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

[Obelix]

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.

Stats don't lie mate. Uncontested marking numbers were through the roof and it became a possession based game rather than a highly contested game. In the post-match presser, dimma acknowledged that the new rules were the cause of this. But hey... what does he know?

Look it's only one pre-season hit-out so it's not a great sample size. Hopefully come the regular season the pressure and intensity lifts and it becomes a better spectacle. But if last night is any indicator, this doesn't improve the game at all in my view - quite the opposite.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Stats don't lie mate. Uncontested marking numbers were through the roof and it became a possession based game rather than a highly contested game. In the post-match presser, dimma acknowledged that the new rules were the cause of this. But hey... what does he know?

Look it's only one pre-season hit-out so it's not a great sample size. Hopefully come the regular season the pressure and intensity lifts and it becomes a better spectacle. But if last night is any indicator, this doesn't improve the game at all in my view - quite the opposite.

It's not stats lying. It's the interpretation of those stats that are open to debate.

I'd argue that very few R1 praccy matches are highly contested games. Especially when one of those teams is the reigning Premier.

 

[Obelix]

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.

I get your point but you make it sound like the AFL was struggling to get bums on seats. As if the game was just a rolling rugby maul and we need to overhaul the rules and turn it into a hit and giggle game of T20 cricket. That might have been true 10 years ago when the game was really bogged down - but not the last 4-5 years. With interchange reductions, the game has really opened up. There are plenty of goals as it is. The balance between defence and attack has been pretty good.

It's not as if families are bored with footy and can't stand watching it. It's the most popular sport in the country for a reason. Kids love AFL. We don't need to mess with the rules too much.

Speaking of cricket, the thing I hate about T20 is that these days hitting a six is meaningless. The fence was brought in, bowlers were no longer allowed to bowl too short, too wide or to the leg side - and so the ball is delivered to the batsman right in the sweet spot. The fact that he smashes it out of the park is not that big an achievement.

In the old days, I would be out of my seat when I saw the ball sail over the fence because a six had to be earned. It took great skill to outwit the bowler. Today, I barely raise an eyebrow. "Meh, another six... big deal." Without the tactical substance that traditional forms of the game offered, the game became a little too superficial - and that's boring to someone like me. Sure, you want to get new people to want to watch the game, that's true - but not at the cost of losing the people who already love it.

 

[Grrr]

There was a contest though, that's how the team with the ball won the ball in the first place.

Why remove that advantage?

Why get an advantage? I always thought having the ball was an advantage enough, but with the umps interpretation you want to extend that advantage.

 

[Grrr]

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.

I'm arguing against MacIntosh's advantage, how is that reducing our sides premiership chances. Pot shots don't help your cause.

 

[Coaster2012]

Why even man the mark then? i'd just start a metre back from the mark so I can move, just in case the player plays on.

 

[HPKS]

Stats don't lie mate. Uncontested marking numbers were through the roof and it became a possession based game rather than a highly contested game. In the post-match presser, dimma acknowledged that the new rules were the cause of this. But hey... what does he know?

Look it's only one pre-season hit-out so it's not a great sample size. Hopefully come the regular season the pressure and intensity lifts and it becomes a better spectacle. But if last night is any indicator, this doesn't improve the game at all in my view - quite the opposite.

you know how you reduce the uncontested marking? You man up. This is part of a shift that a lot want to see. It’s what kills defensive zones. Allowing time and space so the kicker with good foot skills can work their way through that zone shyt. It’s allowing sides to do what Clarkson tried to get hawthorn to do for a long time. Good foot skills to work their way through zones. Turning

I'm arguing against MacIntosh's advantage, how is that reducing our sides premiership chances. Pot shots don't help your cause.

if it sounded like a pot shot I apologise as I’m directing it at a few who are against it due to the worry that their side might be hampered by it. Anyone can see through their argument against it. Like I’ve said sorry if it appears I was having a pot shot at you

 

[Kappa]

Tackles down 25% on 2019 averages in both games so far.

be interesting to see if this is a trend or just some outliers.

Are you comparing tackling numbers from practice games to real games?

