Rules The new man on the mark rule is utterly ridiculous.

[PowerBaz]

This is utter garbage, one of the worst changes to the game ever made. Has to be scrapped before season proper.

That second one my god - why even stand the mark if the player with the ball can simply stroll around you?

What sort of moron decided this would be good for the game....

 

[Section 5]

First one is correct, But incredibly sh*t.

Second one the umpire just didn't do his job and basically gifted Daniher a play on. You are going to let some players as a poster pointed out, start a run and carry and the defender is at the mercy of the umpire to call play on, taking a player out of the contest, naturally if he moves or wants to get into a position to guard space, he's going to give away a 50

I think you'll see if these dogshit rules stay players are going to play on from a mark close to where they took it and either draw a 50 from the man on the mark moving his foot, or suddenly he's 4m behind the play standing still before the umpire calls play on

Regarding the Daniher kick for goal and Franklin type arc run in when kicking over the mark
The umpire did signal play on in Daniher's case.
It is at the 24/25 second mark of the below video and hard to pick up
Do not look at the umpire closest to the screen
It is the umpire closer to goal to the left of Lions player Lester (35) and partially hidden behind a suns player
Of course the man on the mark had no time to react and even if he did hear the call i doubt he saw the arms raised by the umpire
But isn't this what the AFL want. More goals scored
Bad checking by the Suns players that should have known Daniher's kicking style and positioned just outside the protected zone.

 

[Power Raid]

This is utter garbage, one of the worst changes to the game ever made. Has to be scrapped before season proper.

I don't mind the rule but the umpire has to blow play on as soon as the player steps off the mark. In the second example, the umpire should have called almost straight away.

 

[radiojake]

The umpire did signal play on in Daniher's case.
It is at the 24/25 second mark of the below video and hard to pick up
Do not look at the umpire closest to the screen
It is the umpire closer to goal to the left of Lions player Lester (35) and partially hidden behind a suns player

Umpires hands are raised at the same point the ball hits Daniher's foot - Daniher comes off his line atleast 5 steps before he kicks the ball

absolute horeshit


It's not so much this case specifically that sucks, Daniher probably would have kicked the goal anyway if the man on the mark could have moved like normal, but it's the fact that players will start to realise they could line up for a set shot like that and at the last second play on and the player on the mark will already be too late to do anything about it

It'll be a case of let a player run past under no pressure or give away a 50

 

[Jugada]

Generally speaking it's a great rule. The man on the mark should have to stay on the mark, it should never be a defendable position

 

[Section 5]

Umpires hands are raised at the same point the ball hits Daniher's foot - Daniher comes off his line atleast 5 steps before he kicks the ball

absolute horeshit


It's not so much this case specifically that sucks, Daniher probably would have kicked the goal anyway if the man on the mark could have moved like normal, but it's the fact that players will start to realise they could line up for a set shot like that and at the last second play on and the player on the mark will already be too late to do anything about it

It'll be a case of let a player run past under no pressure or give away a 50

Look most players are going to kick over the mark when kicking for goal. Some noticeable exceptions like Daniher & Buddy
The rule was introduced to increase scoring but not just when players are kicking for goal

Umpires are ready to make a decision but it still takes time (a few seconds) to implement.
Player moves off the mark while running in to kick. Don't forget his momentum is already in place.
Umpire decides it's play on. Umpire then has to raise their arms as well as call play on
The player on the mark or anyone else for that matter then needs to react to this call or sighting of arms raised

As i mentioned bad checking by the Suns players. Their is not one Suns player within the whole screen directly to the left of Daniher
The closest one is downfield and next to the umpire that called play on
Coaches will insist and players usually do sit just outside the protected zone for this particular reason

 

[hcd199]

It's normal, when there's a major rule change, for people to fixate on the ludicrousness of the new penalty (in this case, that stepping slightly to one side now constitutes a 50m penalty). Not unreasonably - what we've seen so far is ridiculous, and clearly getting such an advantage from such a trivial infringement doesn't improve the sport as a spectacle whatsoever.

