The stand rule???

[tigersnake]

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.

This is just not true. You'd have to sit down and do an analysis, who is going to do that? But I'd bet decent dough the Nays would outnumber the yays 3 or 4 to one, and then if you drilled down further most of those Yays would be company men.

Mere speculation I hear you say? You are obsessed with finding a smoking gun. When there is so much compelling circumstantial evidence, you don't need one, remembering your statement re nobody want to appear even 'slightly' conflicted. People are convicted in court on circumstantial evidence.

YeOlde is spot on.

 

[tigersnake]

Go have a chat and present this argument to Neil Balme and see what he thinks about your hypothesis. Or go read the Anson Cameron biography "Neil Balme - A Tale of Two Men" where Neil can tell you in his own words his thoughts about Hocking now (Hocking having spent years as Neil's understudy in the football dept at Geelong where they got on well) when he states that he can hardly bear to talk to him because of the implementation of the stand rule and the others.

I thought it was common industry knowledge that SHocking and C Scott had lamented for years the "state of the game" and then further cheered on by Whately. People were literally scared where the game was heading with Richmond's chaos football. (Why do I feel like I am RE repeating this for about the 20th time?)

This is believed to have originated with Worner (the disgraced former Ch7 Chief Exec) who constantly berated and cajoled Gil and Friends about scoring diminishing and the difficulties his sales execs we're having selling the ad packages to sponsors and advertisers because nobody wants to pay top dollar for ads that appear in pre game, QTR time, half time, three quarter time and post game.

The only value for money tv spots are live IN GAME where you get a solo 30 second break to yourself. In the big breaks, everyone gets up for a beer or to pee or to get a bag of chips. Harvey Norman and McDonalds and Toyota like those solo 30 second breaks in game because they have a captive audience. That's the sell.

The numbers on subscriber telecasters like Fox and kayo are still minimal compared to free to air coverage on 7. Particularly in the non Vic markets because Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney viewers get to see all 22 of their team' games (if they like 90% from those cities support a local team) plus finals for free.

SHocking was terribly conflicted by both his previous Geelong history and the fact that he dropped everything once he'd changed all the rules he wanted to scurry back down to Corio Bay. He is Geelong through and through and despite your protestations I'd argue that the team that stood to gain the most from the rule changes, particularly the stand rule was and is Geelong. That is evident when you look at last year's final series. Nobody got within 10 goals of them.

Its my firm belief that the rules changes were hatched and incubated by SHocking in C Scott's office over many, many coffees, lamenting what the game was looking like going forward. sSHocking was then given Gil's imprimatur as he was copping it from Worner and the broadcasters. It provides the perfect opportunity for SHocking to kill two birds with one stone.

You would now be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the game is in a healthy state. I'm a progressive type of person but these changes have taken us closer to netball and basketball and regressed us back to school days. It's AFLX abomination by stealth. If it suits you to sit by and back slap these decisions don't be surprised when you're watching AFLX in 10 years wondering what the *smile* just happened.

Ask yourself this simple question - why DID SHocking change the rules so fundamentally?

Why indeed.

I've mentioned it before on here, after we won in '17 there was a 360 GF wrap show, C Scott was on. They played some footage of the game, some extreme pressure we applied, Scott said, I'm paraphrasing 'there are people who don't like that, changes could happen'. Nobody really picked up on it, GW said what do you mean, he backed away and changed the subject. Robbo to his credit, laughed and scoffed a bit and said, paraphrasing, 'what? people don't like pressure footy?".

 

[TigerFurious]

I've mentioned it before on here, after we won in '17 there was a 360 GF wrap show, C Scott was on. They played some footage of the game, some extreme pressure we applied, Scott said, I'm paraphrasing 'there are people who don't like that, changes could happen'. Nobody really picked up on it, GW said what do you mean, he backed away and changed the subject. Robbo to his credit, laughed and scoffed a bit and said, paraphrasing, 'what? people don't like pressure footy?".

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/more-news/chris-scott-warns-of-rush-to-shut-down-opposition-in-wake-of-richmonds/news-story/998eb924b3f03acf488a38f518ffde83?amp

Coincidentally, we got three pretty significant rule changes (6-6-6, ruck circle and stand rule) in the next 4 years which, as far as I know is unprecedented in our game.

