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

[NoobPie]

You make a great point.

Why do we keep adding new rules? Why can't we remove the rules we implemented 10 years ago that didn't work, instead off using band-aid rules to fix broken rules?

Well, they've removed in the last few years than hands in the back rule and the "no prior" when a ruckmen takes the ball out of the ruck


Should also be noted that none of the recent changes (I can think of) beyond third man up are adding new rules so much as amending rules that are already in place.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You make a great point.

Why do we keep adding new rules? Why can't we remove the rules we implemented 10 years ago that didn't work, instead off using band-aid rules to fix broken rules?

I think they are lost, they have changes so many rules and interpretations that they actually changed the sport.
Changing the sport is not evolution it is exactly as it says, changing the sport.
Nothing has been fixed or made better, the game is no better to watch in my opinion than it was 30 years ago. The evolution of the players with their speed, endurance and strength was always going to congest our game and add to that the coaching evolution the game became a harder game to score in.
The AFL in their wisdom thought they will change the sport so they did and they continue to change it with fail after fail.
This sport was never ever broken, the vast majority loved it, the sport was the sport. Rule changes are tampering, only players and coaches can provide evolution and because they change rules yearly it makes coaches and players continually have to address new rules instead of evolving the game.
People keep saying they want more scoring, well leave the sport alone for 5 years and let the coaches evolve attacking plans to try and score more instead of having them in a constant reaction mode to how to play the game with the new rules all the time.
It really has become a mess the entire sport and all thanks to AFL house who should never ever of messed with something that was already great.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

It's more often bad comms than bad decisions though.

I think most of the changes to improve the space and flow of the game in the last 3 years have been good (i.e. the kick in rule changes, 6-6-6 and the "stand" rule). What they all have in common is they don't involve far more severe interventions like reducing the number of players on the field or zoning type changes (outside of the restart after a goal)

I get it, some people are more negative to change and more cynical about town hall than others. At the extreme end you have people like mr bagcroft who lose their mind and flicks the switch to ad hominem because somebody announces they have come round to an AFL rule change

I like the 6-6-6 rule, I would like to see that extended to when we have stoppages due to an injury etc that at the restart no matter where the ball is at the time the 6-6-6 rule applies.
I dislike the kick in rule, the elite of the sport don’t need help clearing their defensive 50, help the kids out at Auskick yes but not the elite. Traditionally I like the ball kicked in from the goal square. They can have the man on the mark have to be back 20m but I would prefer they go back to you must touch it on your boot before you run out of the square as it was previous.
As for this new rule I still don’t understand how the elite of the game were having trouble with moving the ball around? They are simply in my view giving the elite to much help here, the game is supposed to be hard. The AFL are treating the elite like auskickers.
Anyway it won’t stop, more rules will come and change as the AFL continue to try and fix what was never ever broken.

 

[AFDogs]

I've changed my mind on this rule. It is actually quite decent, as long as players adapt and aren't giving away 50s each game. If players keep forgetting, moving and 50 metres keep being given, it'll ruin games and impact match results.

Players have been great at adapting so far. Have got to give them credit.

 

[Grrr]

thats not the rule. Once the player with the ball moves off their line it's called play on

The problem is the umpire in general field play does not have the ability to put the marking player on their line every time. Previously if he creeps around then the man on the mark also creeps around accordingly, which lessened the advantage. Now the man on the mark has to stay on the mark, even though the kicker has crept around. I saw Richmond's MacIntosh run to the 50 and kick a goal doing exactly this.

Do we really want to see the umpire intervene and blow the whistle and make him move back over his mark, because other wise it is a massive advantage. You can't do it when taking a set shot, but you can if you play on. Just for more uncontested goals, that is not football.

 

[HPKS]

I like the 6-6-6 rule, I would like to see that extended to when we have stoppages due to an injury etc that at the restart no matter where the ball is at the time the 6-6-6 rule applies.
I dislike the kick in rule, the elite of the sport don’t need help clearing their defensive 50, help the kids out at Auskick yes but not the elite. Traditionally I like the ball kicked in from the goal square. They can have the man on the mark have to be back 20m but I would prefer they go back to you must touch it on your boot before you run out of the square as it was previous.
As for this new rule I still don’t understand how the elite of the game were having trouble with moving the ball around? They are simply in my view giving the elite to much help here, the game is supposed to be hard. The AFL are treating the elite like auskickers.
Anyway it won’t stop, more rules will come and change as the AFL continue to try and fix what was never ever broken.

