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

[HPKS]

I don't disagree.

Close finishes are engaging for sports fans. But personally, the way footy is currently, I find myself watching the start of games, then getting bored and checking the scores throughout. If it's close, I turn back on for the last 10 minutes.

This is what the AFL don't want. They don't want people flicking around to other channels. There's usually basketball, NRL or soccer on at the same time - or even a show or movie that the family wants to watch, and there's a very real risk that they catch your attention if the footy is a boring game.

So although close finishes are exciting and important - you cant have people switching off midway. You might not get them back.

Apart from Richmond for the reason I’ve stated and my side I did this a lot last year. It’s just not enjoyable apart from maybe a close finish and even then it’s such a low scoring game these days I can miss the 2nd & 3rd quarters and it doesn’t matter as most sides are always close enough to have a run at the end. It’s what slowly is killing off one day cricket. I have no reason to hang around watching all the game.

 

[YeOldTiger]

I'm not saying it isn't effective, and I'm certainly not saying Richmond aren't good at it - I'm saying it's excruciating to sit through 100 minutes of it.

The problem is that it is effective! That's why every coach is obssessed with pressure and defence as the number one part of football. The number one focus of all coaches, especially Hardwick, is to stop the opposition from having any free time or space to execute the fundamental slills of football.

If you have two teams successfully acheiving their goal of stopping each other from executing basic and fundamental skills, you end up with... guess what...?
...A game devoid of fundamental and well executed skills. It's ******* boring.

That's the problem with these younger generations lol. They want instant gratification and then as soon as they're gratified they want instant gratification again. Rinse and repeat. It's why Test cricket went to 50 overs and then 20 overs (now look at the drop off) and now the hundred. Shorter games with six after six after six. No emphasis on defence, which is half of any game after all.

Perhaps it is a generational thing. For me, watching two teams slug it out in a low scoring game is like an arm wrestle. I don't need cheap highlights to get my thrill. I want to see two bulls lock horns and the stronger one comes out on top. That's everything about human nature. Cheap scoring just cheapens the game. The only thing worse is manufactured scoring to suit advertisers.

If soccer relied on high scoring it wouldn't be the No1 game in the world. And yet more people watch soccer than any other sport and their players are incredibly highly paid. Apart form the Olympics the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world and at the end of the World Cup final the score could be nil all and yet it could have been an absorbing game.

Dont be too quick to usher the traditionalists out of the game because the games traditions are what have made it great over a hundred and fifty years. If you try to turn footy into basketball you end up with a second rate product. Leave the bloody game alone.

The game has had super high scoring in the past (full forwards kicking 150 goals in a season !) and anyone who tried to tell me football was better then, than it is now has rocks in their head. The problem with the game now is the constant tinkering with the rules !

 

[YeOldTiger]

But advertisers don't pay big money for time slots that no one is watching either.

If you're trying to tell me that "no one is watching" while the game is on, compared to who is watching during the half time breaks you really have no idea. I've been in the ad game for 30 years mate and if you were an advertiser in an AFL game, where would you want your ad to go ? Lol

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

If you're trying to tell me that "no one is watching" while the game is on, compared to who is watching during the half time breaks you really have no idea. I've been in the ad game for 30 years mate and if you were an advertiser in an AFL game, where would you want your ad to go ? Lol

Sorry, I don't understand your post.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

That's the problem with these younger generations lol. They want instant gratification and then as soon as they're gratified they want instant gratification again. Rinse and repeat. It's why Test cricket went to 50 overs and then 20 overs (now look at the drop off) and now the hundred. Shorter games with six after six after six. No emphasis on defence, which is half of any game after all.

Perhaps it is a generational thing. For me, watching two teams slug it out in a low scoring game is like an arm wrestle. I don't need cheap highlights to get my thrill. I want to see two bulls lock horns and the stronger one comes out on top. That's everything about human nature. Cheap scoring just cheapens the game. The only thing worse is manufactured scoring to suit advertisers.

If soccer relied on high scoring it wouldn't be the No1 game in the world. And yet more people watch soccer than any other sport and their players are incredibly highly paid. Apart form the Olympics the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world and at the end of the World Cup final the score could be nil all and yet it could have been an absorbing game.

Dont be too quick to usher the traditionalists out of the game because the games traditions are what have made it great over a hundred and fifty years. If you try to turn footy into basketball you end up with a second rate product. Leave the bloody game alone.

The game has had super high scoring in the past (full forwards kicking 150 goals in a season !) and anyone who tried to tell me football was better then, than it is now has rocks in their head. The problem with the game now is the constant tinkering with the rules !

I'm not here to tell you what you should or shouldn't like. It's none of my business and you're entitled to your opinion.

But you've wasted a bunch of words when you hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph.

It is a generational thing. The AFL must adapt to the market. Cricket had to, the NRL has.
The Aussie market is far more aligned with the U.S. than it is with Europe in regards to sport.
That's why Soccer struggles.


Personally, I too love the contest in sport. Scoring, in isolation, matters little.
But the contest has to be a battle of the fundamental skills of the sport. Modern footy isn't a contest of the fundamental slills. It's become a contest of who can pressure more, who can zone better, who can force the opposition to make mistakes, who can gang tackle the most.

