Steve Hocking

[WesternTiger]

That's the one that started it I reckon.

Again, zero substantiation. 'Word has it'.

No i dont think it was the article. I looked at it early. So why wont the AFL tell us whose idea it was?

 

[TigerFurious]

That's the one that started it I reckon.

Again, zero substantiation. 'Word has it'.

There are journalists that have won pulitzers for that amount of source attribution.

 

[Willo]

No i dont think it was the article. I looked at it early. So why wont the AFL tell us whose idea it was?

Well it didn’t go before the Rules of the Game Committee.
How would sHocking explain that to them..” I want to hobble Richmond”
RotGC “*smile* off”
sHocking “I’ll just make the rule myself then”
cheating prick can gagf. The biggest *smile* rule I’ve ever seen

 

[Streak]

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.

I am not in on the conspiracy theories about this rule being designed to stop this team or that or benefit certain teams.

But seriously I am yet to meet anyone, or hear anyone in the media, who can produce reliable commentary let alone evidence on how it has actually done anything to the game other than frustrate fans.

I would agree that the corridor is being used more in recent times and it is attractive to watch because it is attacking and to succeed requires quick ball movement.

IMO though teams are still running it in to the corridor to protect the football after forcing a back half turnover rather than from a mark or free kick. So I don't think the stand rule has done much to help this.

 

[The Big Richo]

No i dont think it was the article. I looked at it early. So why wont the AFL tell us whose idea it was?

No idea, that's a very weird article when you read it through. Like the answer is apparently 'group decision' but what the hell does that mean?

Is that a quote? if so what was the rest of it? Surely a follow up question was asked, what was the answer to that? It seems like it is deliberately trying to be mysterious.

There are journalists that have won pulitzers for that amount of source attribution.

This forum has also rightfully held journos to account about similarly unsubstantiated claims about Dustin leaving and internal angst about Hardwick's personal life.

Can't pick and choose standards just to suit who we don't like.

 

[TOT70]

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.

Not sure about that. I reread the article and it is not clear if that particular quote is still summarising or referring to Gale’s comments or if it is the opinion of the author. It certainly is consistent with what Gale is talking about.

Later in the same article, Hocking is asked for his opinion on the effects of the rule changes and he cites the example of the 2021 GF, with 10 minutes gone in the third quarter Melbourne we’re 19 points down and then they won. He suggested that this was his vision for the game, the clear implication being that the rule changes facilitated the comeback and that this was an improvement on previous Grand Finals.

Not sure you can draw either conclusion but that is clearly Hocking’s opinion. Given Richmond was involved in three or the four previous GFs, it is a polite swipe at their game style, which he didn’t like, for whatever reason.

 

[CarnTheTiges]

I am not in on the conspiracy theories about this rule being designed to stop this team or that or benefit certain teams.

But seriously I am yet to meet anyone, or hear anyone in the media, who can produce reliable commentary let alone evidence on how it has actually done anything to the game other than frustrate fans.

I would agree that the corridor is being used more in recent times and it is attractive to watch because it is attacking and to succeed requires quick ball movement.

IMO though teams are still running it in to the corridor to protect the football after forcing a back half turnover rather than from a mark or free kick. So I don't think the stand rule has done much to help this.

Everyone I’ve heard who has praised the stand rule has been unable to say exactly in what way it’s improved things or is a good rule. They seem to rely on the ‘vibe’ of it. I suspect Dennis DeNuto’s involvement in this.

 

[Legends of 2017]

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.

But just on that point, wouldn’t that rule benefit an old list that lacked speed? For a very brief period of time and many times during a game, it effectively makes it 18 vs 17, so it gives the team with the ball a big unfair advantage ( especially when the umpire is slow in calling play on)

 

[TT33]

a serious question re the stand rule: Is the player on the mark allowed to jump in the air before the umpire calls "play on"

I have seen guys being penalised for it & I've seen a lot not penalised.

Frankly I'm confused.

As for the rule itself, I hate it with a passion. It's totally opposite to what has been part of the game since it started over 150 yrs ago.

 

[Legends of 2017]

a serious question re the stand rule: Is the player on the mark allowed to jump in the air before the umpire calls "play on"

I have seen guys being penalised for it & I've seen a lot not penalised.

Frankly I'm confused.

