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

[Tugga27]

Our umpires are pretty dumb.

If it doesn’t affect anything, then don’t call it.

It's not really the umps job to decide that though.
Then they will get criticized for being inconsistent.

 

[sprockets]

Good, Scoring is a good thing. You shouldn't deserve to set up defensive zones all the time. Not fussed personally.

Yet we don't want stoppages, of which scoring is the major one.

 

[Grrr]

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

The zones won't change, coaches ill adapt. The zones might just pull back a bit and concede that space where the mark is which might force more kicks long kick down the line to an even more crowded forward lines. A bit like soccer where the forwards spend more time in the middle and break forward.

 

[Grrr]

I’m fine with the rule change, just seems logical really.

For people against the change, often it’s people against any change ever, but there are also those who say the game isn’t as good to watch as it could be or used to be (often the same people).

Thing is the rules of the game have never been left alone, ever. Same with other sports, things always change and evolve.

Not saying change for changes sake is the way to go, but stubborn resistance to any change isn’t the answer either.

Our game changes far more than any other, no other sport gets new rules every season. When this rule costs a side a game, which it will, then see how accepting we all are then. The game is played at breakneck speed anyway, this rule will make it quicker. You wouldn't want to be slow in football today, Greg Williams wouldn't get near a jumper.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yet we don't want stoppages, of which scoring is the major one.

For your side maybe. Open play and shifting it into the corridor is good footy

 

[HPKS]

I don't know why the AFL are delaying what they want, just put the two big lines across the ground and have zones where players cannot leave their area. 6 on 6 in 3 areas of the ground.

Zones are being trialled this year in the VFL. It’s obvious it’s to condition everyone for the future implementation of some type of zones. I’ll hold my judgement until I see how it works in the VFL.

 

[Ace It Up]

It's not really the umps job to decide that though.
Then they will get criticized for being inconsistent.

Exactly. You would get to the point that whilst I having a set shot for goal, the said "statue" moved and I kick a behind. Does the ump deem the movement affected my kick and take me to the goal square (50m penalty) and give me another shot for an almost certain goal from there? Surely one could argue the rule if ump didn't? The rule is very simple. Here is the mark, now just stand there like a stale bottle of p**s! Still early days, so I neither for/against rule but I don't like the look of the man on the mark standing completely still like some little kid that's been sent to the naughty corner. You have to let the Mitch Robinson's jump Up and Down and flap their wings/arms.

 

[eastfreo75]

It's not really the umps job to decide that though.
Then they will get criticized for being inconsistent.

It’s the most stuffed up rule.

 

[Shaunbkk]

Our game changes far more than any other, no other sport gets new rules every season. When this rule costs a side a game, which it will, then see how accepting we all are then. The game is played at breakneck speed anyway, this rule will make it quicker. You wouldn't want to be slow in football today, Greg Williams wouldn't get near a jumper.

Really people...ok with the change... ok let's play with legs tied, a spoon in our mouths and we all wear pyjamas... our game WAS far better to watch before, for many of you, you were not around so you only have those great videos to remind you... and NO other sports roots around the rules anything like the Victorian AFL knobhead morons. Hahahaha will be fun watching the anxiety, robbery, confusion and stupidity this year. The majority think the rule is a joke. The minority are the joke. RIP Great Australian Rules Football is we are all cowering to people in power and tiny IQs.

 

[dont bowl there]

Rule makes sense and from the small sample seemed to open up the ground and encourage inside kicks and quick movement. Man on the mark is actually getting adjudicated as the name suggests...the horror.

 

[Grrr]

Really people...ok with the change... ok let's play with legs tied, a spoon in our mouths and we all wear pyjamas... our game WAS far better to watch before, for many of you, you were not around so you only have those great videos to remind you... and NO other sports roots around the rules anything like the Victorian AFL knobhead morons. Hahahaha will be fun watching the anxiety, robbery, confusion and stupidity this year. The majority think the rule is a joke. The minority are the joke. RIP Great Australian Rules Football is we are all cowering to people in power and tiny IQs.

Pretty sure I was agreeing with you.

 

[mxett]

Our game changes far more than any other, no other sport gets new rules every season. When this rule costs a side a game, which it will, then see how accepting we all are then. The game is played at breakneck speed anyway, this rule will make it quicker. You wouldn't want to be slow in football today, Greg Williams wouldn't get near a jumper.

how is it going to cost a side a game? If a player moves on the mark after all the education they've had it's their fault.

