Wouldn't that be "man off the mark"?
Umm, no it wouldn't. How do you not know that the man on the mark can move sideways, left to right, right to left, anytime he wants? There's no "man off the mark" rule.
* shakes head *
-
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.
Buddys arc (again)
- Thread starter stefoid
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Umm, no it wouldn't. How do you not know that the man on the mark can move sideways, left to right, right to left, anytime he wants? There's no "man off the mark" rule.
* shakes head *
- Jul 15, 2009
- 8,618
- 9,977
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Every player has an "arc" of some degree, but how meticulous do you police it? Metres? Microns?
LOL Buddy gets looked after by the umpires.
LOL Buddy gets looked after by the umpires.
whatboutbob
Serial Avatar Troll
neroblack
Premiership Player
I take it from that response that you agree with the points raised on his "natural arc" then, as you didn't make any further argument?
He's not the only key forward whose own supporters think cops a raw deal, but that has zero to do with this discussion.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
neroblack
Premiership Player
hehe..funny stuff. The point is you're meant to kick over the mark...nothing to do with whether the player on the mark runs off it or not.
According to the age hes using the tactic of whinging in the papers.
Herees a better question. Should harvey/freo be taken seriously when they basically tanked the corresponding game last year ?
In my defence, you didn't include the right 'tone' in your post....
* shakes .... (yeah, i got nothing)
It's not just about the angle though. Even if he does make the angle much worse, he is able to run closer to the defender on the mark and kick it around the side of him. This means he can potentially get closer to goal because of his arc - which may be much more of an advantage than losing angle would be a disadvantage. He should have to kick directly over the man on the mark so that the man on the mark concept makes some sense.
It's like some players like Buddy are trying to turn a set shot into a semi snapshot, by trying to get the action of their set-shot to mimic their normal freeplay kicking action. I don't like it. I'd rather see a stricter rule for this. Set shots are challenging for a reason. If play-on is called, I don't think you can argue with it because the defender has to cover that. If it's a shot after the siren, it shouldn't be allowed - there should be no chance to manipulate the situation when there's no chance of play-on.
Sebastian Balboa said:
That's to cover play-on situations. It's not to cover set shots. In a non play-on set shot, the ball should pass over the man on the mark. He's there to be an obstacle in front of goal.
It's called "list management" bud, which proved its worth in the Elimination Final two weeks later.
As long as I've played the game, I haven't once been stopped moving sideways on the mark while some pooncey forward runs up to take a set shot on goal, nor have I seen it happen at AFL level.
whatboutbob
Serial Avatar Troll
Yep, it seems farcical that the "man on the mark" (
@ SB) should have to move 3m laterally to compensate for this. This also opens up the potential for, say, a stab pass to the pocket which wouldn't have otherwise been possible but for the 'Buddy Rule'.
Yes...
Agree with the calls that he should have to kick over the mark. It's pretty easy, let him star from a bit to the side and curve around into the correct line, kinda like a rugby kick.
- Jun 21, 2009
- 26,776
- 33,454
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Umm men on the mark can move sideways. They do it to put players off all the time.
- Thread starter
- #39
All this talk of having to "kick over the man on the mark", don't you people know that the man on the mark can move sideways as much as he wants?
Irrelevant - the mark is what the player should be kicking over, so have them arc towards the mark, not away from it -- capiche?
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,351
what i want to know is at what point is a player deemed to have a natural arc??
how is the umpire supposed to know if this is the first game a guy has played??
as said in the op, the easy solution is to allow them to start their run from anywhere, they just have to acknowledge with the umpire this is the way i want to run in and i want to start from here, but they must be in line with the mark before they dispose of the ball... if they dispose of it before getting in line with the mark then it's a ball up.
easy solution, problem solved, buddy can still have his arc, every other player with an arc can still have their arc.... no grey area on that.
how is the umpire supposed to know if this is the first game a guy has played??
as said in the op, the easy solution is to allow them to start their run from anywhere, they just have to acknowledge with the umpire this is the way i want to run in and i want to start from here, but they must be in line with the mark before they dispose of the ball... if they dispose of it before getting in line with the mark then it's a ball up.
easy solution, problem solved, buddy can still have his arc, every other player with an arc can still have their arc.... no grey area on that.
neroblack
Premiership Player
Can't do it that way. The player could then play on from a more advantageous position have have a shot at goal.
Easier still would be to have one rule for everyone. Run in a straight line at the mark, don't deviate. That approach might even be consistent with how the rule is written......
- Jun 21, 2009
- 26,776
- 33,454
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I hope they make buddy walk straight. He might actually kick some goals now.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,351
ball up if a player plays on before they are in line with the mark.
have the umpire stand a couple of metres behind the mark and call "in line" so the player knows when he has made it to the line and can do whatever he wants from that point....
- Oct 10, 2009
- 10,747
- 12,054
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- The Exers
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,351
i've never really liked the wording of the rule that you gotta run in a straight line as it goes against most people natural instincts who will veer slightly to the side they are kicking.
- Thread starter
- #46
Its a grey area but no greyer than it already is. Once you let the player deviate from the line without calling play on, you have a grey area -- regardless of whether he is arcing towards or away from the mark.
My suggestion is an improvement to a rule which the AFL has already decided is allowed to be grey.
The other part of the suggestion it is always play on unless the player indicates to the ump that he wants an 'arcy' set shot, in which case he then must take the shot.
neroblack
Premiership Player
The problem with that one is that you could have a mark taken against the point post, in which case there's just about no target to aim at if lined up in a straight line. The player could indicate he wants to run in on an arc, opening up the goal mouth for him..
Sorry geish you absolute moron ..you can't have a rule for the rest of the comp and a different rule for one player ..if it's play on when everyone else moves off the line, then it's play on when Buddy moves off the line ...End of story !!
neroblack
Premiership Player
So you're allowed to start from potentially an improved angle, without play on being called? It doesn't work either way..
