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

[boncer34]

For anyone who didn't see the abhorrent decision against Curnow in the Carlton game, you can see it from about 3.30 into the below. Curnow stops about 5m short of where the mark should be, still gets called for not standing. Unclear whether this is an error from the Umpire or if this is an AFL directive to avoid teams trying to flaunt the rule by going back off the mark.

If he's within 5m of the mark he's in the new protected zone. I don't think he's there but maybe the umpire did.

 

[falcons2]

Not as bad as most making out. Having said that, I thought the man on the mark rules were already clear and just poorly enforced.
A few howlers on the weekend but they should help clarify the interpretation. The Curnow one is great learning. If a player marks near the boundary, stay away. Keep 10m inside of the mark and you can even go forward of what the mark would have been. As for the Short / Saad types to go running passed, how about an opponent make them accountable rather than just flooding back.
It will be interesting to see some shots at goal from near the behind post and how that will work. Also when blokes are on the boundary and move around to make space for a shot at goal, will this allow the man on the mark to move with them?
On second thoughts I see a major mess ahead.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

thats a terrible example. that would be a problem for anything related to the umpire not knowing where the mark is, its not specific to this rule.

But if you need to adjudicate whether a man is 'standing' on the mark or not for this rule, you need to be aware of it if you're an umpire and if youre not, then your liable to make an incorrect decision like the Curnow one.. Not hard to know where the mark is.

 

[theyellowsash]

But if you need to adjudicate whether a man is 'standing' on the mark or not for this rule, you need to be aware of it if you're an umpire and if youre not, then your liable to make an incorrect decision like the Curnow one.. Not hard to know where the mark is.

the same can be said for a when players are allowed to move on the mark, and the umpire misjudges where it is and assumes they have gone over so pay 50m. the problem in the curnow case isnt specific to this rule, its related to the umpire just poorly judging where the mark is, which would be a problem in any of the rules related to the point of the mark.

the freo example is a better one to show where the umpires need to use a little common sense and allow players to jog on the spot for example.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

the same can be said for a when players are allowed to move on the mark, and the umpire misjudges where it is and assumes they have gone over so pay 50m. the problem in the curnow case isnt specific to this rule, its related to the umpire just poorly judging where the mark is, which would be a problem in any of the rules related to the point of the mark.

the freo example is a better one to show where the umpires need to use a little common sense and allow players to jog on the spot for example.

True, but goes to the point of adding in stupid rules for stupid sakes. They already had to determine if you went 'over' the mark, now they need to determine if you go eft right or behind the mark. Let the unmpires focus on one thing, simplify umpiring, pay less free kicks for stupid things and pay more free kicks for real things (like dropping and hgolding the ball) and let the players play. Gil is holding the reigns on the gradual destruction of football.

 

[Coops93]

That Curnow example is what I think will end up happening for a lot of marks, guys won't stand the "mark" but will drop back 6-7 metres from the mark and do what they used to do, i.e. cut off the 45 etc.

The risk for actually manning the mark will be too high you're better off giving 6 metres of space, especially if it's a meaningless chip kick like the Curnow example was.

 

[theyellowsash]

True, but goes to the point of adding in stupid rules for stupid sakes. They already had to determine if you went 'over' the mark, now they need to determine if you go eft right or behind the mark. Let the unmpires focus on one thing, simplify umpiring, pay less free kicks for stupid things and pay more free kicks for real things (like dropping and hgolding the ball) and let the players play. Gil is holding the reigns on the gradual destruction of football.

if you want the umpires to focus on 1 thing, and simplifying the rules, then this rule is exactly what you want. its much easier for the umpire to just have to watch from the corner of their eye whether the player is standing still, compared to having to watch them closely to make sure they dont go closer while moving around on an arc centered on the player with the ball.

think about it, whats simpler and easier to understand:
a) you have to stand there on that spot
b) you can move around wherever you want in an arc centered vaguely on that guy over there, but dont go closer than how close you are now. and if another one of your team mates runs past he can swap with you but he also has to follow the same rules i just mentioned.

 

[Grrr]

the same can be said for a when players are allowed to move on the mark, and the umpire misjudges where it is and assumes they have gone over so pay 50m. the problem in the curnow case isnt specific to this rule, its related to the umpire just poorly judging where the mark is, which would be a problem in any of the rules related to the point of the mark.

the freo example is a better one to show where the umpires need to use a little common sense and allow players to jog on the spot for example.

And that is exactly what is wrong with the whole thing. Just another rule that umps have to adjudicate using 'common sense as you put it' in the most rule driven game on the planet. And the penalty is so out of kilter with the infringement. Flatten someone late, off the ball etc, 50m. Walk backward one step.50.

Our umpires all have different interpretations of the rules as it is, many of our rules are quite flexible for want of a better word. Razor Ray say no more. Common sense and umpiring don't always go together.

