Rules The new man on the mark rule is utterly ridiculous.

[Engimal v3]

The AFL's obsession with rule changes is beyond compression. Penalising deliberate OoB and penalising rushed behinds are really the only good rules I can think of in recent times.

 

[quotemokc]

The AFL's obsession with rule changes is beyond compression. Penalising deliberate OoB and penalising rushed behinds are really the only good rules I can think of in recent times.

And even then they are only as good as the umpires personal interpretation.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

This was an easy fix from the start ....... they don't want the player on the mark to stand the mark 5-10m away from the original mark spot as this could potentially block access to the middle corridor which the AFL want to stop ....... we see players do this many times during the match and it forces the kicking player to kick down the line ....... this is where the problem lies ....... not the player moving 1 or 2 meters either side of the spot or back behind the spot which usually has an absolute minimal effect where the kick goes

Umpires should have a general feel for 5 meters (from the original mark spot) and if the player goes to man the mark 5m from the original mark ...... especially towards the middle corridor ....... then ping him and call a 50m penalty

If the player manning the mark is just jumping around and moving side to side 1 or 2 meters let it freakin go cause in reality he ain't going to effect where the kick goes

The problem now for Hocking is that his ego won't let him admit that he didn't think through the issue properly and if he has to back down it shows that he is incompetent and he could likely be moved on.

The clubs should be banding to kick this poorly thought out dumb rule to the boundary of steaming turds ....... and while they are at it get rid of the farkin stupid nominating ruckman rule ...... just throw the ball up and let 2 players contest ..... who the freak cares which ones ..... let the players work it out

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

If it needs tweaking or interpretations it's not a good rule.

Very simplistic and dismissive view.

 

[Lip Gallagher]

Just rejoice in the knowledge that every ridiculous rule change brings us closer to multi-ball.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

looking forward to the man on the mark sitting down to ensure he doesn't move.

After all the years I can now see Ken was a visionary with his deck chair

 

[NoobPie]

Right, that was the question everyone had when the rule was first announced -- why not step back 30cm and then move however you like. Then last month the AFL decided that you have to either be on the mark or at least 5m away from it. BECAUSE WHAT WILL FIX THIS IS EVEN MORE RULES.

You are a logical guy. Leave the capslock emoting to the mugs

I don't know the chronology of the rule change (or whether the detail was provided later) but the 5 metre exclusion zone around the man on the mark seems pretty simply and intuitive.

The rule itself is one of the easier rules to comply with and adjudicate which are clearly desirable, no?

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The man on the mark moves sideways to cut off the player with the ball quickly kicking the middle into the middle of the field and opening up the ground.

If he stands still you can mark then quickly stab it to someone standing in a bit of space in the centre

if he moves sideways you can stab it to someone straight ahead of you in a bit of space!! That is likely the most direct route to goal. If the defender wants to cede the straight kick to block an indirect kick, that is his prerogative. The idea that moving to the side is some magical all-powerful defensive manoeuvor is insane.

In any case the rule doesn't just apply on the flanks?! In which case this rule will encourage a marked man in the centre to go out to the wings, slowing things down.

No, there is just no rationalizing this one, except that it is there to increase 50 m pens. I think that is what they are doing. More shots for goal and more from the goal line that are unmissable.

 

[theyellowsash]

the doggies were leaders on this in their flag winning year. Creeping around and over the mark to slow the game down.

there were easier ways of dealing with this, rather than creating new rules, by simply applying the rules already in existence. Step over the mark, including creeping forward in an arc, results in a 50.

Ah yes, requiring the umpires to do complex circular geometry from a distance to estimate whether a player has moved towards the player with the ball or simply moved around in an arc, while taking into account the fact that he is viewing on an an angle which skews the distance even more. All while watching other players running past as well as the player with the ball himself.

And we expect this to go well?

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Players running around the mark will now be an extremely common occurrence given the player on the mark cant move one inch until the umpire blows his whistle for play on by which time the player with the ball will be meters past the mark spot at full pace.

