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

[Thetrader15]

It's not. That's just stupid. It's like saying the endgame for allowing gay marriage is to allow the marrying of dildos.

 

[Thetrader15]

I think you've misunderstood. I was referring to the new protected area behind the man on the mark, not the existing protected area in front of the man on the mark.

This is from the 2020 laws:

View attachment 1069146

This is from the 2021 laws.

View attachment 1069145

And this grey area (haha the irony) is from the mark, not the man on the mark. So if the man on the mark is 1m to the right of the actual mark, then players can go within 9m of him on the right of the mark, and 11m from him on the left of the mark.

Nope, because the player on the mark defines the 10m, not where the mark actually was (well, that's what the diagram says to me).

 

[Suma Magic]

Nope, because the player on the mark defines the 10m, not where the mark actually was (well, that's what the diagram says to me).

You're right it does. But 20.1.2(a) says:

The Protected Area after a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick is a corridor which extends from 10 metres either side of The Mark and five metres behind, to 10 metres either side of, and five metre arc behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in Diagram 4.

So it's clear as mud. I'd guess that the words trump the diagram, but who knows.

 

[faible]

You're right it does. But 20.1.2(a) says:

The Protected Area after a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick is a corridor which extends from 10 metres either side of The Mark and five metres behind, to 10 metres either side of, and five metre arc behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in Diagram 4.

So it's clear as mud. I'd guess that the words trump the diagram, but who knows.

Isn't the player supposed to stand on The Mark? Therefore they'd be one and the same.

 

[Suma Magic]

Isn't the player supposed to stand on The Mark? Therefore they'd be one and the same.

Law 20.1.1 states:

"When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may: (a) stand on The Mark; or (b) otherwise be directed by a field Umpire."


That is pretty unclear. What does part b mean? Well, Hocking clarified it this week:

"Hocking also clarified that players would receive roughly three seconds to decide if they’ll man the mark and, if so, where they’d like to stand on the mark before the umpire says “stand”.

He added players on the mark could use that three-second period to slightly angle themselves in an attempt to take “part of that kicking lane away”."

AFL ticks off 50m penalty paid against Brennan Cox as Crows coach fires off new rule warning

AFL explains why this ‘farcical’ call was spot on … but a coach admits it ‘worries me’

www.foxsports.com.au

So after Hocking's clarification, it's clear that players have a few seconds to choose where in the protected area they want to stand, or get out of the protected area. Once stand is called, they can't move.

But if they choose to stand somewhere else apart from the mark, the man taking the kick doesn't have to adjust. e.g. if someone decided to stand 5m inboard of the mark, the umpire isnt going to require the kicker to move 5m inboards also before being able to take his kick. The kicker stays where they are, and they are still required to move in a straight line to kick over the mark or else play on is called. This is confirmed by taking into account law 20.2(b):

"If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play."

 

[Thetrader15]

You're right it does. But 20.1.2(a) says:

The Protected Area after a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick is a corridor which extends from 10 metres either side of The Mark and five metres behind, to 10 metres either side of, and five metre arc behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in Diagram 4.

So it's clear as mud. I'd guess that the words trump the diagram, but who knows.

Depends on who the umpire is

 

[faible]

"Hocking also clarified that players would receive roughly three seconds to decide if they’ll man the mark and, if so, where they’d like to stand on the mark before the umpire says “stand”.

This is idiotic.

 

[Thetrader15]

Law 20.1.1 states:

"When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may: (a) stand on The Mark; or (b) otherwise be directed by a field Umpire."


That is pretty unclear. What does part b mean? Well, Hocking clarified it this week:

"Hocking also clarified that players would receive roughly three seconds to decide if they’ll man the mark and, if so, where they’d like to stand on the mark before the umpire says “stand”.

He added players on the mark could use that three-second period to slightly angle themselves in an attempt to take “part of that kicking lane away”."

AFL ticks off 50m penalty paid against Brennan Cox as Crows coach fires off new rule warning

AFL explains why this ‘farcical’ call was spot on … but a coach admits it ‘worries me’

www.foxsports.com.au

So after Hocking's clarification, it's clear that players have a few seconds to choose where in the protected area they want to stand, or get out of the protected area. Once stand is called, they can't move.

But if they choose to stand somewhere else apart from the mark, the man taking the kick doesn't have to adjust. e.g. if someone decided to stand 5m inboard of the mark, the umpire isnt going to require the kicker to move 5m inboards also before being able to take his kick. The kicker stays where they are, and they are still required to move in a straight line to kick over the mark or else play on is called. This is confirmed by taking into account law 20.2(b):

"If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play."

"If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play."



Hmm...

 

[Suma Magic]

Depends on who the umpire is

maybe. But someone knows the answer to the question. Or at least they should do.

 

[Suma Magic]

"If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play."



Hmm...

Yeah just a clear umpire error there.

To the letter of the law, the kicker can move as much as the man on the mark. Not that it will be interpreted it that way.

 

[Suma Magic]

This is idiotic.

It is.

There is no incentive to stand anywhere but the mark though, or else you can’t stop the player just running in a straight line right past you.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

"If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play."



