Steve Hocking | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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.

Steve Hocking

TigerFurious said:
Forget the Geelong aspect for a moment. What irks me most about the recent rule changes is how quickly they were conceived and implemented. The result of this is that within a single offseason some clubs receive a significant benefit for no other reason than their current setup is favored by the changes. In other words, pure, dumb luck. While others were penalized simply because they were able to exploit the current rules better than most.

As a club, Richmond did the impossible by pulling itself up by its own bootstrap in arguably the most hostile conditions a rebuilding club has faced in this competition. We then took it a step further and judged, correctly, the future state of the game, building a game plan and a list to exploit it. This put us ahead of the curve and created a dynasty but certain influential figures decide they don’t like the current state of the game and want changes.

Since 2000, the competition has essentially rolled from one dynasty to another (ironic given all the equalization measures brought in but that’s a topic for another post) but for some reason ours was the final straw? During our reign, we see two major rule changes implemented in the space of three years. The last one in particular was directly targeted at us (see Leppitch comments, published articles siting Hockings frustration at our training for players on the mark).

If Geelong win the premiership this year, they will be a worthy winner. They are an incredibly well run organization and despite being an insufferable twat, Scott is a very, very good coach. However, you cannot deny that recent rule changes have favored them. Whether that is just dumb luck or design I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have commented on this in another thread recently. The current system of drafting, trading and free agency lends itself to multiple years at the top followed theoretically by multiple years at the bottom. I would suggest that what the AFL is really looking for is a system where every team wins a flag every 25 years or so and the better teams might win a couple during that period. They are not achieving this goal.

Interestingly, this will be the 23rd flag since the years clicked over into the 2000s and we are seeing exactly what you stated, one dynasty, for want of a better word, rolling into the next. Even more worrying for the AFL, Geelong and Sydney have figured out how to avoid long periods at the other end of the ladder. They do it through having a strong culture that is permanent by rolling from one strong leadership group into the next strong group. Richmond were late to the party but look like they are figuring out something very similar.

I’m going to be serious for a moment and say that players like Selwood, Cotchin, Josh Kennedy, Jarrod McVeigh and several others at these clubs have been pivotal to this transference of culture from one generation to the next. But there is a lot more to it.

Quality coaching is important, as is quality administration. The transition from Roos to Longmire was seamless, Hardwick and Scott have held their roles for a long time, all these coaches have been surrounded with quality assistants. Good off-field leadership sees the best people being employed at these clubs more often than not.

It also has a lot to do with natural advantages such as big, loyal fan bases, regional advantages, home ground advantage and AFL support. Sydney needs big names to hold fan interest, for example, so Plugger and Buddy found their way there to help market the club.

If Geelong win the flag they deserve it. They have earned it through doing many things very well but the thing is, Geelong didn’t need a leg up.

Unfortunately, what terrifies the AFL the most is the clubs with the seriously big fan bases. They are not going to do them any favours because they know that if Collingwood, Richmond, Carlton and West Coast all come good at the same time, the competition will turn into the Premier League and no other club will be able to sell hope and build a meaningful fan base.

When Richmond lost their way, there were no favours. When salary caps were being rorted Carlton were sacrificed. Would North Melbourne have survived that? When PEDs became a problem, Essendon copped it in the neck. When Melbourne made a mockery of the draft, the AFL punished them publicly and rebuilt them immediately. Richmond, Carlton and Essendon didn’t get that kind of luxury.

Ironic, isn’t it? The clubs that bring the big crowds are the ones the AFL won’t support.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
TigerFurious said:
Forget the Geelong aspect for a moment. What irks me most about the recent rule changes is how quickly they were conceived and implemented. The result of this is that within a single offseason some clubs receive a significant benefit for no other reason than their current setup is favored by the changes. In other words, pure, dumb luck. While others were penalized simply because they were able to exploit the current rules better than most.

As a club, Richmond did the impossible by pulling itself up by its own bootstrap in arguably the most hostile conditions a rebuilding club has faced in this competition. We then took it a step further and judged, correctly, the future state of the game, building a game plan and a list to exploit it. This put us ahead of the curve and created a dynasty but certain influential figures decide they don’t like the current state of the game and want changes.

Since 2000, the competition has essentially rolled from one dynasty to another (ironic given all the equalization measures brought in but that’s a topic for another post) but for some reason ours was the final straw? During our reign, we see two major rule changes implemented in the space of three years. The last one in particular was directly targeted at us (see Leppitch comments, published articles siting Hockings frustration at our training for players on the mark).

If Geelong win the premiership this year, they will be a worthy winner. They are an incredibly well run organization and despite being an insufferable twat, Scott is a very, very good coach. However, you cannot deny that recent rule changes have favored them. Whether that is just dumb luck or design I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
Yeah I texted my two main cats supporters this morning and said SHockings role requires a royal commission and if they win will have a bigger asterisk next to it than the Dank/Robinson flags of the late 2000’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
WesternTiger said:
Maybe. Assume you see nothing remotely wrong with the SHocking scenario?
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't think a professional person doing their job at the AFL would consider club loyalty for a second on anything. To me that's small time thinking.

I also don't see any credibility in the idea rules were changed to respond to us or any other team, and I happen to think the rule changes that have been made have improved the game.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 user
The Big Richo said:
Nope, I don't think a professional person doing their job at the AFL would consider club loyalty for a second on anything. To me that's small time thinking.

I also don't see any credibility in the idea rules were changed to respond to us or any other team, and I happen to think the rule changes that have been made have improved the game.
Click to expand...
666 is all good but the stand rule hasn't improved the game?
It's fken a joke
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
The Big Richo said:
Nope, I don't think a professional person doing their job at the AFL would consider club loyalty for a second on anything. To me that's small time thinking.

