I thought it was common industry knowledge', 'this is believed to have originated', that's just speculation.
Where is the substantiation of any of that? A comment from Chris Scott after the 2017 Grand Final?
This is my point about there being no actual facts in the allegations against Hocking.
The old killing our chaos footy style comes up a lot as well. Here's what the AFL website said when Melbourne smashed Geelong in the 2021 preliminary:
In an outcome that would have disappointed Maxwell Smart, the forces of chaos defeated that of control. Geelong like to control the play by kicks and aerial superiority, switching play by foot and cutting open defences for Tom Hawkins and Jeremy Cameron to run into. Instead, Melbourne's irresistible pressure and ground-ball dominance made it near-impossible for the Cats to play their preferred style. The Dees outmuscled the Cats, winning both the contested possessions and marks by 32 and held the Cats to just one second-half goal.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/675449/five-talking-points-are-the-cats-finally-too-old-too-slow
So it would seem chaos footy works just fine with the stand rule if you do it well enough.
Your argument about the TV influence also doesn't stack up under scrutiny. If there is an issue with profitability why is it those same broadcasters continually pay billions of dollars more for the TV rights?
And if it is true and bringing in the stand rule turned it around and led to the last rights amount, it is probably the greatest act in the history of sports administration.
In 2021 when the rule first came in Geelong was smashed in the first final by Port and humiliated in the preliminary by Melbourne.
Here's what the ABC report on the game said about Geelong:
The result could mark the beginning of a belated freefall for the Cats, who have missed the finals just twice since 2004, and have reached the preliminary final stage in five of the past six years.
The Cats fielded 11 players who were 30 years or over, and they face a fight to keep their premiership window open in 2022 and beyond.
The nature in which they were dismantled by the Demons is cause for concern, with the Cats made to look old and slow throughout the match.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...f249381305=1&usg=AOvVaw0cxvLarcO4YfDDClHM_8gP
Pretty typical of the view of most football pundits at that stage I'd say, too old, too slow, chance has passed. How anyone would think that helping bring a rule in that helps speed ball movement up would help an old slow team is something I'd like to hear.
Again, 'it's my firm belief', that's all complete speculation and the part about coffess in the office is fairly illogical in my eyes.
On the contrary there have been many commentators who have expressed the view that the stand rule has been a good thing and the game is in a great state.
The AFLX/netball/basketball references are just hyperbole in my opinion, and nothing like the reality.
Not sure I agree altering the way the man on the mark works constitutes fundamental change but regardless I think if you look at the thread from our 2020 game against Sydney you will see why changes were being made.
People don't like low scoring, dour football and the game was back on a course of heading that way. I wish LTRTR was here to tell us what has changed with scoring trends but I have a feeling they have been addressed and are heading the other way again.
In 2022, average goals per game was 12.1 up from 11.5 in 2021 but still well behind 2017 average of 12.9 which was the highest since 2013. So yes, the trend is up but ever so slightly on the smallest of samples sizes.
Interestingly, the scoring trend had been on a fairly consistent decline since 2008 when avg goals per game was 14.2. What is interesting about this I hear no one ask? Well, that was the start of the AFL’s knee jerk rule changes to fix non-problems.
Recall that the Hawks exploited the rushed behind rule to defeat Geelong in the 2008 GF. The AFL then promptly brought in the deliberate behind rule because apparently the sight of Hodge walking the ball over the goal line was too much of an existential threat to the fabric of the game. Two years later, Collingwood were premiers on the back of the newly refined forward press which was only possible because defenders no longer had an outlet when under pressure.
The forward press however was very taxing on players so Collingwood doubled their interchange rotations to keep players fresh and maintain their all-important running intensity. The AFL reacted again, this time with the sub rule and then caps on the number of interchanges. Neither had the desired effect because clubs just started playing more smallsto maintain run and dropped the near useless dedicated second ruck (remember those?). Scoring continued its decline by the way.
This again came to a head in 2017 when our very own RFC took the forward press to its extreme, played a one tall forward line because they realized that literally anyone was better than Todd Elton and capped it off by taking a giant dump on the vaunted craft of rucking by playing Shaun Grigg as second ruck to devastating effect.
The AFL would have none of it. It’s one thing to have Geelong lose a GF but it’s entirely something else to have Richmond win one. We then see the introduction of the 6-6-6 rule and the ruck circle closely followed by another fall in average scores and two more premierships to Richmond. That’s a fail on both counts AFL HQ.
Tl;dr the AFL has been making knee-jerk rule changes since 2008 which are largely responsible for the continued fall in scoring.
Now THAT is analysis and actual prosecution of a factual argument.