 

[faible]

And that is exactly what is wrong with the whole thing. Just another rule that umps have to adjudicate using 'common sense as you put it' in the most rule driven game on the planet. And the penalty is so out of kilter with the infringement. Flatten someone late, off the ball etc, 50m. Walk backward one step.50.

Our umpires all have different interpretations of the rules as it is, many of our rules are quite flexible for want of a better word. Razor Ray say no more. Common sense and umpiring don't always go together.

What's there to interpret? Move or don't move. If your issue is subjective interpretations of rules, this should be one you're in favour of.

 

[Purple Suit]

What's there to interpret? Move or don't move. If your issue is subjective interpretations of rules, this should be one you're in favour of.

So lifting up a leg or getting cramp is 50m? There is always interpretations involved. The current mark rule was never an issue and the AFL added in the protected zone which became a farce and this one is going to make that farce look acceptable.

 

[faible]

So lifting up a leg or getting cramp is 50m? There is always interpretations involved. The current mark rule was never an issue and the AFL added in the protected zone which became a farce and this one is going to make that farce look acceptable.

The player didn't "lift a leg up" he literally took one or two steps off the mark. If you want consistency in rules, there it is.

If the AFL spent their time cleaning up the rules so more of them were black and white the umpiring would be far better for it.

 

[queensberryrules]

Oy Gil and Steve! There's a dent in the car!

 

[Purple Suit]

The player didn't "lift a leg up" he literally took one or two steps off the mark. If you want consistency in rules, there it is.

If the AFL spent their time cleaning up the rules so more of them were black and white the umpiring would be far better for it.

1 step backwards while stretching, sounds like punishment time. Maybe they should start fining us for 1km over the speed limit too as we are all technically breaking the law.

I want the AFL to stop changing stuff for no reason. Bullshit frees are 2nd only to bullshit 50m penalties in fan frustration. Why are you on here defending them, saying they should go further? Can't wait till it costs Essendon a game to see if you still like it then.

 

[faible]

1 step backwards while stretching, sounds like punishment time. Maybe they should start fining us for 1km over the speed limit too as we are all technically breaking the law.

But the rule is the rule; don't move. No grey, no interpretation, no "what was the players intention when disposing or not disposing of the ball" when trying to decide if it was incorrect disposal.

What infuriates people more than frees, more than 50m penalties, is the total and arbitrary inconsistency in the way the rules are interpreted week to week, game to game.

Why are you on here defending them, saying they should go further? Can't wait till it costs Essendon a game to see if you still like it then.

In 2019, Essendon lost a game when by rights, Rampe climbing up the post should have resulted in a free kick on the goal line. We played in a game where players stopped multiple times in-play because every player on the field believed it was holding the ball, but the umpires 'interpreted' the 'intention' of the player such that they believed it wasn't.

What I want is a tidy-up of the rules such that umpires aren't interpreting intentions or calculating geometry on the fly. More black & white rules that don't lead to the AFL having a rule of the round interpretation blitz, umpires having to be psychics, or the players stopping themselves mid-play because it's bleedingly obvious to everyone except the psychic umpire who interpreted the intentions in a players mind to dispose of the ball, so that even though they didn't actually dispose of the ball, it's apparently OK.

People complain about the umpiring inconsistency, then in the same breath, complain that they should apply 'common sense' or 'interpretations' to the rules that result in exactly the inconsistencies they complain about.

 

[Suma Magic]

How about this rule change to deal with the myriad issues just introduced?

Defensive players can move anywhere behind or in line with the mark.

 

[Always Ballin]

No it's not.

 

[Grrr]

What's there to interpret? Move or don't move. If your issue is subjective interpretations of rules, this should be one you're in favour of.

A couple of issues, the main one being if the man on the mark is not allowed to move, then nor should the kicker. Every game I watched the kicker was allowed to wonder off his line, sometimes many metres before the ump called play on. So how much deviation is allowed, how quickly is it play on.... umpire's discretion. A player turned his back and was penalised, another didn't man the mark, penalised. It is just more rules in a game that has more rules and getting more rules every season. And more rules means that umps have to make even more judgemental calls, in about the hardest game in the world to umpire.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

I barely watch any neutral AFL games start to finish anymore, because they're boring. This makes it worse, I won't be watching much footy outside of Tiger games this year beyond the odd channel surf when I'm at home.

I watch a lot more neutral games of NRL, because at least they are making sensible changes and improving their product year on year rather than the rules committee destroying the game with nonsense.

I'll watch and support every Richmond game avidly, but AFL games on the whole don't interest me at all anymore.

Know what your saying.Bit of the same myself.Scaled down watching other games(Think 9 games is too much lol).

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Can players on the mark still fart?

Would match the smell of the rule.