Yes the AFL has introduced many rules in recent years. They've tried to tinker around the edges with small rule changes to balance the defensive tactics the coaches have introduced. These tactics have changed the game substantially. Yet fans are complaining about how the AFL are introducing rules that will change the game. Too late, the coaches have already done it

 

[W.C. Fry]

Flicked on Pies v Tigers. After 3 minutes of hearing the umpires yell "STAND" 20 times I am turning off. I am not putting up with hearing that after every single mark and free kick.

Already sick of them telling the players what to do "don't hold" etc. Either pay the free kick or shut the **** up. They are there to umpire, not coach.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Flicked on Pies v Tigers. After 3 minutes of hearing the umpires yell "STAND" 20 times I am turning off. I am not putting up with hearing that after every single mark and free kick.

Already sick of them telling the players what to do "don't hold" etc. Either pay the free kick or shut the fu** up. They are there to umpire, not coach.

Its just like Auskick (Auskick Football League)
Now that we are at this point I think it is asking to much now for players taking marks to hold the ball so long, as long as you touch it then it should be a mark. Trying needs to be rewarded.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

The idea that moving to the side is some magical all-powerful defensive manoeuvor is insane.

No it's not.

Changing lanes is literally how teams score. It's literally exactly how they're coached to breach defenses.

If you make it hard for attacking teams to change lanes, you instantly make it easier for defensive structures.

The AFL doesn't want to make it easier to defend and harder to score.


I don't see an issue with this new rule at all.

It has zero negative impact from an aesthetic perspective, it's simple for players to adhere to, easy to umpire, and makes it easier for teams to attack without messing with any fundamentals of the game.

 

[NoobPie]

No it's not.

Changing lanes is literally how teams score. It's literally exactly how they're coached to breach defenses.

If you make it hard for attacking teams to change lanes, you instantly make it easier for defensive structures.

The AFL doesn't want to make it easier to defend and harder to score.


I don't see an issue with this new rule at all.

It has zero negative impact from an aesthetic perspective, it's simple for players to adhere to, easy to umpire, and makes it easier for teams to attack without messing with any fundamentals of the game.

People want to whinge about afl hq

 

[Obelix]

Tonight was the first game I've watched with this new rule and I absolutely hate it. To some degree, it seems to do the opposite of what the AFL intended. It forces the defending team to zone the entire ground like crazy and this stops the game from flowing.

When they bring the ball out of the back half, players appear reluctant to kick it long. Most seem happy to settle for a safe short chip kick to a stationary player. So it turns into a boring game of chip-kicking sideways. There's actually less action - not more.

Once the zone is set up, there's no incentive for forward defensive players to be aggressive in closing down the space on the ball-carrier as they're afraid of creating a gap in the zone behind them. With less pressure on the player kicking the ball, this makes it easier for him to spot someone up with a short chippy kick.

I might be the only one here who thinks this but I actually like seeing players being forced to make quick decisions and dispose of the ball under intense pressure - hopefully kicking it long to the advantage of a team-mate who is also under pressure. I like it when players have to earn a mark. I also like it when players have to win the hard-ball off the ground and do other things that don't seem glamorous and flashy.

That stuff takes immense skill and courage. It separates the great players from the rest.

Time will tell if this creates more goals or not (tonight it didn't). But personally, I don't really care about seeing more goals - especially if they're easy lay ups that are handed to the attacking team on a silver platter. I want to see hard cracking contests. I'd much rather see a hard-fought 75-65 scoreline than a 145-135 basketball game.

Yes, no one wants to see those ugly rugby mauls we had 10 years ago but limiting the interchange numbers cleared a lot of that up. All they had to do was cut the interchange numbers down until they found the perfect balance. The speed of the game has improved enough in recent years and this change was completely unnecessary.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Tonight was the first game I've watched with this new rule and I absolutely hate it. To some degree, it seems to do the opposite of what the AFL intended. It forces the defending team to zone the entire ground like crazy and this stops the game from flowing.

When they bring the ball out of the back half, players appear reluctant to kick it long. Most seem happy to settle for a safe short chip kick to a stationary player. So it turns into a boring game of chip-kicking sideways. There's actually less action - not more.

Once the zone is set up, there's no incentive for forward defensive players to be aggressive in closing down the space on the ball-carrier as they're afraid of creating a gap in the zone behind them. With less pressure on the player kicking the ball, this makes it easier for him to spot someone up with a short chippy kick.

