News Rule changes 2021

[Quicky]

An article on this years rule changes:

Standing room only: the small AFL rule tweak changing the game

Coaches say a seemingly minor rule change is having a bigger impact in pre-season trials than any other, and the AFL believes it will make footy a better spectacle.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Quicky]

The rule changes in a nutshell:

Rule changes for 2021 premiership season

• Maximum of 75 player interchanges per match. Rotations will decrease from 90 per match in 2020 to 75 per match in 2021. Each team will continue to be permitted four interchange players.
• Player standing the mark. The defending player will only be permitted minimal lateral movement on the mark. If the defending player moves off the mark in any direction prior to “play on” being called, a 50-metre penalty will apply. The defensive team is unable to substitute the player on the mark.
• Location of the mark at kick-ins. The mark shall be set at 15 metres from the centre of the kick-off line towards the centre of the ground at kick-ins. This was previously set at 10 metres.

 

[TradeDraft]

Can't the AFL just leave the Game Alone for once?

 

[barrackers]

The rule changes in a nutshell:

So, there goes using Cox as our designated man on the mark in defensive 50. Cox's height at times created pressure a forward or in the example below false confidence, but not having Cox on the mark allows us to use him down the line. A potential disadvantage of the change for all sides though is a star defender maybe stuck manning the mark instead of covering another key forward.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They need to introduce a new sub rule so you can bring in a cardboard cutout to man the mark.. to help rest the players and keep them fresh.

 

[Quicky]

So, there goes using Cox as our designated man on the mark in defensive 50. Cox's height at times created pressure a forward or in the example below false confidence, but not having Cox on the mark allows us to use him down the line. A potential disadvantage of the change for all sides though is a star defender maybe stuck manning the mark instead of covering another key forward.

It will open the game up a lot. I think there will be a lot more playing on from the mark and more space to attack the corridor.

I don't think it will suit our current game style. It will make it easier to crack our defensive structure. It will favour teams that already play a fast transition style of football.

I hope it makes Buckley take stock and adjust our game plan. I think we will need to play a more attacking style of football.

 

[Quicky]

Can't the AFL just leave the Game Alone for once?

Normally I'd agree with you. But I think this year was some of the most boring low scoring football I've ever watched. Quarter lengths obviously played a role. But more than that I think its defensive structures. Something needed to be done to address it and I think the rule change is pretty clever.

I do wish the AFL would move to golfs model where you can only change rules every four years or so. I think if it were even only every two or three years would help.

 

[TradeDraft]

Normally I'd agree with you. But I think this year was some of the most boring low scoring football I've ever watched. Quarter lengths obviously played a role. But more than that I think its defensive structures. Something needed to be done to address it and I think the rule change is pretty clever.

I do wish the AFL would move to golfs model where you can only change rules every four years or so. I think if it were even only every two or three years would help.

Well I think the Pandamic and Lockdowns had a Huge Reason for the Lower Quaility of Footy as so much Travelling and lack of normal.

They need to let the Game Develop itself and not force change

 

[Kappa]

Can't the AFL just leave the Game Alone for once?

Seems like it may be a very good change if it allows teams to be more attacking and open up the middle of the field.

 

[Stripes B and W]

The rule changes in a nutshell:

This one seems the one causing most effect on the game.
Player standing the mark. The defending player will only be permitted minimal lateral movement on the mark. If the defending player moves off the mark in any direction prior to “play on” being called, a 50-metre penalty will apply. The defensive team is unable to substitute the player on the mark.

I like a lot of things about footy to be black and white, rules being one of them. Isn't there some contradiction in this one?
The defender of the mark is permitted 'minimal lateral movement' yet if same player moves in any direction prior to 'play on' a 50 is called. We really need at minimum a guide of what constitutes minimum movement or its really going to be costly. Hopefully the clubs have asked this question and are clear on what the defender can do.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Seems like it may be a very good change if it allows teams to be more attacking and open up the middle of the field.

Or teams will just drop the man on the mark 20 metres behind the mark and add to the defensive flood

 

[Black_White]

Crappest rule EVER.
And considering the tampering with the rules over the last decade Thats saying something.

 

[Black_White]

Or teams will just drop the man on the mark 20 metres behind the mark and add to the defensive flood

But that gives the attacking team a 20 metre advantage.
Not going to happen.
Better to have a man stay 2 metres behind the mark and tell the ump “I am in general play, I am not manning the mark”.
That would work as they would’ve have full 360 degree movement. (Apart from crossing the line two metres in front of them)
AFL would then of course mandate a 10 metre from the mark exclusion rule....

 

[Kappa]

Or teams will just drop the man on the mark 20 metres behind the mark and add to the defensive flood

Er, they can't move backwards, they have to stand still as soon as they are on the mark??