I don't agree with some of those points, and I certainly don't agree they were all implemented purely around increasing scoring but I think an excellent point you make is how difficult managing the rules is.
Ultimately no matter what is done with the rules you have 18 teams of football staff working to find a way to get an advantage in them and inevitably they do. The complexity of the game lends itself to an ongoing battle for control of the game.
For me, last season Geelong did two things. One, they had recruited well previously and got Jeremy Cameron fit and secondly, they had a really good coaching team who analysed the game and found a way to get an advantage by implementing tactical changes in the way they used their rucks and forwards. Not quite as sexy or crowd pleasing as the Hocking cheat conspiracy but perhaps more in keeping with history.
Ultimately for me I look at the replays of games post the stand rule and replays of games before and the only difference I see is players standing like statues and the blurting out of “stand” and “ play on” incessantly.
I can’t see how it has improved the game in any way
If you look back on the best footy matches, the ones the crowds love to see and the way a lot of finals footy is played it is all about pressure. We should not lose that, it is a big part of the DNA of the game at its best.
The stand rule to me is a rule that is anti the way Australian rules footy should be played.
I hate it, probably more than any other rule we have ever had.
I can’t see how it has improved the game in any way
If you look back on the best footy matches, the ones the crowds love to see and the way a lot of finals footy is played it is all about pressure. We should not lose that, it is a big part of the DNA of the game at its best.
The stand rule to me is a rule that is anti the way Australian rules footy should be played.
I hate it, probably more than any other rule we have ever had.
Thanks.Now THAT is analysis and actual prosecution of a factual argument.
I don't agree with some of those points, and I certainly don't agree they were all implemented purely around increasing scoring but I think an excellent point you make is how difficult managing the rules is.
Ultimately no matter what is done with the rules you have 18 teams of football staff working to find a way to get an advantage in them and inevitably they do. The complexity of the game lends itself to an ongoing battle for control of the game.
For me, last season Geelong did two things. One, they had recruited well previously and got Jeremy Cameron fit and secondly, they had a really good coaching team who analysed the game and found a way to get an advantage by implementing tactical changes in the way they used their rucks and forwards. Not quite as sexy or crowd pleasing as the Hocking cheat conspiracy but perhaps more in keeping with history.
I’m fairly confident EVERY recent rule change has been brought in to increase scoring because that’s what the TV rights holders wanted/demanded. More goals = More ads = more $$$
On Geelong. Conspiracy theories aside, they built a game plan and list that focused on slow, controlled ball movement. It worked well during the less intense regular season but was brutally exposed, time and time and time again under the intensity of finals. Suddenly, there is a rule change that favors their style and with a couple of minor tweaks to their list they able to win a premiership that had allude them for a decade.
In short, it wasn’t earned, it was luck or something more sinister if you are so inclined. We did it the hard way, Hardwick and co. read the direction of the game and got ahead of it, recruiting a mountain of athletic running types and implementing a game plan that utilized that group with devastating effect. In one off-season rule change it was taken away from us and personally, I’m a bit pissed off about it because of how hard (and smart) we worked to get our advantage.
Anyway, the it’s done and we all must move on and adapt.
One more thing, the AFL’s rule changes have failed to increase scoring because none of them have incentivized scoring. All they have done is make coaches change the way they defend often with greater effect. If you want to increase scoring you need to make coaches coach to kick goals not try to stop them. An example would be the 9 pointer from beyond 50m. Coaches would start setting up to get their long kickers in positions to score for a 50% bonus in points and it would force defenses to cover more ground opening up room inside forward 50.
Not surprisingly I vehemently disagree with this.
Not only do I think it's an enormous understating of how hard it is to win a premiership, it's not accurate in terms of what Geelong did in 2022.
They changed they way they played dramatically from 2021 to 22. The preliminary final showed them their game style wasn't suited to the way the game had shifted and they went away and changed it.
Offensively they took more risks with the ball, moved it faster and were more attacking with it, which enabled them to score more.
Defensively they went higher up the ground, taking a leaf from our and Melbourne's playbook to put more pressure on the ball which held their defensive strength in the face of more attacking ball movement.
They used Stanley to ruck and then drift to centre half back, so Blicavs could work as a 5th midfielder to strengthen the press and stoppage and Cameron to hit up to half back to allow Hawkins and Stengle to take the space and then Cameron to turn his man around, all of which allowed the other components of the game style to change.
It was great coaching and great execution and a well deserved flag, much more than just having a rule changed to let them win.
@The Big Richo you state the stand rule is one that speeds up ball movement. I wouldn’t say that is necessarily the case.
