Rules man on the mark

[avijae]

I "think" I understand the "man on the mark" rule, but it seems that the "play on" is not coming fast enough in most cases. The "offensive" player seems to have too much of an an advantage. The "defensive" player seems frozen and not able to "defend". Is the point of the new rule to effectively make it easier to score? It seems to be very much in favor of the "offense". Higher scores? More exciting? More revenue?

Thanks!

 

[Spearman]

I "think" I understand the "man on the mark" rule, but it seems that the "play on" is not coming fast enough in most cases. The "offensive" player seems to have too much of an an advantage. The "defensive" player seems frozen and not able to "defend". Is the point of the new rule to effectively make it easier to score? It seems to be very much in favor of the "offense". Higher scores? More exciting? More revenue?

Thanks!

Probably yes they had something like that in mind.
A big effect also is the man on the mark can't position to block passes or runs toward to middle. That seems to be opening things up a bit too.

 

[avijae]

Probably yes they had something like that in mind.
A big effect also is the man on the mark can't position to block passes or runs toward to middle. That seems to be opening things up a bit too.

Thanks for the reply. Before the "man on the mark" rule, what was the "official" time allotted between marking the ball and the "play on" call? Seems to me to vary quite a bit. And to those of you who have been watching/playing for most of your lives, do you perceive any difference between before and after this new rule? Thanks!

 

[PzBlinky]

Thanks for the reply. Before the "man on the mark" rule, what was the "official" time allotted between marking the ball and the "play on" call? Seems to me to vary quite a bit. And to those of you who have been watching/playing for most of your lives, do you perceive any difference between before and after this new rule? Thanks!

I'm not a rules expert, but I think the "play on" call is discretionary with the umpire. Some call it faster than others, and sometimes near the end of a close game a player gets called to play on faster.

With the new rule, I don't think there's been any noticeable difference in the "play on" call when the marking player hasn't left the mark. As Spearman says, the player manning the mark can't go that east/west line to block the player with the ball seems the big change for me - lets them get 10-15 metres further AND more into the corridor.

Not to go too far off-track, but it feels like this is a contributing factor for the slow-as-treacle ball movement the Cats are using right now. The team is fanatical about trying not to expose our backline to fast movement, which is what this rule encourages: fast ball into the 50.

 

[Spearman]

Thanks for the reply. Before the "man on the mark" rule, what was the "official" time allotted between marking the ball and the "play on" call? Seems to me to vary quite a bit. And to those of you who have been watching/playing for most of your lives, do you perceive any difference between before and after this new rule? Thanks!

What PzBlinky said above

bolded = AFL 101 there is a lot of variance in everything