How Many on the Mark?

[Maylandsman]

How many blokes are allowed on the mark?
Watching last nights game (Bullies vs. Cats) it seems the whole team.
Encroachment and all that went out the window.

 

[jezza1435]

How many blokes are allowed on the mark?
Watching last nights game (Bullies vs. Cats) it seems the whole team.
Encroachment and all that went out the window.

the law i believe says one on the mark... but all the others were behind the mark no?

 

[DroopStDanny]

the law i believe says one on the mark... but all the others were behind the mark no?

Exactly as I saw it. Kudos to you for your unbiased opinion, a rare trait on BF.

 

[Maylandsman]

the law i believe says one on the mark... but all the others were behind the mark no?

they were but isn't there and exclusion zone? 5 metres? some were almost on the mark (haven't copped a replay yet).
i was like '* me how many can you have on the mark?'
be interesting how that is adjudicated in play. i can see the umpire blowing his pea out giving 50.

 

[ManOfClay]

they were but isn't there and exclusion zone? 5 metres? some were almost on the mark (haven't copped a replay yet).
i was like '**** me how many can you have on the mark?'
be interesting how that is adjudicated in play. i can see the umpire blowing his pea out giving 50.

The exclusion zone starts with the mark as an edge point. So if they were behind the mark they were out of it.

It would never happen in play for obvious reasons

 

[Maylandsman]

It would never happen in play for obvious reasons

what if it did?
seemed crazy. i think the most i have ever seen.

 

[ManOfClay]

what if it did?
seemed crazy. i think the most i have ever seen.

There’d be 12 free opposition players somewhere

 

[Numtums]

Reminds me of this wonderful day in 2001 against Carlton at the MCG.

 

[Unknown Identity]

I want to preface this with I would never want to see this paid a 50m penalty.

The rule states a 10m exclusion zone 10m either side of the man on the mark.

As you can see from the still shot I count 2 players level and the player next to the umpire could be argued is slightly ahead of the mark, all within the 10m exclusion zone.

It is literally the worst rule brought in and is over policed, but under the current rules that was 50m all day.

Glad the Doggies got up though, cracking match.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Rob]

It depends where the mark is (and a still shot doesn't really show that) - from watching the footage it did appear as though all the players bar one were behind the mark. You only need to be a millimetre behind the mark to technically not be on the mark.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Nothing to see here. What happened is fine just rarely seen.

 

[BF Tiger]

Given that there was no other option than a shot on goal I think this was umpired appropriately.

 

[Firestarter]

Nothing to see here. What happened is fine just rarely seen.

... nothing to see here, Cameron's hit was just a lovetap?

All rules start with an instance. "Rarely seen, fuggedabowdid" doesn't really work.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Nothing to see here. What happened is fine just rarely seen.

Yep. No different to Isaac Smith's kick against Geelong last year. Perfectly legal so long as nobody encroaches the exclusion zone, and from that photo, clearly nobody has.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

... nothing to see here, Cameron's hit was just a lovetap?

All rules start with an instance. "Rarely seen, fuggedabowdid" doesn't really work.

Are you ok?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yep. No different to Isaac Smith's kick against Geelong last year. Perfectly legal so long as nobody encroaches the exclusion zone, and from that photo, clearly nobody has.

I wouldn't say that much was clear from the photo as where the actual mark was can't be made out. What is clear is that an umpire was right there, lined up pretty much square on to the mark and saw nothing untoward.

 

[JackFlash]

Reminds me of this wonderful day in 2001 against Carlton at the MCG.

That would infringe on the protected area rule wouldn't it?

 

[HairyO]

the law i believe says one on the mark... but all the others were behind the mark no?

Yep. The umpire was watching it too, and motioned to a couple of players to stay back before Taylor started moving.

Nothing wrong with their tactic.

 

[Leigh Lowther]

delete thread

 

[Hard Ball Get]

I want to preface this with I would never want to see this paid a 50m penalty.

The rule states a 10m exclusion zone 10m either side of the man on the mark.

As you can see from the still shot I count 2 players level and the player next to the umpire could be argued is slightly ahead of the mark, all within the 10m exclusion zone.

It is literally the worst rule brought in and is over policed, but under the current rules that was 50m all day.

Glad the Doggies got up though, cracking match.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

If all the players are literally one mm behind the line of the mark, then they can be as close to the man on the mark as they want.
You're right it shouldn't be a 50 but you're wrong, it wasn't a 50.

 

[JackFlash]

IMO players should be 5 metres away from the man of the mark shooting for goal. It looks ridiculous, they bring in the protected area rule which is crap, yet allow12 blokes stand on the mark for a final kick? Time for a change on this one.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

IMO players should be 5 metres away from the man of the mark shooting for goal. It looks ridiculous, they bring in the protected area rule which is crap, yet allow12 blokes stand on the mark for a final kick? Time for a change on this one.

It literally has no influence on 99% of games. Why introduce another stupid rule to be confused about?

 

[Duskfire]

Eh its fine. The protected space was made to allow players not to be impacted if they want to move around. There was no direct impact from the players there so who cares. Not to mention it would have been a real shitty way to win

 

[Numtums]

That would infringe on the protected area rule wouldn't it?

Would this?

Nah, theatre of the game.

 

[JackFlash]

Would this?

Nah, theatre of the game.

Yes this too, but rules have changed or so i thought. Theatre of the game ? Those days have gone.