 

[faible]

A couple of issues, the main one being if the man on the mark is not allowed to move, then nor should the kicker. Every game I watched the kicker was allowed to wonder off his line, sometimes many metres before the ump called play on. So how much deviation is allowed, how quickly is it play on.... umpire's discretion. A player turned his back and was penalised, another didn't man the mark, penalised. It is just more rules in a game that has more rules and getting more rules every season. And more rules means that umps have to make even more judgemental calls, in about the hardest game in the world to umpire.

Personally, I'd be in favour of the player with the ball moving being called play on as well. They get a buffer zone of 10m around them, but once they move, they're in play, which means the umpire then only blows their whistle if there's an infringement and it's otherwise considered as play on, instead of the man on the mark having to wait for the call.

No interpretation required there either.

It's unclear from the rulebook whether the umpire can nominate that a player is manning the mark, whether they intend to or not, which requires some clarification to explain the Curnow case. The Fremantle player actively stepped off the mark, yes it was backwards to stretch, yes the West Coast player was taking a set shot, but they actually stepped off the mark.

Players shouldn't get any leeway once they step sideways, Buddy and Daniher's kicking arcs be damned.

 

[Purple Suit]

Personally, I'd be in favour of the player with the ball moving being called play on as well. They get a buffer zone of 10m around them, but once they move, they're in play, which means the umpire then only blows their whistle if there's an infringement and it's otherwise considered as play on, instead of the man on the mark having to wait for the call.

No interpretation required there either.

It's unclear from the rulebook whether the umpire can nominate that a player is manning the mark, whether they intend to or not, which requires some clarification to explain the Curnow case. The Fremantle player actively stepped off the mark, yes it was backwards to stretch, yes the West Coast player was taking a set shot, but they actually stepped off the mark.

Players shouldn't get any leeway once they step sideways, Buddy and Daniher's kicking arcs be damned.

Or just don't change the rule? The AFL introduced the Cane toads rule to combat Cane beetles along time ago. We're now through just about every animal and Hocking is in the lab trying to engineer a new one.

 

[Dr Tigris]

First one is correct, But incredibly sh*t.

Second one the umpire just didn't do his job and basically gifted Daniher a play on. You are going to let some players as a poster pointed out, start a run and carry and the defender is at the mercy of the umpire to call play on, taking a player out of the contest, naturally if he moves or wants to get into a position to guard space, he's going to give away a 50

I think you'll see if these dogshit rules stay players are going to play on from a mark close to where they took it and either draw a 50 from the man on the mark moving his foot, or suddenly he's 4m behind the play standing still before the umpire calls play on

Exactly. And the fast evasive players will tear it all apart. Could be fast and exciting. And totally unlike what we're used to.

In the right circumstances it'll be like a ....... actually I can't think of another Aussie rules situation where someone can run around another player into protected space and the other player can't move. Could lead to some strange play

 

[faible]

Or just don't change the rule? The AFL introduced the Cane toads rule to combat Cane beetles along time ago. We're now through just about every animal and Hocking is in the lab trying to engineer a new one.

They’re trying to limit coaches ability to structure up defensively. This takes a man out of the zone, opens up more kicking angles, or the ability for a quick player to run off the man on the mark more easily. All whilst introducing a rule that requires no interpretation.

If you’re fundamentally opposed to defensive slogfests and rule interpretations, this is trying to go the opposite direction.

 

[theyellowsash]

How about this rule change to deal with the myriad issues just introduced?

Defensive players can move anywhere behind or in line with the mark.

the fatal flaw with that one, is that there were 0 issues introduced, so youre doing the 'rules for rules sake' thing again

 

[FlowersByIrene]

They’re trying to limit coaches ability to structure up defensively. This takes a man out of the zone, opens up more kicking angles, or the ability for a quick player to run off the man on the mark more easily. All whilst introducing a rule that requires no interpretation.

If you’re fundamentally opposed to defensive slogfests and rule interpretations, this is trying to go the opposite direction.

You know what would break up a defensive zone. Paying a free kick at a stoppage where a player drops the ball instead of allowing it to descend into a rolling maul as the player "tried to dispose of it". While the tackler gets up to take his kick, a swarm fo players spread out - presuming the tackler is quick enough, you can get a quick ball away while the players spread and breakdown the zone.

No need to artifically take a player out of the contest by freezing the man on the mark when they were effectively out of the contest already. The only difference being they can't move side to side. It's hardly a big issue, the man on the mark being an active player just promotes the kicker doing a little feint or a fake one way and a move to the other, much like a lookaway pass or a hesitation in other sports. Those players skillful enough to do that should reap the benefit of an open kicking lane, those who can't won't. We shouldn't legislate itby freezing the player on the mark as it just feels hollow and the fans recognise that theres no great awe or excitement in the kicker taking a kick other than down the ground as the defender wasn't permitted to try and stop them.