I think forward/defensive 50 zones are inevitable and with the trial of the 3 12 3 zones rules being trialled in the vfl I think the writing is on the wall that’s it’s coming sooner rather than later. I’ll hold my judgement until I watch some vfl.

You bring in zones and imo I agree we shouldn’t need the new kick out rule as 6 less players to congest should open up the ground.

Lastly the man on the mark rule became part of the zone. Slowing up play or hemming in the kicker to allow time for numbers to get back. The space was always just behind the mark or to either side. That used to be where the avenue to play on was. Over the last few decades it’s been taken away. It was no different to how we used to see players be prepared to give away the 15m penalty. You said you are 53 so I think you’d remember how that disappeared very quickly when it was introduced to 50m.

Imo it’s just reverted back to what the man on the mark was for a very long time. You can see it on YouTube in old games.

I will say though I have no interest in the game reverting back to glorified kick to kick. I’d prefer modern tactics with positional play.

 

[NoobPie]

The problem is the umpire in general field play does not have the ability to put the marking player on their line every time. Previously if he creeps around then the man on the mark also creeps around accordingly, which lessened the advantage. Now the man on the mark has to stay on the mark, even though the kicker has crept around. I saw Richmond's MacIntosh run to the 50 and kick a goal doing exactly this.

Do we really want to see the umpire intervene and blow the whistle and make him move back over his mark, because other wise it is a massive advantage. You can't do it when taking a set shot, but you can if you play on. Just for more uncontested goals, that is not football.

The rule should probably differ when a player is electing to have a shot at goal (there is already a distinction when a player is lining up for goal and gets 30 seconds to kick rather than 5 seconds). The player should be able to shift laterally in those circumstances rather than wait for the umpire to call play on

 

[NoobPie]

Lastly the man on the mark rule became part of the zone. Slowing up play or hemming in the kicker to allow time for numbers to get back. The space was always just behind the mark or to either side. That used to be where the avenue to play on was. Over the last few decades it’s been taken away. It was no different to how we used to see players be prepared to give away the 15m penalty. You said you are 53 so I think you’d remember how that disappeared very quickly when it was introduced to 50m.

Imo it’s just reverted back to what the man on the mark was for a very long time. You can see it on YouTube in old games.

I will say though I have no interest in the game reverting back to glorified kick to kick. I’d prefer modern tactics with positional play.

These are the critical points. It is a legitimate rebalancing in response to a tactical development that was contributing to slowing the game down too much and it is really only just codifying the traditional behaviour of the man on the mark

 

[Leeda]

Oy Gil and Steve! There's a dent in the car!

trull and buy

 

[Shane Heard]

The biggest concern for them is the baby boomers. When they’re gone a big chunk of their audience will have disappeared. Like I’ve said on here young kids do not live and breath the game like previous generations. If you watched a game 30+ years ago and then looked at the crowd and compared it to now the difference in young kids at the ground would be confronting.

That’s rubbish. No audience will disappear. Fans adapt to new rules quickly

The game is as popular as ever

 

[Shane Heard]

The only thing I see is players having a free near the boundary can take off and cut inboard 10 mtrs playing on and the man on the mark is forced to stand on the line and hasn’t got time to take off and catch him to spoil

Man with the ball can also run in a straight line and then veer off with momentum get a long clean kick away easier

The extra 5 mtrs on kick outs is more the issue in my IMO

And it’s a good thing

Full backs are launching a kick to the wing easy after playing on resulting in the ball landing much further away from their defensive goal line

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

lavender Bushranger wants netball. He wants the opposition to freely move the ball down the ground then have a shot with little or no pressure.

?

Do I??

 

[HPKS]

These are the critical points. It is a legitimate rebalancing in response to a tactical development that was contributing to slowing the game down too much and it is really only just codifying the traditional behaviour of the man on the mark

I fully agree.

 

[RUNVS]

The only thing I see is players having a free near the boundary can take off and cut inboard 10 mtrs playing on and the man on the mark is forced to stand on the line and hasn’t got time to take off and catch him to spoil

Man with the ball can also run in a straight line and then veer off with momentum get a long clean kick away easier

The extra 5 mtrs on kick outs is more the issue in my IMO

And it’s a good thing

Full backs are launching a kick to the wing easy after playing on resulting in the ball landing much further away from their defensive goal line

Not mentioned as much but I love how far the designated kickers after a behind were getting the ball out of the defensive 50. It seems like locking the ball in your forward 50 and repeat entries with these new rules are going to be much harder

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Not mentioned as much but I love how far the designated kickers after a behind were getting the ball out of the defensive 50. It seems like locking the ball in your forward 50 and repeat entries with these new rules are going to be much harder

Not difficult for the kiddies now as they have been given 30m head start to get it out there.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

This sport was never ever broken, the vast majority loved it, the sport was the sport.