But the biggest problem with this change is that, even when it operates as intended, once the hefty penalty means players learn to remain totally still and not give away 50m, it still adds absolutely nothing of value. A neutered defence from the man on the mark doesn't make for enjoyable viewing - either it makes the attacking play look tawdry (because we all know it's only through legislation that their opponents can't respond adequately to the play), or ultimately, teams find another method of restricting the offensive efficacy of this change.

And then we'll get more endless wittering about the sport not being high-scoring/"free flowing" enough (not like it was "back in the day"), and the same daft proposals will happen again - maybe the man on the mark will have to be 20m back for kickouts? 15m protected zones? Interchange reduced to 60 rotations a game? Starting positions at stoppages? Anything they can do to further reduce the contested nature of the sport, to try and cudgel the play into a specific, outdated mould - never mind that this only makes attack more predictable and therefore defence easier... the fundamental premise of changes like this is that being able to defend against particular kinds of play is undesirable, and the sooner that moronic impulse is eliminated from those in charge of the sport, the better.

 

[Grrr]

Agreed.
The first was stupid, but it was there.
The second...Why even have anyone on the mark? I'd stand a meter back from 'the mark', and make it clear to the ump that I wasn't on the mark so I still had freedom to move.

You might want to re read what you said about the first one.... it was there!
I get the interpretation, but it was so not there.

 

[theyellowsash]

the inability of a highly athletic, balanced and coordinated person to stand still is utterly ridiculous.

soccer players can stand still on the mark before a free kick, nfl players can stand still on defensive lines before headbutting each other, and so on. are afl players really that stupid?

 

[Power Raid]

Look most players are going to kick over the mark when kicking for goal. Some noticeable exceptions like Daniher & Buddy
The rule was introduced to increase scoring but not just when players are kicking for goal

Umpires are ready to make a decision but it still takes time (a few seconds) to implement.
Player moves off the mark while running in to kick. Don't forget his momentum is already in place.
Umpire decides it's play on. Umpire then has to raise their arms as well as call play on
The player on the mark or anyone else for that matter then needs to react to this call or sighting of arms raised

As i mentioned bad checking by the Suns players. Their is not one Suns player within the whole screen directly to the left of Daniher
The closest one is downfield and next to the umpire that called play on
Coaches will insist and players usually do sit just outside the protected zone for this particular reason

The AFL made a wrong decision allowing players like daniher and buddy to move off the line, without calling play on. Daniher and Buddy would have adapted and learnt how to kick properly, if the AFL upheld the rules.

 

[blitzer]

Of all the rule changes they've made in the last few years this is by far my least favourite.
I know they want to increase scoring but achieving that by increasing 50 metre penalties for extremely minor and trivial offenses is just the absolute worst way to do it. It looks ridiculous, it makes a mockery of the contested nature of the game. I've always hated 50 metre penalties in general. Especially when players run through the mark not affecting the player at all. So now we just have more of these petty little restrictions to the point that players can't actively defend.

Its not like i was a big fan of 6-6-6 either (which didn't even work to increase scoring because the AFL couldn't work out that teams relied on the + 1 in defense to generate scoring chains. The increase in kick in's space wasn't so bad - hasn't really had a big impact because its still easy to zone further up the ground.

 

[Bostonian]

Generally speaking it's a great rule. The man on the mark should have to stay on the mark, it should never be a defendable position

Horse s**t.

The mark is there so the player simply can't encroach forward towards the player with the ball. Not make the man on the mark unable to track sideways motion.

A player could now stand inches from the man on the mark quickly blind turn around the stationary player which can be done quicker than an umpire can call play on and the player with the ball is gone.

Turd rule.

 

[JackFlash]

50 metres is too harsh a penalty for "off the mark" decisions... The AFL must sit around a board room table and hand out prizes to anyone who can up with the most ridiculous rule they can think of?

 

[Bostonian]

Can't wait to see a player turn sideways to take a set shot round the corner goal from 20 out with the man on the mark right on his shoulder. The man on the mark won't be able to touch him as the other player won't have come off their original line.