Hmm...

And GC player can only just stand there with arms out indicating ...... What in the bleeding hell fcuk !!!!!!!

 

[Grrr]

I've seen a few other non-AFL.com.au journos say similar things too after watching the rule in action at intraclubs and the practice matches. People are just ridiculously overreacting to a couple of prominent examples having not actually watched any footy where the rule is used to see the positive effects.

Did you watch how on nearly every occasion the kicker was able to wander off his mark without being called play on. Is that what we want in football? It is comical to be allowed to wander off your line and nothing can be done about it, wave your arms and plead to the umps. It just give the umps more attention, which is exactly what we don't need in the game, more umpire involvement.

If the umps clamp down on that advantage, then I have no real problem with it, maybe a slight lateral movement of a step or so, they are not soldiers on parade after all, as then both players are equal in what they can do.

 

[Grrr]

Indeed. Out of the thousands of marks and free kicks in the practice matches. There's like what, 4 paid? But that's not what sells papers.

But there were hundreds of examples of a player running off his line when kicking, which is and always has been, play on. The umps completely relaxed that interpretation. Do you really want that.

 

[Golden_6]

It is.

There is no incentive to stand anywhere but the mark though, or else you can’t stop the player just running in a straight line right past you.

That’s not true at all. Any player who marks the ball on the boundary, it is much more effective to man the mark a few metres towards the corridor laterally. This prevents the opposition for hitting an inside kick, and the defenders would prefer the kicker to continue down the line.

 

[D-N-R]

That’s not true at all. Any player who marks the ball on the boundary, it is much more effective to man the mark a few metres towards the corridor laterally. This prevents the opposition for hitting an inside kick, and the defenders would prefer the kicker to continue down the line.

If the person manning the mark is 2 metres from the actual mark, the man with the ball can simply run through the mark and the defender can't move until the umpire calls play on. He will be moving at pace while the defender is flat footed. Any attempt to anticipate the play on will result in a 50.

 

[theyellowsash]

But there were hundreds of examples of a player running off his line when kicking, which is and always has been, play on. The umps completely relaxed that interpretation. Do you really want that.

no, but thats a completely different rule, and the umpires calling or not calling play on has always been a problem since around 2008 (i wonder why that could be)

 

[Grrr]

no, but thats a completely different rule, and the umpires calling or not calling play on has always been a problem since around 2008 (i wonder why that could be)

It may be, but it is exaggerated by the man on the mark rule. Having said that I thought the umps were more lenient on the kicker moving off his line than normal, I would suggest as part of the desire that the new rule was created for, to move the ball on unhindered.

I really hope that teams play this like soccer, when the ball carrier in the back half is often not challenged and they chip it laterally across the back line, and back again because the forwards have all fallen back to crowd up the opposition forward line, which will do the exact opposite to what the rule was introduced for. Intercepting players like McGovern are going to love it when teams are forced to eventually bang it long.

 

[smashbox gill]

Rule is BS

 

[gingernuts]

Whoever makes these rule changes,they are the same as parking ticket inspectors.
Will.just keep pissing people off until they get their quota.

 

[sprockets]

Watching the StKilda v Carlton game on delay and what seems apparent is that the umpires are watching the man on the mark and not watching what the kicker's doing. Goal 5 of the game had the kicker running out 2m or so on his run up for a better angle while the umpire was directing the man on the mark not to move. Ridiculous.

 

[master bate]

Did you watch how on nearly every occasion the kicker was able to wander off his mark without being called play on. Is that what we want in football? It is comical to be allowed to wander off your line and nothing can be done about it, wave your arms and plead to the umps. It just give the umps more attention, which is exactly what we don't need in the game, more umpire involvement.

If the umps clamp down on that advantage, then I have no real problem with it, maybe a slight lateral movement of a step or so, they are not soldiers on parade after all, as then both players are equal in what they can do.

In the backline or in the middle part of the ground the rule kind of works. But it's a mess with shots on goal. So:

If a forward is having a shot on goal (this can be judged by the umpire giving the player 30 seconds rather than the usual 8 or so) then the defender should be free to move side to side on the mark to allow for the run up angle.

It's a practical fix because an umpire is never going to be able to watch the mark and the forward at the same time and call play on quickly enough.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Whoever makes these rule changes,they are the same as parking ticket inspectors.
Will.just keep pissing people off until they get their quota.

Parking inspectors have no quota. They hate fining people as it just creates paperwork and ill-will. If they don't fine people, other people complain about cars being parked too long.

Go yell at a cloud.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

So the part (b) to the rule cited above was seen in full force tonight. It is effectively there to allow the Umpire to force the man on the mark to go to a certain position where the mark is. Rather than take up the mark at a slightly different spot. Was used to set players directly on the intersection of the boundary line for free kicks paid on the line.

 

[queensberryrules]

Parking inspectors have no quota. They hate fining people as it just creates paperwork and ill-will. If they don't fine people, other people complain about cars being parked too long.

Go yell at a cloud.

So you're that prick giving out tickets energetically on Exhibition Street?