 

[Ricemagic]

Across the past eight decades there has been more and more meddling with the rules:

• 1940's - Three rule changes, the most significant being the use of two reserves, the 19th and 20th man, from 1946.
• 1950's - Four rule changes, introduction of runner carrying coach’s message from 1955.
• 1960's - Six rule changes, flick pass banned in 1966.
• 1970's - Five rule changes; centre diamond in 1973, centre square from 1975 and interchange from 1978.
• 1980's - Six rule changes, 50-metre penalty introduced in 1988.
• 1990's - Fourteen rule changes, “prior opportunity” written into holding-the-ball rule in 1996.
• 2000's - Twenty-three rule changes, minimum length of kick that qualifies for a mark increased from 10 to 15 metres in 2002.
• 2011 on: Twenty-five rule changes, 6-6-6 formations at centre bounce introduced in 2019, kick-in rule also changed.

 

[The Big Richo]

This is just not true. You'd have to sit down and do an analysis, who is going to do that? But I'd bet decent dough the Nays would outnumber the yays 3 or 4 to one, and then if you drilled down further most of those Yays would be company men.

Mere speculation I hear you say? You are obsessed with finding a smoking gun. When there is so much compelling circumstantial evidence, you don't need one, remembering your statement re nobody want to appear even 'slightly' conflicted. People are convicted in court on circumstantial evidence.

With fans it would be at least 3 or 4 to 1 against but I think media commentators are more like 50/50 and maybe even a little in favour of the stand rule. To dismiss them as company men is unfair I think.

I'm not obsessed with a smoking gun, I'd just like the knockers to show me two simple things.

1. How it has been detrimental to the actual playing of the game?

2. How it has impacted Richmond?

If the rule is that awful and so designed to curb Richmond it should be simple to show me those two things in ways other than 'I don't like the way it looks'.

 

[Ricemagic]

I believe it was David Parkin, Mike Malthouse guys like them who have said when the coaches have walked out of Rule Change meetings, they've already found ways in their heads to beat the changes.

The constant rule changes - particularly the stand rule, 6-6-6 and running 25m without bouncing after a point has been scored are just a waste of time and not in the spirit of a game that is based on being a contest even if you don't have the ball . Let the game work it out naturally.

From 2000 to 2016, Richmond were a non-factor whichever way the game went, and it went south, dropping by 15 points in that time 104 to 89 points a team per game, and we never heard a whisper from the Hawks, Cats, Swans who were the main flag winners in that era re the reduced scoring and the look of the game.

Richmond win one flag, lo and behold, the flogs go ballistic for rule changes because they couldn't play chaos football and it's apparently a bad look for the game.

Richmond Grand FInal scores -
2017 - 108
2019 - 114
2020 - 81 - in reduced quarters, easily would have scored three more goals in at least 20-25 minutes of football to top another 100 point Grand Final score, against the Cats mind you

 

[The Big Richo]

I'll give an example to try and explain my position on the stand rule.

Let's say the AFL said we need to improve goal kicking accuracy and they brought in a rule that said when a player has a set shpt for goal, they must first turn and bow to a gold statue of Gil McLachlan that they will mount at every venue on centre wing.

Now that would be a stupid look for the game but the true test of the rule would be about the goal kicking numbers. If that rule came in and players kicked more goals than points it would be a good rule, even if it looked silly. If they kicked less goals it would be a bad rule and look silly. If they kicked the same then it would be a nothing rule that looked silly.

And then there might be other impacts, such as players having more or less set shots which would also be part of assessing the rule.

So we can take it as read that the stand rule looks silly, but what does it actually do to the game?

 

[Ricemagic]

With fans it would be at least 3 or 4 to 1 against but I think media commentators are more like 50/50 and maybe even a little in favour of the stand rule. To dismiss them as company men is unfair I think.

I'm not obsessed with a smoking gun, I'd just like the knockers to show me two simple things.