As for the rule itself, I hate it with a passion. It's totally opposite to what has been part of the game since it started over 150 yrs ago.

I think they are. They are not allowed to move from the mark, as in sideways or backwards, but are allowed to jump up and down on the spot. I’ve seen a player, Harris Andrews I think, also stand on one foot but alternating from left foot to right foot, without being penalized

 

[CarnTheTiges]

I think they are. They are not allowed to move from the mark, as in sideways or backwards, but are allowed to jump up and down on the spot. I’ve seen a player, Harris Andrews I think, also stand on one foot but alternating from left foot to right foot, without being penalized

I think it depends on the umpire’s mood at time. Yet another example of why it is a bad rule. When something is not thought out and hastily implemented that will happen. It’s an all too familiar process under Hocking and has been continued by Brad Scott.

 

[tigersnake]

Everyone I’ve heard who has praised the stand rule has been unable to say exactly in what way it’s improved things or is a good rule. They seem to rely on the ‘vibe’ of it. I suspect Dennis DeNuto’s involvement in this.

yeah spot on. half baked, rushed in, no clear reason, no clear objective, no clear outcome other than technical 50m penalties and frustrating fans, and poorly implemented and adjudicated (which is not the umps fault, they didn't ask for this *smile* sandwich). Most importantly for me, it goes against the fundamental tenets, spirit and tradition of the game, the mark, the line of scrimmage, it shouldn't ever be messed with. Unfortunately because the AFL is such a unique organisation in its bone headedness, bolstered by the similarly boneheaded media, that it might be here for a while.

In contrast, the 666 rule, clear reason, clear implementation, clear outcome, and easy to adjudicate.

 

[The Big Richo]

But just on that point, wouldn’t that rule benefit an old list that lacked speed? For a very brief period of time and many times during a game, it effectively makes it 18 vs 17, so it gives the team with the ball a big unfair advantage ( especially when the umpire is slow in calling play on)

Anything that increases running speed or intensity is not good for an older list.

I never get the 17 v 18 argument to be honest, you have 17 v 17 around the ground and a player with the ball and a player on the mark for the 18th. Where's the advantage?

 

[daniel30]

I'm very sure he referenced Richmond as the main reason the stand rule come in.

 

[Legends of 2017]

Anything that increases running speed or intensity is not good for an older list.

I never get the 17 v 18 argument to be honest, you have 17 v 17 around the ground and a player with the ball and a player on the mark for the 18th. Where's the advantage?

I would have thought with one player not being allowed to move a centimetre without being penalised while the player with the ball is allowed to move at will would be classed as an advantage. Whereas before , the player on the mark was at least allowed to move around, obviously not allowed to encroach forward, would have evened out any advantage/ disadvantage for both teams.

 

[tigersnake]

Anything that increases running speed or intensity is not good for an older list.

I never get the 17 v 18 argument to be honest, you have 17 v 17 around the ground and a player with the ball and a player on the mark for the 18th. Where's the advantage?

For 150 years you had to get over or around the man on the mark. Thats gone. And for what?

 

[Rantnrave]

The worst....its a fact...the worst *smile* to of ever been involed in footy...

 

[Rantnrave]

Him and brad scott...christ ...madness ...what the *smile* is going on ?? What a mess ?
What moron likes the decent and stand still like a moron or its a 50 crap....???

 

[TT33]

Anything that increases running speed or intensity is not good for an older list.

I never get the 17 v 18 argument to be honest, you have 17 v 17 around the ground and a player with the ball and a player on the mark for the 18th. Where's the advantage?

The advantage is with the player whose kick it is, can play on get a 5 to 10 metre distance between the guy on the mark, he can also "fake a handpass to a teammate running past & if the player on the mark moves a muscle it's a 50metere penalty. Far too harsh in the circumstances.

It was a totally knee jerk rule brought in without proper procedures & protocols being undertaken.


I'll say it again I HATE THIS RULE.

I have a lot of friends who've played a lot of footy, many of them have played 200/300 & even over 400 games who feel exactly the same same as me. Not many of them are Tger supporters either, they're died in the wool "football" supporters of many different teams

 

[Ghost of 29]

I hate the stand rule because it goes against the absolute essence of the game of Aus Rules. And that is it’s a game of 18v18. With the stand rule, for that part of the game it becomes 18v17.