One errant step sideways, yes it is the players fault, but if it takes someone from the wing to 30m out at the 30minute mark of a game when they are 5points behind and the player kicks the goal, you can bet there will be a near riot at the ground and it will be replayed ad nauseam all week in the footy news. Is that what we want for our footy.
-
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.
The 10m zone has nothing to do with the kicking over the mark, once you run off your line, it is play on. If a player runs in a natural arc like buddy they never kick over their marks, that is why the umps often call play on. Same with the screw kick around the body, you have to start your run back and as long as you kick on your mark there is no play on.
This is the new rule at it's finest, and I've watched 7minutes of highlights to find this, so I imagine it is not an isolated incident.
Is this the advantage for the kicker we want, runs 20m (and he could have run further) before the man on the mark has any ability to put pressure on his opponent, Yes the ump should have made him start over his mark, but that is football, they can't control every moment, players will take an advantage when they see one.
Is this the advantage for the kicker we want, runs 20m (and he could have run further) before the man on the mark has any ability to put pressure on his opponent, Yes the ump should have made him start over his mark, but that is football, they can't control every moment, players will take an advantage when they see one.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Apr 27, 2014
- 7,689
- 12,060
- AFL Club
- Richmond
yep having watched last night's game, it's just a pointless rule that requires the umpires to add another layer complexity to their life, they now cannot forget to call play-on instantly or it reduces to statue-farce.
Before it worked well organically, with play-on call timing only really crucial for tight shots for goal.
Man-on-the-mark was the least of anyone's concern, just imagine the complexity the game will involve if Hocking gets another few years of compounding rule changes on rule changes.
Not really.
If you're not kicking over the mark, call it back-as used to happen (including in the 2008 grand final for example)
- Apr 27, 2014
- 7,689
- 12,060
- AFL Club
- Richmond
lol they change lanes because there is a man on the mark in front of them stopping the lead up mark along a straight line to goal. The direct route is defended 98% of the time quite voluntarily. In the minority of cases the defender wants to scrooch east/west significantly, the direct route to goal is opened up, which is what the AFL want, direct attacking footy, but which they now are totally suffocating, so the whole thing is a brain-dead contradiction to start with.
Moreover as has been pointed out here ad nauseum, when you are 5 metres back from a player on the mark, their creeping 5 metres around on an angle represents a fractional solid-angle of defended space to the kicker and never blocks lateral kicks anyway. Any bozo with a calculator with trig functionality can prove that to themselves in 5 minutes. People on here talking about 'the 45 degree angle kick being opened up' are in mathematical la-la land.
Actually, as we learnt last night (were the commentators right about this?!), you can stand on the angle, or you can block the straight kick, it doesn't matter as long as you are a statue. It is motion the AFL is stopping.
From what I saw last night, the rule is pointless when adjudicated properly, i.e. when the umpire is red-hot on calling play-on when the marker steps off the line.
The rule is a blight on the game the moment the umpire loses absolute focus on this issue, and the defender is left in statue mode.
I want the umpires focused on important things, not utter mandanities like if both the defender and attacker have taken a step to the side. They have to watch both like eagles, at the same time...it is complicated rule that fixes a non-problem.
I think that's pretty much exactly what 'we' want.
The team that has won possession of the ball has an advantage. They have some level of control over the play.
Isn't that what footy (and sport in general) is about?
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,555
- 29,452
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Tackles down 25% on 2019 averages in both games so far.
be interesting to see if this is a trend or just some outliers.
be interesting to see if this is a trend or just some outliers.
Started midway through last year.
When the AFL decided to perform alise everything, teams stopped attacking the contest
an errant step forward would have done the same thing in previous years. Im sure the clubs will be recruiting players without involuntary leg jerks or restless leg syndrome to ensure it doesnt happen
in cricket an errant step is the difference between a no ball or being stumped. In basketball it's the difference between out-of-court or a 2/3 pointer. In tennis it could be the difference between an ace or a foot fault.
But they don't and it is just more reliance on umps to be on top of every little thing. It has never worked and never will because like so many rules there is a grey area, over the mark is one of the more common ones, that is why players constantly hedge sideways on the mark and look at the ump for some direction as to when is it going to be called play on. Now they can't and the advantage is 100% in favour of the attacking player.
I disagree. A 'mark' is where a possession was 'won'. The opposition player must 'stand' the mark. He doesnt 'walk' the mark. I have issue at all with the player on the mark having no influencing on the next play unless the player with the ball plays on
Aren't the bands of grass a bit under 10m?
He has kicked it from one step forward of where he started?