I might be the only one here who thinks this but I actually like seeing players being forced to make quick decisions and dispose of the ball under intense pressure - hopefully kicking it long to the advantage of a team-mate who is also under pressure. I like it when players have to earn a mark. I also like it when players have to win the hard-ball off the ground and do other things that don't seem glamorous and flashy.

That stuff takes immense skill and courage. It separates the great players from the rest.

Time will tell if this creates more goals or not (tonight it didn't). But personally, I don't really care about seeing more goals - especially if they're easy lay ups that are handed to the attacking team on a silver platter. I want to see hard cracking contests. I'd much rather see a hard-fought 75-65 scoreline than a 145-135 basketball game.

Yes, no one wants to see those ugly rugby mauls we had 10 years ago but limiting the interchange numbers cleared a lot of that up. All they had to do was cut the interchange numbers down until they found the perfect balance. The speed of the game has improved enough in recent years and this change was completely unnecessary.

I don't think the man on the mark not being able to move laterally changed anything that you raised one bit.

All it has done, is facilitate more opportunity to play on quickly. Basically, the team that has won the ball gets a slight advantage in the sense that they potentially have more options available.

Nothing more.

 

[footyfan1978]

I don't know why the AFL are delaying what they want, just put the two big lines across the ground a

We only need one. Through the centre circle all the way to both wing boundaries.

 

[footyfan1978]

Not seen the game tonight. Was it the same as last night. Nothing of note again?

 

[scottyt2]

I don't think the man on the mark not being able to move laterally changed anything that you raised one bit.

All it has done, is facilitate more opportunity to play on quickly. Basically, the team that has won the ball gets a slight advantage in the sense that they potentially have more options available.

Nothing more.

Did you not watch the game tonight? Richmond racked up world record number of marks (136)...they averaged only 85 last year adjusted for normal time. We'll be seeing teams chipping the ball around a hell of a lot this year geelong are going to love it...

 

[WillHayward]

People comparing pre seasons games with finals and then saying the rule is no good.

Oh dear.

 

[WillHayward]

Think they should get rid of tackling too and bouncing the ball when running. That way we can reduce the contest to whoever wins the ball in dispute out of a centre bounce. The player with the footy could just stroll all the way up the ground and take a shot. Would increase scoring. Could even increase it even more if they eliminate the centre bounce and just give the footy to one of the players 20m out from goal, no need to waist all that time moving the footy from the centre to scoring range. More scoring. Need to make it fair though either teams alternate getting the footy or if that becomes too boring (I'm sure it won't, there will be far too much excitement generated by all the scoring) introduce a coin toss to decide who gets the footy. Maybe this is going too far though it might resemble gambling a little too much for the AFL's liking. Pretty soon the afl will realise they don't need all these players, just one on each team will do, don't need field umpires or boundary umpires either. Or grounds with two ends really. Imagine how profitable the AFL would become, increased revenues from all the extra advertising in the five minute breaks between scores (did I mention that already) and all the extra eyeballs watching this captivating new version of the sport AND lower expenses. More bonuses for AFL staff they could even make a good case for a payrise. Eventually they could even shrink the ground even further, and the goals and change the ball, it's a funny shape and too unpredictable when it comes to scoring. Get rid of behinds too - not high scoring enough and make goals worth 25 points each. More scoring. Imagine if the target was something small that throwing something small like a handsized beanbag into it would be considered an acceptable challenge, not too challenging though, scoring is what brings the fans so need to remember that. With a bit of planning and foresight I reckon nearly anyone could play AFL and nearly anywhere. Retired folks could even play it on cruise ships. There would be a massive market for this sort of content and it's a sure path to global domination of the sporting landscape. More scoring and more money for AFL staff. It would be good for footy.

Utter crap.
All the rule does is reduce people kicking down the line along the boundary all day.
Which we all agree is no good.

All you have done is create a strae man

 

[BF Tiger]

The AFL made a wrong decision allowing players like daniher and buddy to move off the line, without calling play on. Daniher and Buddy would have adapted and learnt how to kick properly, if the AFL upheld the rules.

IMHO what they should have done with Buddy and Joe is let them have their arc, but not let them improve their angle. It would’ve seen them setting up closer to the boundary so when they arced they didn’t cross the man on the mark.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

People complaining about natural arcs now, the issue is the interpretation of "kick over the mark"
Legally, you should be able to run around and do pirouettes as long as you kick over the mark, particularly as there is a 10m exclusion zone. Again the rule has nothing about run ups.

It's a cluster-fork of a mess now