 

[unplugged]

Reeks of Hocking coming up with a way for Geelong to beat Richmond

 

[mr bagcroft]

Hocking's Dad should have whacked off into a sock.
Absolute ******* idiot.

 

[Kappa]

Can anyone explain to me what problem this rule solves? Did anyone watch footy in 2020 and say 'gee that man on the mark moving 30cm sideways is ruining the game'?

I mean I get things like the 666 and third man up rules. They have end goals. People don't always like them, but you can see why they were introduced.

The man on the mark moves sideways to cut off the player with the ball quickly kicking the middle into the middle of the field and opening up the ground.

If he stands still you can mark then quickly stab it to someone standing in a bit of space in the centre

 

[Power Raid]

Can anyone explain to me what problem this rule solves? Did anyone watch footy in 2020 and say 'gee that man on the mark moving 30cm sideways is ruining the game'?

I mean I get things like the 666 and third man up rules. They have end goals. People don't always like them, but you can see why they were introduced.

the doggies were leaders on this in their flag winning year. Creeping around and over the mark to slow the game down.

there were easier ways of dealing with this, rather than creating new rules, by simply applying the rules already in existence. Step over the mark, including creeping forward in an arc, results in a 50.

 

[Jugada]

Horse sh*t.

The mark is there so the player simply can't encroach forward towards the player with the ball. Not make the man on the mark unable to track sideways motion.

A player could now stand inches from the man on the mark quickly blind turn around the stationary player which can be done quicker than an umpire can call play on and the player with the ball is gone.

Turd rule.

Nope. The mark is supposed to be the mark where a player infringed and needs to stand or a mark was taken. Has been absolute garbage for some time that players can just wander left and right of the spot where the free kick is to be taken

 

[juss]

This is utter garbage, one of the worst changes to the game ever made. Has to be scrapped before season proper.

We can only hope that there are some absolute shockers in the preseason that get huge media and fan backlash. I can't see Hocking doing a backflip before round 1 though. I think this s**t is here to stay before they adjust the adjudication and go a bit lax on it after a few weeks.

 

[Scotland]

Stepping over the mark has always been a 15/50m penalty.

Red is the mark. Where can I kick from without being called to play on? Blue? Or blue or yellow?

If I go behind the mark properly, I have to kick over the man on the mark to get to the orange X in the pocket. If I move to one of the yellow positions I can kick around the man on the mark. How often do you see the player with the ball go back behind the mark and creep sideways while the man on the mark waves his arms and jumps up and down calling for 'play on' to be blown? Every game.

The AFL has introduced a rule to penalise the man on the mark when he is not the player seeking an advantage. Ridiculous.

 

[Brickwall]

people actual get paid to make this shxt up sack them now , let the supporters decide if the rule is ok

 

[WilloTree]

It's an interesting one.

Is it just the man on the mark?

What if a second player stands next to him on a 45? Is there nothing stopping him from moving around like a Brittney Spears back-up dancer?

There was a 50m paid in the Freo/Eagles scratchie against Eagles for the man moving on the mark. The problem was, the mark was taken downfield and Freo were away. Instead, the ball was given back to the player, Eagles flooded back and the defence had time to set up. It was a disadvantage paying the free-kick.

 

[Jugada]

It's an interesting one.

Is it just the man on the mark?

What if a second player stands next to him on a 45? Is there nothing stopping him from moving around like a Brittney Spears back-up dancer?

There was a 50m paid in the Freo/Eagles scratchie against Eagles for the man moving on the mark. The problem was, the mark was taken downfield and Freo were away. Instead, the ball was given back to the player, Eagles flooded back and the defence had time to set up. It was a disadvantage paying the free-kick.

You can't have a second player manning the mark. That would already be a 50m penalty before this rule came in

 

[WilloTree]

You can't have a second player manning the mark. That would already be a 50m penalty before this rule came in

I think you may be wrong about that. Isn't that only if he's in the 'protected zone'?

There are many occasions where a bloke will be kicking for goal (particularly after the siren) when there are more that one man between the player kicking and the goals. If you look at the minute of madness from last year, there are 6 dockers manning the mark (3.09) and another 3 between the kicker and the goals.