I also don't see any credibility in the idea rules were changed to respond to us or any other team, and I happen to think the rule changes that have been made have improved the game.
Click to expand...
Your first point is just an opinion and I have a differing one.

You’re second point is categorically wrong. It’s been quoted numerous times that the stand rule was introduced deliberately to address Richmond tactics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Little Ziggyadee said:
666 is all good but the stand rule hasn't improved the game?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of opinion but I think it has and I'm certainly not alone.

WesternTiger said:
Your first point is just an opinion and I have a differing one.

You’re second point is categorically wrong. It’s been quoted numerous times that the stand rule was introduced deliberately to address Richmond tactics.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is correct. As far as I know it was mentioned by a second tier Herald Sun journo in an article with no source and then apparently discussed by Leppitsch on SEN in a roundabout way but no-one can find that either.

Somehow that has morphed into a rock solid belief that the rule was about us. You even see people posting that Hocking himself said it.

Unless there is something else, that evidence is flimsy as hell.

The other thing is when this rule came in at the end of 2020, Geelong had an old list and lacked speed through the midfield. If Hocking's plan to advantage them was to move the ball faster and require players to do more intense running then he's more David Brent than Keyser Soze.
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: 1 users
The stand rule is a disgrace.
The AFL have handicapped a player from participating in the game until told too by the umpire by the time it is too late to be effective.
The AFL and its predecessor the VFL are accountable to no one and are not subject to any real scrutiny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 users
Bones17 said:
The stand rule is a disgrace.
The AFL have handicapped a player from participating in the game until told too by the umpire by the time it is too late to be effective.
The AFL and its predecessor the VFL are accountable to no one and are not subject to any real scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Its ridiculous.
Never does the umpire call play on in time.
It handicaps the player to stand there as the opposition run past.
It's bullshitt
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
The Big Richo said:
It's a matter of opinion but I think it has and I'm certainly not alone.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on how the stand rule has improved the game?

I am personally of the opinion it has done little except create free kicks which offer too much advantage for what is effectively a minor infraction when players don’t stand still. Furthermore the umpires seem to struggle with calling play on effectively.

The only thing I think it has achieved is yet again make the game more complicated to officiate than it should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 users
The Big Richo said:
It's a matter of opinion but I think it has and I'm certainly not alone.



I don't think that is correct. As far as I know it was mentioned by a second tier Herald Sun journo in an article with no source and then apparently discussed by Leppitsch on SEN in a roundabout way but no-one can find that either.

Somehow that has morphed into a rock solid belief that the rule was about us. You even see people posting that Hocking himself said it.

Unless there is something else, that evidence is flimsy as hell.
Click to expand...
This isnt the article in which it was stated and I haven't looked for the Leppa interview but this third rate HS journo must also be sucked in like all us dumb Richmond supporters

Richmond CEO Brendon Gale slams ‘stand’ rule, says Tigers can challenge again in 2022 (paywalled)
Jon Ralph
Herald Sun
8th November 2021

Richmond chief executive Brendon Gale says the AFL’s new stand rule will be judged as a failure that promoted uncontested “circle-work” and was a factor in Tom Lynch’s 35-goal season.

Gale told the Herald Sun the new rule was “unedifying” as defenders stood passively on the mark in what should be a contested, in-your-face game.

The AFL brought in its new rules, including the stand rule, after closely monitoring Richmond’s brilliant efforts to guard the corridor while on the mark in the club’s successful 2020 premiership defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Streak said:
Can you elaborate on how the stand rule has improved the game?
Click to expand...

I haven't done any great analysis on it in terms of seeing how it stacks up but it feels to me like as clubs have had time to work with the rule a few things are happening.

I think there is undoubtably more speed on the ball and more accessibility to the corridor which makes it easier to attack and harder to defend, and I like that.

Skills are at a premium because the ability to hurt off a turnover has increased and neutral ball movement is now hurting clubs (like Fremantle last week).

I also like that the defensive team has the option to go outside 5 and create some tactical impact through that.

I wasn't a fan initially because I thought the rule was having little impact but as it has gone on I can see the base principle of the game has started to shift from defensive (where it had been heading for a long time) back towards attacking. We've seen teams in the last 20 years win flags based on being supremely defensive and scoring only through attrition. We won't ever see another premier that isn't a strong attacking team as well and I love that.

For me the overall standard of footy in the second half of the season and the finals has been exceptional. It's all opinion though, some people will swear that footy was better in the 80s.

It's not a perfect rule and I'd change two things next year, allowing the player on the mark for a shot on goal free movement as before and consider it play on when the umpire sees it, not after they say it.
 
WesternTiger said:
The AFL brought in its new rules, including the stand rule, after closely monitoring Richmond’s brilliant efforts to guard the corridor while on the mark in the club’s successful 2020 premiership defence.
Click to expand...

This is my point, by what standard is that evidence? That's a nothing line in an article. Who says 'so? Where's the proof? What do the AFL say about it?

That's Caroline Wilson journalism, make a sweeping statement unattributed to anyone and unverifiable by anyone and claim it as fact.
 
The Big Richo said:
This is my point, by what standard is that evidence? That's a nothing line in an article. Who says 'so? Where's the proof? What do the AFL say about it?

That's Caroline Wilson journalism, make a sweeping statement unattributed to anyone and unverifiable by anyone and claim it as fact.
Click to expand...
That's AFL journalism per se but its ok if it fits your narrative.

Does Ralph often make sweeping statements with nothing to back it up? I don't know because I don't read the HS. AFL wont even admit whose idea the Stand rule was so good luck finding an AFL journo writting indepth articles about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Welcome to Tigers: Jason Castagna | The greatest player of the past 35 years >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom