The stand rule???

[Harry]

It was pointed out in the media during the course of the year that Hocking had apparently said that he wanted to close down Richmond's ability to "angle off" the space defensively and create more room. In particular, he wanted to close down how we used the man on the mark plus the boundary line, to really close opposition movement off.

Not one single person inside of the AFL has denied that.

Why haven't we (the RFC) said anything about this.

Also the comment about "pegging us back a bit" when they introduced the 666 to counter our use of 2 men running in from the back of the square.

There's 2 clear examples of the AFL mentioning the Richmond Football club when discussing the introduction of new rules.

Yet the club says and does nothing.

It has affected our ability to be successful and win flags which is the reason we exist.

 

[TigerFurious]

Why haven't we (the RFC) said anything about this.

Also the comment about "pegging us back a bit" when they introduced the 666 to counter our use of 2 men running in from the back of the square.

There's 2 clear examples of the AFL mentioning the Richmond Football club when discussing the introduction of new rules.

Yet the club says and does nothing.

It has affected our ability to be successful and win flags which is the reason we exist.

You don’t know what was said and done behind the scenes. Gale and co. may very well have protested in private which may have been countered with the threat of sanctions, fines or harsh penalties for futures transgressions if made them public.

 

[bringbakflemmo]

There is no point having a man stand on the mark this year except when the oppo is shooting for goal..
We might as pull out a witches hat and leave it there.
I'd prefer our blokes to be 5 metres back.
One of the worst rules ever brought in.
It's a terrible look for the game.

 

[Harry]

You don’t know what was said and done behind the scenes. Gale and co. may very well have protested in private which may have been countered with the threat of sanctions, fines or harsh penalties for futures transgressions if made them public.

we need to grow a backbone then. Clubs like collingwood or hawthorn would make some noise if they were targeted like this. *smile* the fines or sanctions - we need to call out this *smile*.

 

[MD Jazz]

It was pointed out in the media during the course of the year that Hocking had apparently said that he wanted to close down Richmond's ability to "angle off" the space defensively and create more room. In particular, he wanted to close down how we used the man on the mark plus the boundary line, to really close opposition movement off.

Not one single person inside of the AFL has denied that.

Leppa said he spoke with hocking about this at the end of last season when he left the tigers. It was on a Saturday morning on crunch time pretty early in the year. They discussed richmonds defensive method in particular the way they manned the mark. Iys outrageous really.

 

[yandb]

That makes no sense. He is too far back to force the kick over him. The angles the player has to kick at are dramatically improved by the man in the mark being 5m back.

How exactly will the player not be forced to kick over the man on the mark?

If the player can move sideway as they have been able to for 150 years and force the player to kick over him what will prevent that?

The 5 metre concession still would enable pressure to be put on the kicker.

 

[TigerFurious]

we need to grow a backbone then. Clubs like collingwood or hawthorn would make some noise if they were targeted like this. *smile* the fines or sanctions - we need to call out this *smile*.

Hawthorn we’re targeted like this. The change to the deliberate rush behind rule was a direct result of their tactics in the 2008 GF. Coincidentally scoring has decreased every year since. Some say the Hawks have also paid a heavy price for Kennetts outspoken opinions on AFL HQ by being continually denied a lucrative AFLW license.

Collingwood are an interesting one. Apparently Eddie liked to mouth off against the AFL in public but behind closed doors would assure them he was 100% on board with their schemes and would not seriously challenge them on anything.

 

[Harry]

another thing the standing rule has done is it's allowed geelong to double down and fine tune their existing game style and game plan, whereas we've tried to adjust and change mid stream and have now re-calibrated somewhat back to our game plan of previous years. This has enabled the geelong players to become more aligned and be on the same page whereas our guys look lost and confused with all the chopping and changing that's been going on.

I also reckon this has impacted on our injuries, as they seem to occur when you over exert yourself when things aren't going your way. How many times do we cop injuries when we have a bad loss as opposed to when we have a good win? It's remarkable.

 

[Redford]

Leppa said he spoke with hocking about this at the end of last season when he left the tigers. It was on a Saturday morning on crunch time pretty early in the year. They discussed richmonds defensive method in particular the way they manned the mark. Iys outrageous really.

Yep. I remember that now too.

 

[DavidSSS]

The stop/start/space style of game that these new rules have promoted has really impacted our defensive structures and also how we like to move the ball when we do get it back.

Boring too.

DS

 

[Redford]

I wonder what the great petitioners will petition the AFL for next year with Hocking in charge ? They've already canvassed for shorter quarters, more games at Bathtub Oval, fixturing issues etc. What will they come up with next year given that Hocking still has his mates back at AFL House to help them out ? Aren't they already asking for more interchanges again to aid their aged playing list ?