You don't understand what 'broken' means in terms of the entertainment industry.

It's not really a sport as such, it's an entertainment product.

There is a huge difference between people liking a game, and maintaining a successful entertainment business.

These changes are of a commercial nature. They're not designed to make footy tragic happy.

They are designed to make the product more commercially viable.

With the vast amount of choice available in terms of what to stare at on your screen, the AFL have to ensure that they are give people a reason to keep their eyes on their product.

Pressure, gang tackling, 5 on 5 contests all over the ground, excessive stoppages etc. are not appealing to the modern consumer.
It may appease the rusted on losers that only cares if their team wins - but that isn't the market that the AFL care about.

 

[HPKS]

That’s rubbish. No audience will disappear. Fans adapt to new rules quickly

The game is as popular as ever

Popular as ever you ever spent any time in a primary school? Most kids couldn’t give shyte about the game. The baby boomers are keeping it going the way it is. They live for the game, grew up thinking it was the be all playing footy on a weekend. A lot of kids go play a year or two then don’t ever play again. And then spend a lot of time watching other children play video games on YouTube or interact with them playing live. They ain’t growing up watching 6 games a week or living for their sides game on the weekend. They’ll be your once a month entertainment only a big game crowd and when the boomers start disappearing what are you left with? A bunch of old blokes talking about the good old days.

 

[RUNVS]

Not difficult for the kiddies now as they have been given 30m head start to get it out there.

and I am glad about that as the ball being locked in a 50 metre arc was never good viewing. It getting into the midfield so quickly makes that tactic so much harder now.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Nah, you just swallow the shovel of sh*t they serve up to you every time.

The AFL don't care how much you whinge about something. They care whether you watch.



Whinging AND watching is their dream result, because it keeps it in the news too.

 

[mr bagcroft]

The AFL don't care how much you whinge about something. They care whether you watch.



Whinging AND watching is their dream result, because it keeps it in the news too.

Fair call. I have dropped out of watching, finally.
But Im not going to make a difference.
Whinging.....I still do a bit of that.

 

[Grrr]

The rule should probably differ when a player is electing to have a shot at goal (there is already a distinction when a player is lining up for goal and gets 30 seconds to kick rather than 5 seconds). The player should be able to shift laterally in those circumstances rather than wait for the umpire to call play on

The rule as it is is fine for shots at goal. The kicker is made to kick over the line, if they veer out then the ump is quick to call play on.

But around the ground players do not always kick over the mark. The umps rarely enforce it because it doesn't make that much difference, besides after a mark you are allowed to creep around and expect the ump to call play on. In the MacIntosh one, he crept around and took off and ran many metres before the ump realised what was going on and then called play on. Before this season, the man on the mark would have been creeping around, not forward, lessening the advantage the player with the ball has. That is only fair. But if you are stationary and waiting for the ump, then too late.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Fair call. I have dropped out of watching, finally.
But Im not going to make a difference.
Whinging.....I still do a bit of that.

Not watching really is the only way to make difference IMO.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

and I am glad about that as the ball being locked in a 50 metre arc was never good viewing. It getting into the midfield so quickly makes that tactic so much harder now.

The good sides get it back in there very quickly, the average sides will always falter to good sides no matter what the rules are.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You don't understand what 'broken' means in terms of the entertainment industry.

It's not really a sport as such, it's an entertainment product.

There is a huge difference between people liking a game, and maintaining a successful entertainment business.

These changes are of a commercial nature. They're not designed to make footy tragic happy.

They are designed to make the product more commercially viable.

With the vast amount of choice available in terms of what to stare at on your screen, the AFL have to ensure that they are give people a reason to keep their eyes on their product.

Pressure, gang tackling, 5 on 5 contests all over the ground, excessive stoppages etc. are not appealing to the modern consumer.
It may appease the rusted on losers that only cares if their team wins - but that isn't the market that the AFL care about.

And which year was it again that the crowds and the TV audiences stopped watching?

 

[RUNVS]

The good sides get it back in there very quickly, the average sides will always falter to good sides no matter what the rules are.

True, but it at least gives the average sides a better chance of getting the good side on the rebound, or at the very least causes the good side to score as they can get a turnover and catch the bad side out defensively. Either way it creates a more open play than having 30 players all inside the 50.