1. How it has been detrimental to the actual playing of the game?

2. How it has impacted Richmond?

If the rule is that awful and so designed to curb Richmond it should be simple to show me those two things in ways other than 'I don't like the way it looks'.

U might be right with the fans, 85% hate the Stand Rule, that's a pretty big proportion of a game they say the fans own. Or do they?

1. Time will tell and yes it's only been two years so we'll give it a couple more years, hopefully scoring somehow goes to the high 80's, early 90's again, but 83.1 scoring in 2018, 83.1 in 2022 zero improvement so far.
2. I think last year we showed we could play around the rule, chaos football seemed to come back to us, but I think the injuries to Dusty, Grimes and Lambert in particular wrecked our top 4 chances and an assault for the flag.

 

[momentai]

I'll give an example to try and explain my position on the stand rule.

Let's say the AFL said we need to improve goal kicking accuracy and they brought in a rule that said when a player has a set shpt for goal, they must first turn and bow to a gold statue of Gil McLachlan that they will mount at every venue on centre wing.

Now that would be a stupid look for the game but the true test of the rule would be about the goal kicking numbers. If that rule came in and players kicked more goals than points it would be a good rule, even if it looked silly. If they kicked less goals it would be a bad rule and look silly. If they kicked the same then it would be a nothing rule that looked silly.

And then there might be other impacts, such as players having more or less set shots which would also be part of assessing the rule.

So we can take it as read that the stand rule looks silly, but what does it actually do to the game?

We seem to have got ourselves on to a rule change mouse treadmill. This culture, so different to that in the world game, is self perpetuating and has got us into a mess. No reason to believe that like environmental destruction, this kind of mess making won’t continue unless we do something about it. In short we need at the very least, to slow the process down.

Maybe as suggested earlier, no changes in any circumstances, unless the AFL announces the proposal at least 6 months before the event and then a final decision at least 1 month before that years trade period and draft.

 

[Ricemagic]

I'll give an example to try and explain my position on the stand rule.

Let's say the AFL said we need to improve goal kicking accuracy and they brought in a rule that said when a player has a set shpt for goal, they must first turn and bow to a gold statue of Gil McLachlan that they will mount at every venue on centre wing.

Now that would be a stupid look for the game but the true test of the rule would be about the goal kicking numbers. If that rule came in and players kicked more goals than points it would be a good rule, even if it looked silly. If they kicked less goals it would be a bad rule and look silly. If they kicked the same then it would be a nothing rule that looked silly.

And then there might be other impacts, such as players having more or less set shots which would also be part of assessing the rule.

So we can take it as read that the stand rule looks silly, but what does it actually do to the game?

Mate, scoring accuracy has never improved.

Scoring goes up and down a little, but somehow even with state of the art stadiums, no VFL and Under 19's games before the Seniors game so no playing on mudlarks, a stadium with a roof, state of the art footwear, the science, watching guys bounce kick balls into rubbish bins, around the corner kicks, all the benefits of modern day football. Goalkicking accuracy stays about the same.

I am sure we all played in atrocious conditions, we wore those boots that weighed a tonne compared to the boots of today designed personally for Dusty/Jack/Cameron/Hawkins they get direct from the boot company, sculpted for their individual feet and yet those goalkicking accuracy numbers stay around that 50-53% bracket.

In 1969 scouring accuracy hit 50% for the first time - 50.20%.

By 2005 it hit it's highest mark of 54.41%, that's not really a big jump with all the improvements mentioned above to the code in those 36 years.

Last 5 years reads where's it been at forever and a day - 52.03, 52.01, 52.02, 52.37, 53.33.

Maybe the Gil Gold Statue, bow and a prayer to it, turn and have a set shot might be it man!!

 

[RoarEmotion]

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

I think these stats when the disposal is purely from a mark or free kick as opposed to the overall average would be insightful.

The positive should be less pressure equals better disposals.

On the flip side players may chose more risky disposals because they are under less pressure.

Bit like when players put helmets on and then take more risks and head injuries increases.

The best stat would be one that shows how much that disposal is worth before and after the rule change. That one I’d be convinced is higher. This is where statisticians basically work out how much each possession contributes to a score.