Sure we'll hear more from them at the end of the year and how they think the game should be changed - to everyone's benefit of course.

 

[snags]

I think it is absolutely clutching at straws to think the new rule has had any part to play in our current demise.

Firstly, the notion that we had some secret manning the mark technique that no other club was doing is not correct. Everyone was trying to be aggressive on the mark, everyone was trying to protect the corridor. We've lost no more on the mark than any other side has.

Secondly, the big deficit in our game this year has been scores from turnover. Our turnover game isn't about stop plays, it's about denying stop plays for the opposition, by swarming pressure making them either loose the footy in the contest or having to blast kick out. If they have found the target, we have failed to execute as we hoped.

Thirdly, we have always conceded the uncontested lateral kick anyway, which is the big creation of the stand rule. We have always allowed the opposition an extra number centre back, so we can create the extra number in the backline. If a side chose to take that up (like Collingwood always did), then they could take the uncontested chip and mark to 70, and then we would back our structure and strength of intercept to take it back in the narrower ground. The stand rule hasn't changed anything when it comes to that play.

Lastly, our style has been to create that turnover at half back and then stretch the ground out by bursting forward. The stand rule should be at least as much advantage in that ball movement as anything we lose the other way.

Our issues this season are about personnel, preparation and perhaps a little bit of the difference between effort and absolute fanatical effort. Not to mention a bizarre tinkering with the way we play for reasons that escape me.

If we had a different run with injuries this year, particularly to a guy like Vlastuin, who is essential to much of what I describe above and has played about 5 games fully fit, I'm sure we wouldn't even be talking about the stand rule.

You can say that but on the balance of it all you have to admit the change would benefit a game plan like Geelong's rather than ours. Given less pressure to hit targets and time for those targets to lead in predictable patterns is a massive leg up. Geelong doesn't have to work as hard. We need to work harder to counter. The missing cattle amplifies this gap.

 

[snags]

I wonder what the great petitioners will petition the AFL for next year with Hocking in charge ? They've already canvassed for shorter quarters, more games at Bathtub Oval, fixturing issues etc. What will they come up with next year given that Hocking still has his mates back at AFL House to help them out ? Aren't they already asking for more interchanges again to aid their aged playing list ?

Sure we'll hear more from them at the end of the year and how they think the game should be changed - to everyone's benefit of course.

What about players over 30 sit outside of the salary cap?

 

[Carter]

I think it is absolutely clutching at straws to think the new rule has had any part to play in our current demise.

Firstly, the notion that we had some secret manning the mark technique that no other club was doing is not correct. Everyone was trying to be aggressive on the mark, everyone was trying to protect the corridor. We've lost no more on the mark than any other side has.

Secondly, the big deficit in our game this year has been scores from turnover. Our turnover game isn't about stop plays, it's about denying stop plays for the opposition, by swarming pressure making them either loose the footy in the contest or having to blast kick out. If they have found the target, we have failed to execute as we hoped.

Thirdly, we have always conceded the uncontested lateral kick anyway, which is the big creation of the stand rule. We have always allowed the opposition an extra number centre back, so we can create the extra number in the backline. If a side chose to take that up (like Collingwood always did), then they could take the uncontested chip and mark to 70, and then we would back our structure and strength of intercept to take it back in the narrower ground. The stand rule hasn't changed anything when it comes to that play.

Lastly, our style has been to create that turnover at half back and then stretch the ground out by bursting forward. The stand rule should be at least as much advantage in that ball movement as anything we lose the other way.

Our issues this season are about personnel, preparation and perhaps a little bit of the difference between effort and absolute fanatical effort. Not to mention a bizarre tinkering with the way we play for reasons that escape me.

If we had a different run with injuries this year, particularly to a guy like Vlastuin, who is essential to much of what I describe above and has played about 5 games fully fit, I'm sure we wouldn't even be talking about the stand rule.

Nah. Leppa said he had at least one conversation on the working the mark issue with Hocking. We were known to take full advantage of the practice to the point of funneling the opposition down certain paths.

So let’s say the oppo has the ball on the wing 2017-2020. He has four options when playing us:

1) go long across corridor. open but extremely high risk.

2) go short laterally. offered but still risky.

3) go short down the line. contest.

4) go long down the line. contest.

All four of these options had a high chance of resulting in what we wanted - a turnover. Laterally via a fast break, down the line via superior numbers.

The stand rule gives teams like Geelong the chance to ensure lateral passes hit team mates at much lower risk and hence lower chance of turnover.

Kicking over a six foot bloke on the mark drastically changes your risk / reward calculation and the chance of something going wrong. The extra hang time and the loss of sight lines is huge. Huge.

It removes our main avenue of scoring and stretches our defensive structures to breaking point.