He could have progressed further if he just ran straight and kicked over the man on the mark!
Last night for mine showed there was nothing to worry about.
Players can 'stand' when asked to, smart players will proactively stand corridor side (Richmond players did this), and stupid players will stand boundary side giving attacking players more room to attack....exactly what people supposedly want.
It makes it easier to umpire, and favours the attacking team, win-win.
That is the entire intent, to favour the attacking team.
You beat your man in a contest, are awarded a mark, your opponent is out of the play...that was the original intent of the rule and play.
Of course again that evolved as coaches introduced better defensive systems.
And as you say, the umps always had to watch and make a call when it is play on, previously there was a grey area as the man on the mark would crib and try to edge forward whilst pretending to go 'east-west', so the umpire had to try and watch man on mark and the player, now they have one less thing to worry about
Couldn't be simpler, you are told to stand so funking stand.
Worked fine last night, if anything a few Richmond players were smart a fee times by standing where they wanted anyway!
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,555
- 29,452
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Last year averaged 61 tackles based on 20 minute quarters. Are you saying that you have stats for the second half of the year?
Firstly, my personal view is that the AFL as usual, have unnecessarily gone too far. I've said this before, but if they just enforced the existing rule about not encroaching the mark and time wasting, the game would change for the better.
And that's because coaches use the man on the mark as a critical defensive weapon.
Having said that, I'm not seeing what the issue really is with their new rule?
It doesn't detract from the fundamentals of Australian Rules Football one bit in my opinion.
Coaches use the man on the mark to block off options. A coach's ideal scenario is forcing a team to kick to a contest. They of course create such large numbers at that contest that aside from territory, there is zero advantage to the attacking team.
I disagree with your take on the fastest way to goal. The fastest and most dangerous path to goal is through the corridor. That's why teams do everything they can to use it - and why defending teams do everything they can to defend it.
The man on the mark is a key part in defending it.
The man on the mark can (and does) not only help in defending the corridor option, they also block the quick handball receive.
The handball receive and the corridor kick are the most potent offensive weapons there are. Aside from hoping someone takes a pack mark down the line against 7 defenders, it's really the only way to score cleanly.
By not allowing the man on the mark to block off these options, or at least making it harder to do so, then it just gives the attacking team more options. It doesn't really force them to do anything different from last year, it just means they have more options to go forward.
Regarding Richmond taking uncontested marks, shouldn't these stats be compared to other R1 Praccy match figures, and not real games? Seems illogical to look for patterns between two totally unrelated datasets.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
There was a contest though, that's how the team with the ball won the ball in the first place.
Why remove that advantage?
Going over the mark has always been a penalty and players generally know when they are doing it. The 50m call up from 15m to me was always a reach in these type of penalties anyway, 30m would be more appropriate, 50m for more serious offences like flattening someone after the ball.
Nup, he had the ball 70m out from goal and bombed it in long...like he was going to do anyway.
As you say the problem was the ump not actually putting him behind his mark to start with....but who the feck wants the umpires to stop play and police that when the player is on the wing/HF flank?
Exactly.
McIntosh was good enough to win the ball, he beat his opponent.
Why are people wanting to help the defending team set up their defensive zone and structures?
Why are they wanting the umpire to have to monitor whether the player on the mark is creeping forwards when they are moving around? Why make the umpire have to interpret more grey?
Why do they think a player who has lost a contest should still be part of the contest? They shouldn't be part of any contest unless it is deemed play is live again.
Tis baffling.
i like it plus the interchange cap reduction. Encourages scoring which for over a century is what the game is about. I couldn’t care less who topped the pressure ladder or who won most individual tackles for the year and I’d say 90% of the population doesn’t either.
It’s why young people & families have flocked to T20. They have no interest in listening to bowled Gary all day they like to see runs scored with good tactics that’s understandable for the average person. Just like footy should be. Goals scored with understandable tactics. Not a congested arm wrestle that to Mum n the kids is as exciting as watching paint dry.
It’s why young people & families have flocked to T20. They have no interest in listening to bowled Gary all day they like to see runs scored with good tactics that’s understandable for the average person. Just like footy should be. Goals scored with understandable tactics. Not a congested arm wrestle that to Mum n the kids is as exciting as watching paint dry.
Last edited:
they don’t. They’re worried the shift might reduce their sides chances at a premiership. It’s nothing to do with the game and everything to do with their hybrid version of union not working. Imo I think sides will adapt and there will not be a monumental shift with previous premiership sides plummeting down the ladder. They’ll dress it up all they want with different arguments but the crux of it is this.