When this starts happening the rule will be made to look even more ridiculous not mention the poor player on the mark who cant do anything to stop it from happening

Wake up Hocking you freakin goose

 

[Power Raid]

Ah yes, requiring the umpires to do complex circular geometry from a distance to estimate whether a player has moved towards the player with the ball or simply moved around in an arc, while taking into account the fact that he is viewing on an an angle which skews the distance even more. All while watching other players running past as well as the player with the ball himself.

And we expect this to go well?

Actually I’m suggesting the opposite

The mark should be a straight line left and right. Creep on the arc and get pinged.

 

[theyellowsash]

Actually I’m suggesting the opposite

The mark should be a straight line left and right. Creep on the arc and get pinged.

You're still requiring the umpires to judge whether the player has moved along a line from a distance while concentrating on so many other things. They've already proven to be unable to judge if a player has move on a straight line with the ball. This rule makes it so much simpler, and barely changes the fabric of the game if at all.

 

[2Knights]

Meanwhile umpires will continue to ignore throwing, holding the man and push in the back.

 

[Kappa]

if he moves sideways you can stab it to someone straight ahead of you in a bit of space!! That is likely the most direct route to goal. If the defender wants to cede the straight kick to block an indirect kick, that is his prerogative. The idea that moving to the side is some magical all-powerful defensive manoeuvor is insane.

In any case the rule doesn't just apply on the flanks?! In which case this rule will encourage a marked man in the centre to go out to the wings, slowing things down.

No, there is just no rationalizing this one, except that it is there to increase 50 m pens. I think that is what they are doing. More shots for goal and more from the goal line that are unmissable.

The player straight ahead of you is on the boundary line because teams don't take kick ins straight up the guts because it's Russian roulette.

 

[Lynch takes a mark]

I like the rule, will open up the centre square more.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The player straight ahead of you is on the boundary line because teams don't take kick ins straight up the guts because it's Russian roulette.

thats fine, so then you pass into the centre. Now the guy on the mark is ancored, you are going to find the easy option is to kick back out to the flank.

This Hocking bloke is a genius.

 

[Toump Ass]

I am confused at how the umpires are supposed to monitor both the person with the ball and the man standing the mark at the same time.

 

[Madas]

I’d rather watch a low scoring game every day of the week than a bastard product that has been artificially contrived to be high scoring. AFL has always had a mix of low scoring contests and high scoring shoot outs which made it great. The recent narrative about fans only wanting high scores is ******* stupid.

And creating a rule just to pander to this narrative, a rule that doesn’t solve any problem and makes the game worse and even harder to adjudicate is even more stupid.

Agree here
Where is all this headed ?
Like someone said in an earlier post it's taking away the defensive position and options of the opposition .
Like how in basketball the defending player has so little choice of what they are able to do to defend yet the attacker can do almost whatever they like, yes it creates more scoring but seems artificial.
Perhaps it's an AFL over reaction to players constantly creeping that extra few meters over the mark , seems to get worse every year as the game speeds up . ?

 

[Shaunbkk]

This was an easy fix from the start ....... they don't want the player on the mark to stand the mark 5-10m away from the original mark spot as this could potentially block access to the middle corridor which the AFL want to stop ....... we see players do this many times during the match and it forces the kicking player to kick down the line ....... this is where the problem lies ....... not the player moving 1 or 2 meters either side of the spot or back behind the spot which usually has an absolute minimal effect where the kick goes

Umpires should have a general feel for 5 meters (from the original mark spot) and if the player goes to man the mark 5m from the original mark ...... especially towards the middle corridor ....... then ping him and call a 50m penalty

If the player manning the mark is just jumping around and moving side to side 1 or 2 meters let it freakin go cause in reality he ain't going to effect where the kick goes

The problem now for Hocking is that his ego won't let him admit that he didn't think through the issue properly and if he has to back down it shows that he is incompetent and he could likely be moved on.