 

[jokershoppe]

Rule has nothing to do with our form,its way way more to do with 2 main areas.
1 / shortest pre season ever.
2/ continual injuries has meant we can't catch up.
3/the above has made our midfield worst in AfL which was our vital cog in our game plan with key mids whom go up and down the ground effected big time,prestia,Lambert, Edwards.
4/ Chol instead of Soldo makes our ruck extremely weak when nanks not in there,
Making guys like NIC NAT kill us ,when in fact the combo of nank,Soldo was beating up on best rucks.
5/ club screwed up by choosing to not go over soft cap,which it can by just paying the same amount back to AFL which is easy to afford with our massive extra funds we have on all other clubs

 

[Carter]

We’re the ultimate system-based team.

Know your role, plug and play.

Injuries alone do not account for our dramatic form slide.

 

[Tigers of Old]

It was really clear in that very first practice game of the year v Dudbourne that the new rules were going to have an impact on us. We looked super fit and ready for that game yet the model we traditionally use looked really weak. Especially, we couldn't control or influence the movement of the ball by the opposition anywhere near what we're used to being able to apply. Our defensive structures around the ground really struggled in that game. And that's continued on the rest of the year. We used to be top 4 for points against year on year. Now we're 10th.

The stop/start/space style of game that these new rules have promoted has really impacted our defensive structures and also how we like to move the ball when we do get it back.

Yep & the new rules were dumped on us after we'd done all our planning & recruiting based around a highly successful formula. Absolute sabotage.

 

[Harry]

I think it is absolutely clutching at straws to think the new rule has had any part to play in our current demise.

lol.

I stopped reading there.

oh yes - Dimma's affair is the reason for our demise

 

[MD Jazz]

I think it is absolutely clutching at straws to think the new rule has had any part to play in our current demise.

Firstly, the notion that we had some secret manning the mark technique that no other club was doing is not correct. Everyone was trying to be aggressive on the mark, everyone was trying to protect the corridor. We've lost no more on the mark than any other side has.

Secondly, the big deficit in our game this year has been scores from turnover. Our turnover game isn't about stop plays, it's about denying stop plays for the opposition, by swarming pressure making them either loose the footy in the contest or having to blast kick out. If they have found the target, we have failed to execute as we hoped.

Thirdly, we have always conceded the uncontested lateral kick anyway, which is the big creation of the stand rule. We have always allowed the opposition an extra number centre back, so we can create the extra number in the backline. If a side chose to take that up (like Collingwood always did), then they could take the uncontested chip and mark to 70, and then we would back our structure and strength of intercept to take it back in the narrower ground. The stand rule hasn't changed anything when it comes to that play.

Lastly, our style has been to create that turnover at half back and then stretch the ground out by bursting forward. The stand rule should be at least as much advantage in that ball movement as anything we lose the other way.

Our issues this season are about personnel, preparation and perhaps a little bit of the difference between effort and absolute fanatical effort. Not to mention a bizarre tinkering with the way we play for reasons that escape me.

A lot of inaccuracies here. To say the new rules have had no impact is nieve.

 

[Willo]

I think it is absolutely clutching at straws to think the new rule has had any part to play in our current demise.

Firstly, the notion that we had some secret manning the mark technique that no other club was doing is not correct. Everyone was trying to be aggressive on the mark, everyone was trying to protect the corridor. We've lost no more on the mark than any other side has.

Secondly, the big deficit in our game this year has been scores from turnover. Our turnover game isn't about stop plays, it's about denying stop plays for the opposition, by swarming pressure making them either loose the footy in the contest or having to blast kick out. If they have found the target, we have failed to execute as we hoped.

Thirdly, we have always conceded the uncontested lateral kick anyway, which is the big creation of the stand rule. We have always allowed the opposition an extra number centre back, so we can create the extra number in the backline. If a side chose to take that up (like Collingwood always did), then they could take the uncontested chip and mark to 70, and then we would back our structure and strength of intercept to take it back in the narrower ground. The stand rule hasn't changed anything when it comes to that play.

Lastly, our style has been to create that turnover at half back and then stretch the ground out by bursting forward. The stand rule should be at least as much advantage in that ball movement as anything we lose the other way.

Our issues this season are about personnel, preparation and perhaps a little bit of the difference between effort and absolute fanatical effort. Not to mention a bizarre tinkering with the way we play for reasons that escape me.

If we had a different run with injuries this year, particularly to a guy like Vlastuin, who is essential to much of what I describe above and has played about 5 games fully fit, I'm sure we wouldn't even be talking about the stand rule.

*smile* TBR. I’d still be talking about it.
I’m over hearing all your ‘relatives‘ yelling out “stand” during games.
Just get rid of it for that alone, as well as changing the fabric of the game. Another *smile* rule brought in at a whim. It does nothing to improve the look of the game.