 

[Kappa]

Why even man the mark then? i'd just start a metre back from the mark so I can move, just in case the player plays on.

For the 100th time, there's an exclusion zone, u can't just stand near the mark without being on the mark or giving away a 50.

 

[HPKS]

I get your point but you make it sound like the AFL was struggling to get bums on seats. As if the game was just a rolling rugby maul and we need to overhaul the rules and turn it into a hit and giggle game of T20 cricket. That might have been true 10 years ago when the game was really bogged down - but not the last 4-5 years. With interchange reductions, the game has really opened up. There are plenty of goals as it is. The balance between defence and attack has been pretty good.

It's not as if families are bored with footy and can't stand watching it. It's the most popular sport in the country for a reason. Kids love AFL. We don't need to mess with the rules too much.

Speaking of cricket, the thing I hate about T20 is that these days hitting a six is meaningless. The fence was brought in, bowlers were no longer allowed to bowl too short, too wide or to the leg side - and so the ball is delivered to the batsman right in the sweet spot. The fact that he smashes it out of the park is not that big an achievement.

In the old days, I would be out of my seat when I saw the ball sail over the fence because a six had to be earned. It took great skill to outwit the bowler. Today, I barely raise an eyebrow. "Meh, another six... big deal." Without the tactical substance that traditional forms of the game offered, the game became a little too superficial - and that's boring to someone like me. Sure, you want to get new people to want to watch the game, that's true - but not at the cost of losing the people who already love it.

It’s not as popular with kids as much as you think. Kids these days, in primary school they are a minority that loves the sport. They’d prefer to watch YouTube watching another person play a video game. And mums/dads involve themselves In What their children like. I was shocked to talk to a 30 year old father that did what his son did due to watching his son do this regularly. Most fathers put their kids in Auskick due to that’s what they did as a kid. The retention rate as they get older is a worry.


I prefer test cricket but with the way society is atm with wanting an instant result people don’t have the time or interest watching five days of a 4/5 test series. The canary in the cage is look at the loss of so many local sides in traditional footy states.

I loved that Richmond have won 3 of 4 premierships due to Mum supporting them but tbh I find their game plan boring to watch. I will say I have no interest to go back to the 70/80’s footy as it’s just plain dumb kick to kick.
I’ve said it before I’d prefer a more positional type of game with modern tactics.

 

[Obelix]

you know how you reduce the uncontested marking? You man up. This is part of a shift that a lot want to see. It’s what kills defensive zones. Allowing time and space so the kicker with good foot skills can work their way through that zone shyt. It’s allowing sides to do what Clarkson tried to get hawthorn to do for a long time. Good foot skills to work their way through zones. Turning


if it sounded like a pot shot I apologise as I’m directing it at a few who are against it due to the worry that their side might be hampered by it. Anyone can see through their argument against it. Like I’ve said sorry if it appears I was having a pot shot at you

But that's my point. If the intention was to encourage teams to man up, this rule didn't work. Instead, the defensive side is zoning of the entire ground because coaches know that it would be a mistake to man up. The rule didn't open the game up like it was supposed to (if last night was anything to go by). With the added zoning off, it actually encourages teams to take the safe short chip kicks and then it becomes a possession game until there's a skill error. If anything, you're agreeing with me.

As for your other point, I don't think it diminishes my team's chances a great deal to be honest. That's not why I'm complaining that's for sure. Time will tell, but I think most of our players are good enough to play well with or without this rule.

You can criticise the Tigers for a lot of things but the idea that they play a boring "hybrid version of union" as you put it is nonsense. Anyone can see that Richmond's game style from 2017 onwards sped the game up. The manic forward pressure forced opposition players to dispose of the ball immediately and make quicker decisions - and when the tigers had the ball they played on much more and moved the ball on much faster than most other teams. Watching Richmond win might not have been fun for a lot of people but the style of play definitely was - even for a neutral.

 

[Obelix]

It’s not as popular with kids as much as you think. Kids these days, in primary school they are a minority that loves the sport. They’d prefer to watch YouTube watching another person play a video game. And mums/dads involve themselves In What their children like. I was shocked to talk to a 30 year old father that did what his son did due to watching his son do this regularly. Most fathers put their kids in Auskick due to that’s what they did as a kid. The retention rate as they get older is a worry.