The clubs should be banding to kick this poorly thought out dumb rule to the boundary of steaming turds ....... and while they are at it get rid of the farkin stupid nominating ruckman rule ...... just throw the ball up and let 2 players contest ..... who the freak cares which ones ..... let the players work it out

Beautifully put. Tell me Australia (as I watch on from Thailand religiously), if we the fans and we the clubs have a few brains and know this rule is dumb (as are many implemented due to brain deficiencies of the AFL for a decade), then WHY is allowed to happen and WHEN will fans DEMAND it to be changed back (or altered as you suggest) instead of everybody who counts (the fans) just screaming about it and WHEN will the Clubs grow brains and demand it is stamped out also. I mean pluck me.

 

[Blackhawk42]

I am confused at how the umpires are supposed to monitor both the person with the ball and the man standing the mark at the same time.

They are being directed to focus on the man with the ball. So I expect to see 'play on' called quite quickly.

 

[box070]

But the Umpire won't listen to you. It happened to Ed Curnow in the Carlton game the other day. Essendon player takes a mark on the boundary at the intersection of the 50m arc. Takes about two steps back of his mark. Ed Curnow stops about 8m short of the 50m line (i.e about 10m from the player and 8m short of the spot where the mark was taken) and starts doing the flailing arms, side to side that players would ordinarily do. Umpire call's 50m immediately. Curnow throws his hands up ointing to the mark and the Umpire has NOTHING of it. Advance, penalised for daring to flaunt the AFL's agenda.

Surely not. Actually I do believe it

 

[The 747]

This was an easy fix from the start ....... they don't want the player on the mark to stand the mark 5-10m away from the original mark spot as this could potentially block access to the middle corridor which the AFL want to stop ....... we see players do this many times during the match and it forces the kicking player to kick down the line ....... this is where the problem lies ....... not the player moving 1 or 2 meters either side of the spot or back behind the spot which usually has an absolute minimal effect where the kick goes

Umpires should have a general feel for 5 meters (from the original mark spot) and if the player goes to man the mark 5m from the original mark ...... especially towards the middle corridor ....... then ping him and call a 50m penalty

If the player manning the mark is just jumping around and moving side to side 1 or 2 meters let it freakin go cause in reality he ain't going to effect where the kick goes

The problem now for Hocking is that his ego won't let him admit that he didn't think through the issue properly and if he has to back down it shows that he is incompetent and he could likely be moved on.

The clubs should be banding to kick this poorly thought out dumb rule to the boundary of steaming turds ....... and while they are at it get rid of the farkin stupid nominating ruckman rule ...... just throw the ball up and let 2 players contest ..... who the freak cares which ones ..... let the players work it out

This sums up the entire AFL since Gil became boss, they just react to things by making changes that they haven't thought through.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Agree here
Where is all this headed ?
Like someone said in an earlier post it's taking away the defensive position and options of the opposition .
Like how in basketball the defending player has so little choice of what they are able to do to defend yet the attacker can do almost whatever they like, yes it creates more scoring but seems artificial.
Perhaps it's an AFL over reaction to players constantly creeping that extra few meters over the mark , seems to get worse every year as the game speeds up . ?

Im sure the AFl would like a version of basketball style scoring. Not as ridiculous as it is in basketball, but they will do ANYTHING after the abismal scoring of last season. Personally I dont give two fukks what the scores are, but you know..society today must be instantly satidfied yada yada yada.

 

[Sttew]

This sums up the entire AFL since Gil became boss, they just react to things by making changes that they haven't thought through.

But the changes in the way the game is played that we have witnessed over the past 20 years must be unprecedented. For the average score in a game to fall by two goals in a few years is alarming. Something has to give. If the AFL didn’t do anything we’d be complaining

 

[box070]

But the changes in the way the game is played that we have witnessed over the past 20 years must be unprecedented. For the average score in a game to fall by two goals in a few years is alarming. Something has to give. If the AFL didn’t do anything we’d be complaining

As long as my team keeps winning I couldn’t care less about the amount of scoring. Coaches coach to win. Their jobs and livelihoods depend on it. Defence is what wins you games so coaches take that path. No amount of rule changes will change that as the coaches will continue to outsmart the AFL.
The worse rules the AFL changed, were the rules around the ruck (nomination 3rd man up) and the adjudication of the holding the ball and incorrect disposal.