Mark rule

[balthaz]

There's a lot of talk about speeding the game up and cracking down on time wasting recently and it got me thinking; the umpires are clearly to blame. Why you ask? Because every friggin time someone takes a mark, even if there is noone around the man who took the mark, he blows his whistle to STOP PLAY so an unfettered kick can be taken.

"But balthaz," you may protest, "the player can play on if he likes and keep the play going. It's not the umpires fault." True, but the rules do not encourage him to. Taking the mark you have your eyes on the ball. If your first instinct is to play on then you wouldn't know for sure if there was someone behind you, and you would want to look and check before running in that direction or else you might waste your hard-earned mark with a play-on call, or even have a free paid against you if you decided to do a blind turn straight into the friendly embrace of the unsighted opposition.

A player's first option should be to play on and so I vote the whistle is blown for a mark only after both of the following:

1. A player gains control over the ball as per the normal rules.
AND THEN
2. One of the following happens:
-part of the marker's body (or the held ball) including and anatomically above the knees touches the ground
-the marker is touched by an opposition player
-the marker crosses a line or touches a post (including goal lines, boundary line, and maybe even the forward fifty if leading out.)

After 1 happens then the umpire puts his arm out like paying the mark but doesn't blow the whistle.

Whats more, the mark is only paid where one of the options in 2 happens. So, to STOP the marker playing on, a defender has to tackle the marker. If the marker wants to run backwards and get tackled they lose ground, but if they run forwards they gain ground. If a marker wants to take the mark and stop play, thereby protecting themselves, all they have to do is touch the ground or take a knee or whatever.
It also means that if you mark the ball you have a free shot at taking on the defender, which I think is a good thing. It's a reward for trying to play on.
If you have a bounce or kick it or handball it then its play on as normal.

While this rule doesn't address the problem of time wasting in general it does change the mindset of the player as soon as they take the mark.

Vote on the poll and share thoughts.

 

[balthaz]

Not a single reply? I hoped I'd at least get some mildly imaginative abuse for this thread. I mean, "Do you think that Chas Bateman looks like "The Feral Kid" from Mad Max 2?" got more replies.
Cuts deep, BigFooty. Real deep.

 

[tomthetiger]

I just plain dont understand it :s

 

[balthaz]

I just plain dont understand it :s

Fair enough. My bad. Instead of stopping play for every mark there would be an incentive to play on. Why stop a player to give them a free kick if they could avoid being tackled anyway?

 

[one_twelve112]

Can you be a little more specific??

 

[balthaz]

Can you be a little more specific??

If you take a mark and you have a little space, you can look to run forward immediately without losing your free kick and the time that goes with it if you later discover there are no options to kick to. You don't have to protect it by not playing on and not immediately attacking.

Say you take a mark directly in front of goal, 30m out. You can keep playing and take your shot kicking from as close as you can get or you get tackled and have a set shot from wherever that was. If you kick it, that's it though.

It also stops those ridiculous fifties from grappling by the man on the mark; either you've touched the ball on the ground and claimed the mark and can't be tackled (instant 50) or you're still going to gain ground and can be tackled.