I prefer test cricket but with the way society is atm with wanting an instant result people don’t have the time or interest watching five days of a 4/5 test series. The canary in the cage is look at the loss of so many local sides in traditional footy states.

Yes, but this is true of every sport. It's not as if kids are abandoning AFL for a better sport. They're not choosing to watch the A-League or Super Rugby instead of AFL. Like you said, they'd rather be watching something online or playing video games. I'm in QLD and rugby clubs are dying up here as well. I can't remember the exact numbers but prior to COVID junior AFL numbers were booming in comparison. Some of the traditional rugby schools in Brisbane now have fewer rugby teams than they've ever had but have more AFL teams instead.

Look, even if there is a problem (and it's fair to say that there is one), I don't think the solution is to change the game in such a way that it alienates the people who already love it. This rule won't fix it that's for sure.

 

[Underarm]

I feel like I watched a completely different game to you. Seemed like the ball was pinging from end to end. Plenty of play ons. Not a lot of Mark, stop, Kick, Mark. Game felt pretty open.

 

[Obelix]

I feel like I watched a completely different game to you. Seemed like the ball was pinging from end to end. Plenty of play ons. Not a lot of Mark, stop, Kick, Mark. Game felt pretty open.

Fair enough. For the last quarter I'd agree with you but early on it was pretty frustrating - particularly the first half. Maybe I'm overreacting... it was the first time I saw it in action. Hopefully it can grow on me with a few more games.

 

[Jack5]

Needs a poll.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Never attended a game ever that I have heard fellow supporters say I hope it’s an open free flowing game, all you hear is I hope we win.
Still think it’s only the AFL who have a problem with the game, was never broken and they are into their third decade trying fix what was never broken.
The vast majority of fans only care whether their team wins or loses. Never been any different and to this day it’s still the same.

 

[doppleganger]

Fair enough. For the last quarter I'd agree with you but early on it was pretty frustrating - particularly the first half. Maybe I'm overreacting... it was the first time I saw it in action. Hopefully it can grow on me with a few more games.

That is more the Pies and Tigers actual style. Both are very strong defensively, and both backlines arguably strongest part of their team.

Nothing to do with the man on the mark change, if anything Pies were a bit more attacking than most of 2019-20!

 

[Power Raid]

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.

If you can’t kick, you can’t play footy!

No need to compromise the game to let people play.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Why get an advantage? I always thought having the ball was an advantage enough, but with the umps interpretation you want to extend that advantage.

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Having the ball in modern footy doesn't really give you all that much advantage. And that's the crux of the issue.

You're as vulnerable with the ball, as you are without it. And that's just a shit direction that the sport has taken.

The vast majority of scores come from turnovers which literally means that the biggest threat of being scored AGAINST is when YOU HAVE the ball. The game has lost the plot.

The most popular sports are based on the prinicple that good offence beats good defence. Footy used to be like that. But it hasn't been for some time.

This rule just tips the scales slightly back towards offence, which is actually closer to where it was for 100 years.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Never attended a game ever that I have heard fellow supporters say I hope it’s an open free flowing game, all you hear is I hope we win.
Still think it’s only the AFL who have a problem with the game, was never broken and they are into their third decade trying fix what was never broken.
The vast majority of fans only care whether their team wins or loses. Never been any different and to this day it’s still the same.

But dude, the AFL doesn't give a **** about the battlers that rock up every week.

They're rusted on losers that live and breathe footy and will support their team no matter what.

It's everyone else that is the issue. It's the people that watch sport to be entertained that are important.

They are the eyes on screens that they need. That is the market that is being fought for by all sports.
There are so many options now, that you have to be sure that your product appeals to this market.

Clearly the AFL have done their homework, and they're acutely aware that the shit that's been dished up recently isn't appealing.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

But that's the whole point, isn't it? Having the ball in modern footy doesn't really give you all that much advantage. And that's the crux of the issue.

