LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Not fussed either way, it is pretty simple stand still. Players will get used to it
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Rules The new man on the mark rule is utterly ridiculous.
- Thread starter Donakebab
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
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."
Well the loop holes are starting to appear.
So a player has a 3 second window to choose where they stand. They dont need to stand where the mark was taken or defined initially by the umpire.
If they choose they can retreat 5 m and move sideways and jump.
I must say I dont like the direction that a player cant even jump higher to attempt to touch or smother a kick. That actually takes the theater out of the game to an extent. I like watching the Mitch Robinson's going nuts trying to distract the kicker. Now they stand there like an emotionless statue looking pissed off. Boring...........
gingernuts
binlicker
Don’t know what all the fuss is. Rule makes sense. Why should the person that’s either been out marked or given away a free kick have any type of manipulation on what the kicker decides to do. At the end of the day most people complain about zones and congestion and that’s what the man on the mark tried to influence. Either slow the play down or push the kicker to certain parts of the ground ie down the line. I like it so far.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
I've only watched a few games and I literally haven't seen much difference anyway. Literally by round 3 everyone won't notice the difference.
Ive noticed the slight difference. It’s not a major change but allows the kicker to play on that much earlier that it can make a difference to the play down the field. Meaning sides can’t get back that bit earlier to set up a defensive zone. But it’s not the earth shattering change some supporters are acting like. I understand why Richmond supporters are voicing their concerns as they may think it might effect their sides game plan.Imo theyre a very very good side. They’ll be up there challenging at the end of the season imo no matter what rule changes happen.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
That's a good thing, you shouldn't be able to set up a defensive zone when YOU are the ones that have been outworked or given up a free kick! It defies any logic there.
Players have had 3 months to learn that if you're on the mark, don't ****ing move until the ump calls play on, it's genuinely not that hard and if you still don't get it and decide to run around like an idiot then there's a penalty for being stupid.
There is a big difference, the man on the mark has to be flat footed, so fast players are learning if they have a run up they can literally just run past him and break the lines which massively opens up scoring opportunities.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Good, Scoring is a good thing. You shouldn't deserve to set up defensive zones all the time. Not fussed personally.
Watched two games in full now, barely noticed it.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Yep same don’t get the song and dance about it
Overall a good rule.
Was a total cheat tactic employed by coaches to cut off the corridor.
Was a total cheat tactic employed by coaches to cut off the corridor.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Exactly. Was pure and simply a “tactic”
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
No issues with it. If it stops these silly defensive zones all for it. Note the only teams that are whinging are the ones that have perfected these so called “defensive zones”
Its going to take a while for me getting used to a defender standing 45m-50m out forced to stand still while the forward is running in. A fundamental of defending used to be making the player kicking for goal kick it right over you so that they couldn't easily get that extra distance on their kick.
A tweak could be made to the rule that states when a player is going for goal the man on the mark could move more. I mean the player going for goal already gets more time for the kick than after a normal mark so why not.
What tactic?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Couldn't care about the zones, I'm talking about a man standing the mark watching whilst a bloke streams past him, the offensive players will work this out as the man on the mark is standing still and easy to get around. It will look absurd unless the ump calls play on very early on, which so far from the footy I've watched they haven't.
If they call play on as soon as he veers off from his line then no real problem, but again it is just another aspect of the game, like making rucks nominate, that revolves around more umpire involvement, which I am against.
Also every team zones.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Setting up purely defensive zones! Why do the blokes without the ball get the advantage? It’s a tactic nothing more and nothing less
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Teams will get used to it if it increases scoring that’s a good thing. We don’t want low scoring defensive scrubs because teams set up defensive zones all the time. Remove them they won’t be missed at all
- Banned
- #248
or just call play on when a player runs meters off the line
That won't change with this rule, defensive zones will always be there. It also will not make it any easier for blokes to bring the ball into the corridor as it wasn't very hard to do already. This is the elite level of the game and you surely don't think the elite players have problems hitting a target having to kick over a players head do you?
The rule is in place and so be it, I personally don't think it will achieve anything other than making the sport look more like Auskick than it already does.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Good we want it easier going through the corridor. That is a positive not a negative that you seem to think. Creates scoring and positive flow rather than games being stop start. The rule is fine