 

[TigerFurious]

With fans it would be at least 3 or 4 to 1 against but I think media commentators are more like 50/50 and maybe even a little in favour of the stand rule. To dismiss them as company men is unfair I think.

I'm not obsessed with a smoking gun, I'd just like the knockers to show me two simple things.

1. How it has been detrimental to the actual playing of the game?

2. How it has impacted Richmond?

If the rule is that awful and so designed to curb Richmond it should be simple to show me those two things in ways other than 'I don't like the way it looks'.

1. The stand rule incentivizes ball retention over contests. The best aspect of our great game are the contests. The stand rule encourages the short 45deg kick to retain possession because it is impossible to defend without sacrificing players from further up field.

Teams are adjusting by moving their defensive zones further back and conceding ground but it has certainly impacted the forward press.

2. Richmond players manning the mark worked hard to cut off the 45deg short kick. This forced the kicker to go backwards or sideways with no net gain or kick long to a contest which favored our chaos style of play. The stand rule allowed teams to easily pick their way through our defensive structures with those short 45deg kicks which were impossible to defend against unless you took numbers from further down field. You can see the effect of this on us ans early as round 3 in 2021.

We are adjusting but it takes time, especially when you setup your entire game plan and list to play in a certain fashion only to have it undermined by sudden rule changes. You can see this in the way we are now prioritizing footskills in recruiting.

 

[The Big Richo]

Nice post, now we have something we can actually look at.

1. The stand rule incentivizes ball retention over contests. The best aspect of our great game are the contests. The stand rule encourages the short 45deg kick to retain possession because it is impossible to defend without sacrificing players from further up field.

Teams are adjusting by moving their defensive zones further back and conceding ground but it has certainly impacted the forward press.

So if that was the case we should be seeing more marks shouldn't we? The numbers don't support that, in 2019 AFL average was 91.3 marks per game, 11.4 contested and in 2022 it was 91.7 and 10.7 contested.

Definitely a move in contested marking which support the notion but even with that we are talking about not even two extra uncontested marks a game.

With the second point my feeling was Geelong were pressing up higher last year and putting more pressure on the ball but that would need further exploration.

2. Richmond players manning the mark worked hard to cut off the 45deg short kick. This forced the kicker to go backwards or sideways with no net gain or kick long to a contest which favored our chaos style of play. The stand rule allowed teams to easily pick their way through our defensive structures with those short 45deg kicks which were impossible to defend against unless you took numbers from further down field. You can see the effect of this on us ans early as round 3 in 2021.

We are adjusting but it takes time, especially when you setup your entire game plan and list to play in a certain fashion only to have it undermined by sudden rule changes. You can see this in the way we are now prioritizing footskills in recruiting.

Marks against us went from 100.1 (12.2 contested) in 2019 to 86.3 (10.3) in 2022. That may be a result of what you are saying about less chipping around but it doesn't explain the move from kicking to a contest because the percentage of contested marks is pretty similar on similar possessions (364.7/365.8). Curiously we also spoil more (36.2) in 2022 than 2019 (35.3).

One thing that does support it is opposition marks on lead have gone from 4.8 to 7.4.

Edit: I used the wrong possession count, that's the AFL average. Our possessions against actually dropped by about 21 a game, 385 to 364.

 

[Redford]

Nice post, now we have something we can actually look at.


So if that was the case we should be seeing more marks shouldn't we? The numbers don't support that, in 2019 AFL average was 91.3 marks per game, 11.4 contested and in 2022 it was 91.7 and 10.7 contested.

Definitely a move in contested marking which support the notion but even with that we are talking about not even two extra uncontested marks a game.

With the second point my feeling was Geelong were pressing up higher last year and putting more pressure on the ball but that would need further exploration.



Marks against us went from 100.1 (12.2 contested) in 2019 to 86.3 (10.3) in 2022. That may be a result of what you are saying about less chipping around but it doesn't explain the move from kicking to a contest because the percentage of contested marks is pretty similar on similar possessions (364.7/365.8). Curiously we also spoil more (36.2) in 2022 than 2019 (35.3).