You're as vulnerable with the ball, as you are without it. And that's just a sh*t direction that the sport has taken.

The vast majority of scores come from turnovers which literally means that the biggest threat of being scored AGAINST is when YOU HAVE the ball. The game has lost the plot.

The most popular sports are based on the prinicple that good offence beats good defence. Footy used to be like that. But it hasn't been for some time.

This rule just tips the scales slightly back towards offence, which is actually closer to where it was for 100 years.

They dont give the coaches time to work out an offence that can get through defence as theAFL change rules yearly and the coaches need to concentrate on the rule changes.
If the AFL 30 years ago had said the rules committee will meet once every 5 years to see how the game is going then coaches have time to adapt and evolve plans offensively and defensively.
Very reactive organisation the AFL and they are seeing things that clearly the fans don’t feel that strongly about as they keep attending and watching in huge numbers.
As they won’t leave the game alone even for one full season coaches will always fall back to defence first priority, the AFL think by changing the rules it will give average sides a better chance, it doesn’t though as the good sides will always be better than the average sides no matter what the AFL do.
There shouldn’t even be a rules committee at AFL house, just once every 5 years select a group of people to look at the rules and make changes based on a need and not a want.

 

[mxett]

No, we want a contest, not where someone gets an unfair advantage. If the umps do it right, no real problem, but it is almost impossible to get it right all the time.

By stacking the defence the coaches have already created an unfair advantage for the defense. When was the last time we saw a forward contest with a direct opponent for the entire game rather than a zone of 9 defenders?

 

[mxett]

They dont give the coaches time to work out an offence that can get through defence as theAFL change rules yearly and the coaches need to concentrate on the rule changes.
If the AFL 30 years ago had said the rules committee will meet once every 5 years to see how the game is going then coaches have time to adapt and evolve plans offensively and defensively.
Very reactive organisation the AFL and they are seeing things that clearly the fans don’t feel that strongly about as they keep attending and watching in huge numbers.
As they won’t leave the game alone even for one full season coaches will always fall back to defence first priority, the AFL think by changing the rules it will give average sides a better chance, it doesn’t though as the good sides will always be better than the average sides no matter what the AFL do.
There shouldn’t even be a rules committee at AFL house, just once every 5 years select a group of people to look at the rules and make changes based on a need and not a want.

you dont think the AFL needed to react to a decade of declining scoring? The game was being strangled by defensive tactics. It desperately needed balancing to allow players time and space to execute their skills. I've seen people blaming scrappy messy games on poor skills. No, players are just as skillful. Problem is they are contending with 10-20 players within their immediate vicinity as opposed to a few teammates and opponents. There is no way the game would have naturally evolved out of the state we see now. That's why every single coach has adapted the same tactics of zone defense and crowding the ball. It's basically unbeatable

 

[greatwhiteshark]

you dont think the AFL needed to react to a decade of declining scoring? The game was being strangled by defensive tactics. It desperately needed balancing to allow players time and space to execute their skills. I've seen people blaming scrappy messy games on poor skills. No, players are just as skillful. Problem is they are contending with 10-20 players within their immediate vicinity as opposed to a few teammates and opponents. There is no way the game would have naturally evolved out of the state we see now. That's why every single coach has adapted the same tactics of zone defense and crowding the ball. It's basically unbeatable

Why can’t the sport just be the sport? You don’t see the people running soccer removing the off side rule or saying the goal keeper must not be able to move when a penalty is taken, or introduce deliberate out of play. They accept their sport is the sport, there will be nil all draws that are good games and nil all draws that are bad games.
In footy we also have good games and bad games, 20 goals to 12 goals is not a good game it’s a hiding.
If footy had become a 7 goal to 5 goal regular game then yes something may need to be done, but it’s not that and not even close to it. It wasn’t broken and didn’t need fixing in my opinion. And they have not fixed it for the better.

 

[Grrr]

By stacking the defence the coaches have already created an unfair advantage for the defense. When was the last time we saw a forward contest with a direct opponent for the entire game rather than a zone of 9 defenders?

That is a separate issue. Just because one thing makes the game worse, doesn't mean you have to add another.