New rule, they moved on the mark. Can’t do that until play on is called.
2021 Non-Crows AFL Discussion Part 1: we can have lots of fun!
- Thread starter Deaneus!
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
And they received State Government funding, the Chyna Experiment was so popular with companies banging down the door they had to step in as the oval naming rights sponsor.
This isn't going to do anything but infuriate supporters with soft 50m penalties. If they're going to bring in this kind of soft bullshit, the least they could do is change it to a 25m penalty.
- Oct 7, 2018
- 1,345
- 2,735
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
How does the rule work if nobody stands the mark - ie 2 or 3 metres behind?
- Sep 28, 2016
- 9,810
- 19,288
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Or if teams start to man the mark in 2 places. 1 still player on the mark and 1 player thats techincally allowed to go side to side but standing on the fat side of the player at the minimum legal distance. To essentially box them in!
It would lead to a loose man but it would also stop the player from running off the mark and streaming towards goal with the man on the mark unable to move.
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 66,639
- 89,362
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The best part of the new rule is that it allows the umpires to be the true winners and manufacture and fix results.
#freekickhawthorn
#freekickbulldogs
#freekickrichmomd
50m penalties should be reserved for poor conduct, like shoving a guy to the ground when he's already marked the ball etc. I hate the idea of players getting pinged for 50m when all they did was take a couple of sideways steps and didn't impinge on the kicker at all.
If the kicker wants to open up the angles, he should take a step back. I don't know why it should be the man on the marks responsibility to make it easy for them.
If the kicker wants to open up the angles, he should take a step back. I don't know why it should be the man on the marks responsibility to make it easy for them.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
can we switch who's on the mark?
Say there's a quick break and a team gets a mark around 50m out and the closest defender is the ruckman, can we get someone else on the mark to allow the ruckman to get tot he goal line? Or would the ruckman be forced to stay on the mark?
Say there's a quick break and a team gets a mark around 50m out and the closest defender is the ruckman, can we get someone else on the mark to allow the ruckman to get tot he goal line? Or would the ruckman be forced to stay on the mark?
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
End of the day it's a moronic rule change.
I'll be shocked if it's still in existence come May.
I'll be shocked if it's still in existence come May.
- Oct 7, 2018
- 1,345
- 2,735
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Pretty sure the player is nominated by the ump (told to "stand") then cannot change.
I can tell you how this will go. Umpires will call it how it's written, it will piss everybody off, then half way through the season the AFL will "adjust the interpretation of the rule" which is actually just code for "we scrapped the rule but don't want to admit it because we'd look like idiots".
No. This is expressly forbidden.
Punchy Bassett
Brownlow Medallist
It's a rule designed to solve an issue which doesn't exist
If a player marks the ball 80 metres out, just chip it around until an opposition player utensils up. Easy goal.
What an arse backwards rule
What an arse backwards rule
All I think will happen is everyone will say why didn't the umpire call play on as soon as that dude took half a step sideways? Surely if theyre going to be super strict on the person manning the mark not moving they have to be super strict on calling play on. This will be the prob, it will place a tonne of pressure on the umpire to get that part right and being human, sometimes they wont and then someone will lose a game because of it and then the AFL will scrap it.
- Aug 9, 2019
- 35,526
- 60,910
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta
Haven't seen too many positive comments on the new AFL rule from former players/commentators.
Unless I missed it in our intraclub match I didn't see it come close to being applied so this weekend's game will be interesting from that point of view.
Will it be applied across the SANFL, VFL, WAFL etc?
If not going to be confusing for our players moving from the SANFL to AFL during the season.
www.foxsports.com.au
Unless I missed it in our intraclub match I didn't see it come close to being applied so this weekend's game will be interesting from that point of view.
Will it be applied across the SANFL, VFL, WAFL etc?
If not going to be confusing for our players moving from the SANFL to AFL during the season.
‘What a joke’: AFL fans explode over first look at controversial new rule
‘What a joke’: Fans just got a look at the AFL’s controversial new rule... and they are NOT happy
www.foxsports.com.au
No different to all of the other rule changes between AFL & SANFL - 25m penalties, last touch out of bounds, ...Haven't seen too many positive comments on the new AFL rule from former players/commentators.
Unless I missed it in our intraclub match I didn't see it come close to being applied so this weekend's game will be interesting from that point of view.
Will it be applied across the SANFL, VFL, WAFL etc?
If not going to be confusing for our players moving from the SANFL to AFL during the season.
‘What a joke’: AFL fans explode over first look at controversial new rule
‘What a joke’: Fans just got a look at the AFL’s controversial new rule... and they are NOT happy
** Not defending the rule, just noting that having rule differences between AFL & SANFL is nothing new.
- Moderator
- #1,498
Generally the SANFL adopt, or implement their own, more common sense rules.
The 25m penalty is punishment enough for most of the ticky touchwood frees. The last possession out of bounds has been a surprising success in recent years.
The 25m penalty is punishment enough for most of the ticky touchwood frees. The last possession out of bounds has been a surprising success in recent years.
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
They've got this arse over backwards.
The "problem" is not solved by restricting the man on the mark.
The better response would be to give the player with the ball in hand more freedom to move laterally without the umpire calling 'play on'. Let them take a step or 2 off the line to open up the angles, and let the man on the mark move sideways to cover. And then if that option is not open, let the player with the ball look around for further options again.
The "problem" is not solved by restricting the man on the mark.
The better response would be to give the player with the ball in hand more freedom to move laterally without the umpire calling 'play on'. Let them take a step or 2 off the line to open up the angles, and let the man on the mark move sideways to cover. And then if that option is not open, let the player with the ball look around for further options again.
You won’t be allowed inside the 5m zone. Like I suggested. Nobody stand the mark. Stay outside of the five metre zone and you can still cut off the shorter angle kick. Also gives you an extra defender. As soon as the player plays on, then move in to block his route.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