The main thing the rule does is massively reduce pressure on the person disposing a kick from a free or a mark. It also opens up angles of kicking that could be cut off previously by a player on the mark.
It also makes it much easier to create an outnumber because you effectively subtract a player from the opposition team until play on is called.
It’s anti footy if you think a key part of elite footy is about executing skills under immense pressure with little time or space and also applying that immense pressure. (Which I happen to).
Agree with you Geelong changed their plan to move the ball much more quickly.
So rather than the rule being pro Geelong it was more anti elite pressure which we all know one team has been pretty elite at….(and Melbourne did that team pressure in 2021)
So which ever teams were great at pressure got penalised the most and those that struggled under it benefitted the most.
Also massively penalises teams with poor free kick differentials and weak around the ground marking strength as the benefit of the uncontested possession resulting must be greater than it used to be.
Given we fit most negative categories it kind of makes people put one plus one together.
The main thing the rule does is massively reduce pressure on the person disposing a kick from a free or a mark. It also opens up angles of kicking that could be cut off previously by a player on the mark.
It also makes it much easier to create an outnumber because you effectively subtract a player from the opposition team until play on is called.
It’s anti footy if you think a key part of elite footy is about executing skills under immense pressure with little time or space and also applying that immense pressure. (Which I happen to).
Agree with you Geelong changed their plan to move the ball much more quickly.
So rather than the rule being pro Geelong it was more anti elite pressure which we all know one team has been pretty elite at….(and Melbourne did that team pressure in 2021)
So which ever teams were great at pressure got penalised the most and those that struggled under it benefitted the most.
Also massively penalises teams with poor free kick differentials and weak around the ground marking strength as the benefit of the uncontested possession resulting must be greater than it used to be.
Given we fit most negative categories it kind of makes people put one plus one together.
Would you still say that if the AFL average for pressure acts in 2019 was 293.8 and in 2022 was 290.9?
And if Geelong's pressure acts average went from 272.4 in 2021 to 286.6 in 2022?
Because it would seem the capacity to use pressure is much the same and teams can hit similar marks to before. Our pressure however was below AFL average in 2022, after being top 4 in 2021 and 2020.
The stand rule was the most significant change in the games rules in many years.
Importantly the pressure ratings for before and after the introduction of the rule were impacted by disposal.
We didn’t rely as heavily on disposal skill pre the change, we just belted it forward.
When the rule changes effectively reduced the role of the man on the mark to nil as a defender, the offensive team that could deliver carefully to a team mate often un-opposed, was given a significant advantage.
It wasn’t us.
2021’s draft focus and to a lesser extent our recruitment last year, was directed at correcting this weakness.
With those players coming through we should cope far better with the rule than we did in 2021.
The whole thing about having a mark is to allow the player with a mark or free kick to go back and dispose of the ball without being tackled or interfered with, up to the point where they marked the ball or where the action which led to the free kick occurred.
So, the logic was always that there was a line which the player without the ball could not cross.
If the player with the ball can kick at an angle such that it is not over the mark, then logically the player on the mark should be able to respond by moving anywhere apart from over the line of the mark. This is what the stupid stand rule removes.
It changes the nature of the contest between a player with the ball and the player defending, effectively denying the defending player from influencing the disposal.
Add to this the woeful implementation/adjudication where the player with the ball does not have to remain on the line between the goals and the player on the mark, in fact this seems to be less enforced now than it used to be, and you end up with a mess.
What do the AFL do when they create a mess? They double down and make the whole thing even messier.
It is a woeful rule and the sooner it is removed the better. Clearly the AFL know this is a woeful rule, otherwise they wouldn't be messing around with it so much.
DS
So, the logic was always that there was a line which the player without the ball could not cross.
If the player with the ball can kick at an angle such that it is not over the mark, then logically the player on the mark should be able to respond by moving anywhere apart from over the line of the mark. This is what the stupid stand rule removes.
It changes the nature of the contest between a player with the ball and the player defending, effectively denying the defending player from influencing the disposal.
Add to this the woeful implementation/adjudication where the player with the ball does not have to remain on the line between the goals and the player on the mark, in fact this seems to be less enforced now than it used to be, and you end up with a mess.
What do the AFL do when they create a mess? They double down and make the whole thing even messier.
It is a woeful rule and the sooner it is removed the better. Clearly the AFL know this is a woeful rule, otherwise they wouldn't be messing around with it so much.
DS
And they only had to bring that rule in to cover the *smile* up of the previous changes they made to the ruck rules that created all the PCL injuries to ruck men in the first place.