And even if they could that's so stupid because it would allow the player with the ball to play on, run 15 metres and open up the entire ground.

 

[jonmacTrag]

The AFL continues to use the media's model of 'making the news'.

In their case though it's trying to dictate the way the game should be played.

Just another nail in the coffin.

In another decade we will have a faux NRL and be playing second fiddle to the no-neck jockeys up north.

Unless the clubs collectively grow a pair and force the AFL back into the purely administratively role in which the VFL was shaped - and all they are really competent at anyway - the competition will go under.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Er, they can't move backwards, they have to stand still as soon as they are on the mark??

And even if they could that's so stupid because it would allow the player with the ball to play on, run 15 metres and open up the entire ground.

If they arent on the mark then they can move anywhere, Stand 5-10 metres back then you cant be assumed to be on the mark and surely you are free to zone off. Standing on the mark is guaranteed to allow your opponent to play on with you having zero chance to stop or pressure him effectively. So theres no point being there. May as well add to the flood with this rule.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

But that gives the attacking team a 20 metre advantage.
Not going to happen.
Better to have a man stay 2 metres behind the mark and tell the ump “I am in general play, I am not manning the mark”.
That would work as they would’ve have full 360 degree movement. (Apart from crossing the line two metres in front of them)
AFL would then of course mandate a 10 metre from the mark exclusion rule....

Thats kinda what I meant.

 

[Black_White]

If they arent on the mark then they can move anywhere, Stand 5-10 metres back then you cant be assumed to be on the mark and surely you are free to zone off. Standing on the mark is guaranteed to allow your opponent to play on with you having zero chance to stop or pressure him effectively. So theres no point being there. May as well add to the flood with this rule.

I just read the actual rule.
There is a 5 metre exclusion zone around the man on the mark that not even the kickers teammate can enter.
This is going to cause so many howler 50’s that will effect the result of games.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I just read the actual rule.
There is a 5 metre exclusion zone around the man on the mark that not even the kickers teammate can enter.
This is going to cause so many howler 50’s that will effect the result of games.

Yep. Although theres no point for the kickers teammate to come close to the man on the mark to shepherd.. if hes not allowed to move......

I can see the umpire calling players back and making them stand the mark as they attempt to run out of the five metre zone because its pointless standing there....

 

[Kappa]

If they arent on the mark then they can move anywhere, Stand 5-10 metres back then you cant be assumed to be on the mark and surely you are free to zone off. Standing on the mark is guaranteed to allow your opponent to play on with you having zero chance to stop or pressure him effectively. So theres no point being there. May as well add to the flood with this rule.

Standing on the mark does stop a player from playing on... because they can't run forward and if they run sideways it'll be instantly called play on and you can pressure them. If you stand 10-20 metres away you're giving players an amazing chance to get forward momentum and opens up the ground even more... Which is why no one does it in the current game. The point of manning the mark is to stop the opposition quickly playing on and moving the ball quickly, your idea of standing 10-20 metres away does not do that which is why its so dumb.

 

[barrackers]

It will open the game up a lot. I think there will be a lot more playing on from the mark and more space to attack the corridor.

I don't think it will suit our current game style. It will make it easier to crack our defensive structure. It will favour teams that already play a fast transition style of football.

I hope it makes Buckley take stock and adjust our game plan. I think we will need to play a more attacking style of football.

We played much quicker last preseason and I was hoping to see that extend into the season proper. Instead after the restart we went stagnant. Preseason games are obviously less intense, however we looked good in R1 and I think there’s more it. Perhaps training restrictions and 2-4 changes each week? Sides with less injuries certainly had more of than advantage in 2020 with most of the top 6 playing the least number of players across the season.

Anyway 2021 is a new year and I hope see a different Collingwood.

 

[jmac70]

This man in the mark rule will result in lots of ridiculous 50 meter penalties.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Standing on the mark does stop a player from playing on... because they can't run forward and if they run sideways it'll be instantly called play on and you can pressure them. If you stand 10-20 metres away you're giving players an amazing chance to get forward momentum and opens up the ground even more... Which is why no one does it in the current game. The point of manning the mark is to stop the opposition quickly playing on and moving the ball quickly, your idea of standing 10-20 metres away does not do that which is why its so dumb.

Time will tell if standing the mark still has the benefits you suggest given they now have to stand still until the umpire says they can move.... and the kicker has already made his escape or got his kick awa..

 

[Quicky]

This man in the mark rule will result in lots of ridiculous 50 meter penalties.

I'm not looking forward to that.

 

[Black_White]

You cannot even run off the mark backwards to take a position outside the 5 metre zone!
So I assume if you are inside 5 metres when the mark is taken you are assumed to be “the man on the mark”.
Anyone confide about the scumpirs understanding 5 metres? When they can’t even understand 15?