One thing that does support it is opposition marks on lead have gone from 4.8 to 7.4.

Why would you see more marks with the stand rule ? In fact, by all logic you’ll see less marks because as TigerFurious and Neil Balme have articulated several times, by moving off the mark you forced the ball holder to kick sideways and backwards more often. And it was this, and kicking into narrow congested spaces closer to the boundary line that the AFL did not like - again something Neil Balme has mentioned a few times.

 

[DavidSSS]

I think these stats when the disposal is purely from a mark or free kick as opposed to the overall average would be insightful.

The positive should be less pressure equals better disposals.

On the flip side players may chose more risky disposals because they are under less pressure.

Bit like when players put helmets on and then take more risks and head injuries increases.

The best stat would be one that shows how much that disposal is worth before and after the rule change. That one I’d be convinced is higher. This is where statisticians basically work out how much each possession contributes to a score.

The really detailed stats are not released to the great unwashed, we are presumably not worthy.

One stat which is not a bad indicator is the scoring shots per inside 50, which looks like this:



This has gone down over time and, leaving aside 2020 which was different in so many ways, the stand rule has made no difference to this.

Just to add to this:

• Possessions per inside 50 have increased, in other words it now takes more possessions to get the ball inside 50.
• Possessions per point scored has increased substantially, in 1999 it took on average 3.15 possessions to score a point, now it is 4.25. So, it now takes more possessions to score.

The fact remains that this rule 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. This is what pisses people off, and to what end? Very little as far as I can see apart from making a mess of the adjudication, making a mess of the rules which we now see the AFL attempting to compensate for, and making the game look silly.

Just admit to the mistake and get rid of the stupid stand rule.

DS

 

[The Big Richo]

Why would you see more marks ?

I mentioned the chipping in the second point, it may well balance the marks out.

I'm not sure the stats support that the ball is being progressed forward more often though, AFL average opposition metres gained per disposal has only increased from 15.4 to 16.2 metres, despite the percentage of kicks per disposal going up from 59.1% to 60.2%.

Our opposition numbers are 14.8 to 16.2 metres per disposal and a percent drop in kicks per disposal so we are above the trend there.

 

[DavidSSS]

Why would you see more marks with the stand rule ? In fact, by all logic you’ll see less marks because as TigerFurious and Neil Balme have articulated several times, by moving off the mark you forced the ball holder to kick sideways and backwards more often. And it was this, and kicking into narrow congested spaces closer to the boundary line that the AFL did not like - again something Neil Balme has mentioned a few times.

Marks per game hasn't changed much, the big change was back in the mid 2000s when there were over 200 marks per game and the percentage of marks which were contested dropped under 10%. Could be heading that way again with this silly rule, we'll have to see.

Of course, if the AFL wish to go back to the keepings off style of footy I suppose we don't get a say in this but I don't think it was popular.

I'm sure those who take the view that the AFL sh!t chocolate and can do no wrong will applaud this, but they will applaud the direction the game is taking no matter which way this goes: more marks, that's great, less marks, how fabulous!

DS

 

[Redford]

I'm not sure the stats support that the ball is being progressed forward more often though, AFL average opposition metres gained per disposal has only increased from 15.4 to 16.2 metres, despite the percentage of kicks per disposal going up from 59.1% to 60.2%.

Yep, and therefore, what’s the point of the rule then ? Well done TBR. It took you a while, but you finally got there.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Remember when they brought in the sub rule? The reasoning behind that was that if a player got injured, it was unfair on his team team because they only had 3 players to use on the interchange against the oppositions 4. 1 less on the bench. But the rule makers have no problem with the stand rule making it effectively 17 players versus 18 on the field

 

[CarnTheTiges]

Remember when they brought in the sub rule? The reasoning behind that was that if a player got injured, it was unfair on his team team because they only had 3 players to use on the interchange against the oppositions 4. 1 less on the bench. But the rule makers have no problem with the stand rule making it effectively 17 players versus 18 on the field

And as was speculated on when they introduced the sub rule, teams exploited it, and now we effectively have 5 on the bench. That was another rule that wasn’t thought through and implemented in haste.