Used to be that ruck men could jostle and grapple in a contest of strength and balance as well as try to out time one another to jump at the ball at the last moment for a tap.
AFL wet the panties over the likes of Moore n Dempsey n Harry doing a lot of grappling so changed the rules to completely eliminate the grapple n have the rucks charge and leap at one another from twenty metres apart. Neks minnit PCL's everywhere.
Good stats. I don’t know how pressure acts work as a stat - I.e. what counts and what doesn’t count. But I wonder if pressure you apply while standing on the mark counts towards that statistic. I doubt it. Maybe a smother does - but I doubt cutting off angles of kicks does.
The stat (if it exists) would be the correct execution of skills from a mark or free kick and/or some stat that measured the contribution to score gained by a possession from a free kick or mark.
One could ask why was it brought in?
If not to curtail the Richmond style of football what was the scenario for it to be introduced.
Watching a lot of the old games during this off season, for the life of me I cannot see what was wrong in the first place.
The only time it was a problem was when a player stepped over the mark and got a 50 metre penalty for that.
So, why was it really introduced?
If not to curtail the Richmond style of football what was the scenario for it to be introduced.
Watching a lot of the old games during this off season, for the life of me I cannot see what was wrong in the first place.
The only time it was a problem was when a player stepped over the mark and got a 50 metre penalty for that.
So, why was it really introduced?
So, when I have a theory or say something is common knowledge, it's unsubstantiated rubbish but when you have a feeling "but I have a feeling they have been addressed and are heading the other way again" (scoring) it's the plain truth or obvious (it isn't). Ohhkaaay.
I can't argue with someone who thinks the stand rule is either good for footy or worse, ineffectual (so what's the bloody point of it ??).
If you can't see how this rule and the others implemented to stop our style of play have changed the fabric of football, you have either never actually played the game or have no understanding other than facts, figures and stats. Whichever it is I can't believe anyone thinks this is either a good look for the game (it's a disgraceful look) or that constant tinkering with the game to turn it into something it isn't, is acceptable.
If you think that, go and watch netball.
Something happened and that something was designed to stop Richmond (and other teams adopting that style which ALWAYS happens when teams go on a run of premierships) because they simply didn't like it.
Youve failed to answer the one simple question everyone is asking:
There was nothing wrong with the man on the mark, why was it changed so dramatically ?
While you're at it, ask yourself why the goal square is now obsolete ?
I could go on but frankly it's a mess of their own making. In ten years the game is fundamentally different because administrators can't keep their grubby little hands off the rules.
You fail to see what a blight this rule and many of the others are on the game. They show a lack of feel for the game that many umpires show, having never played. It's like an accountant got control of the AFL rule book and took a dump on it because it didn't add up.
Well *smile* the accountants of the world. The game evolves dynamically, not with petty pawns obsequiously pandering to TV rights holders by CHANGING THE RULES.
The only exception to this should be if rules are implemented for safety reasons and even then we've seen the AFL *smile* that up too.
I'm talking about my own thoughts, you are talking about imaginary conversations between Steve Hocking, Chris Scott, Gil McLachlan and Tim Worner.
I think this bit sums up the anti-stand rule position. So much dislike for it that it is impossible to have a rational conversation about it.
How does it do that?
I don't think the rule change was about how the the man on the mark was operating, it was using the man on the mark as a tool to change the way the ball moved.
How is it obsolete? Still the space the defender is safe to kick in from as it always has been, the only difference is they don't have to do that stupid self kick before they run out and play on.
I'm not sure your view of the evolution of the game matches history. The rules have changed consistently and dramatically over the entire history of the game. It's not a recent phenomena.
There's a few different forms of pressure acts they recognise, physical and implied which is chasing, corralling etc.....
The pressure points stat would be good to look at because it weights them but I don't have access to it. I remember seeing the Sydney Melbourne final last year was rated highly out of the 15? or so years they have recorded it though so the pressure points are still there if teams apply them.
In terms of disposal stats AFL average 2019 to 2022 disposal efficiency is up from 71.6 to 72.9, kicking efficiency up from 64.4 to 66.5, and kicking as a percentage of disposals up from 59.1 to 60.2. Disposals per opposition tackle up from 5.9 to 6.2.
Our disposal efficiency is up 72.0 to 72.3, kicking up 64.9 to 66.9, kicking percentage 58.1 to 60.8 and disposals per tackle up from 6.5 to 7.
The interesting thing about that to me is we have gone from above average for disposal efficiency to below average, yet the stand rule is supposed to support an easier finding of targets, but we are talking very minor changes in the scheme of things.
I've found a really good stats source so I'll continue to search though and try and see what has changed.