It's just boring.

 

[HPKS]

The other thing is we have young key forwards in the king twins, McDonald, Naughton, Allen, Tilthorpe etc coming through. We should be trying to open the game up as this is what has bought fans through the gates for over a century. No1 goes to a game talking about how many tackles will be laid or who has the higher pressure ranking. They go to see key forwards kick goals so their side wins. We’ve allowed tactics to choke them out of the game.

 

[Purple Suit]

The other thing is we have young key forwards in the king twins, McDonald, Naughton, Allen, Tilthorpe etc coming through. We should be trying to open the game up as this is what has bought fans through the gates for over a century. No1 goes to a game talking about how many tackles will be laid or who has the higher pressure ranking. They go to see key forwards kick goals so their side wins. We’ve allowed tactics to choke them out of the game.

But how has it occurred with the rules changing so often? Is it because tactics evolve with what ever rules are around anyway, first to limit scoring and then to score more. The game ebbs and flows between these two points and if the AFL just sat back and did nothing, you'd have more scoring come back far sooner.

The fact that they have made these knee jerk rule changes after shorter games and the most disrupted season in history is telling. Clearly tinkering is there MO and they have no interest in the fans or what is good for the game long term. It reeks of manipulation to get more ads in as the main driver. More 50m penalties will get more goals, simple.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I like it, it means hawthorn aren't committing 2-3 to the mark and in turn leaving us outnumbered in defence

 

[HPKS]

But how has it occurred with the rules changing so often? Is it because tactics evolve with what ever rules are around anyway, first to limit scoring and then to score more. The game ebbs and flows between these two points and if the AFL just sat back and did nothing, you'd have more scoring come back far sooner.

The fact that they have made these knee jerk rule changes after shorter games and the most disrupted season in history is telling. Clearly tinkering is there MO and they have no interest in the fans or what is good for the game long term. It reeks of manipulation to get more ads in as the main driver. More 50m penalties will get more goals, simple.

I keep hearing let it evolve let it evolve it’ll work itself out and it doesn’t. There’s been a consistent increase in defensive tactics that has congested the game over the last 25 years from when Eade started flooding and used midfield rotations with Sydney leading them to the 1996 grand final. With a consistent decrease in scoring over those years to.

Anyone can see that the manning the mark has opened up the options for the kicker which allows them to use the whole ground and not be hemmed into a small part of the ground. I’m over the defensive slog. Last year was the least I’ve watched footy in 40 odd years of footy. It was boring.

 

[Purple Suit]

I keep hearing let it evolve let it evolve it’ll work itself out and it doesn’t. There’s been a consistent increase in defensive tactics that has congested the game over the last 25 years from when Eade started flooding and used midfield rotations with Sydney leading them to the 1996 grand final. With a consistent decrease in scoring over those years to.

Anyone can see that the manning the mark has opened up the options for the kicker which allows them to use the whole ground and not be hemmed into a small part of the ground. I’m over the defensive slog. Last year was the least I’ve watched footy in 40 odd years of footy. It was boring.

But why was it so defensive last year? Was it because the quarters were 16 minutes long and the fitness of players allowed them to defend for the entire quarter? Junk time goals were down, everything was down including players skill level after being in quarantine for 3 months.

No point using last year as a reason to change as there were too many other factors at play. The games rules should be sacrosanct and only change due to careful consideration, trialling and community consultation. The current dictatorship knee jerk approach is terrible and I hope it spectacularly blows up in the AFail's face.

 

[HPKS]

But why was it so defensive last year? Was it because the quarters were 16 minutes long and the fitness of players allowed them to defend for the entire quarter? Junk time goals were down, everything was down including players skill level after being in quarantine for 3 months.

No point using last year as a reason to change as there were too many other factors at play. The games rules should be sacrosanct and only change due to careful consideration, trialling and community consultation. The current dictatorship knee jerk approach is terrible and I hope it spectacularly blows up in the AFail's face.

Like I said it’s been a steady increase over 25 years. It was allowed to evolve and it evolved more & more defensively over time. There’s no way it was going to turn around last year with or without a pandemic. Shorter quarters just highlighted how garbage the game had become over time. I don’t watch a whole quarter to see a few junk time goals. The skill level has always been there it’s just been smothered year after year.

People talk like rules changing recently are just new phenomenon. It’s not. Was there any trial to go from the 15 to 50 metre penalty. Was there a trial for out of bounds on the full. Was there a trial for laying over the ball. I could go on and on.

Everyone except Richmond supporters I’ve spoken to likes the rule after seeing it. And I think it’s the concern that the rule will harm them. It won’t they’re the best side in the comp and they’ll adapt and be contending again.

 

[theyellowsash]

That's the problem with these younger generations lol. They want instant gratification and then as soon as they're gratified they want instant gratification again. Rinse and repeat. It's why Test cricket went to 50 overs and then 20 overs (now look at the drop off) and now the hundred. Shorter games with six after six after six. No emphasis on defence, which is half of any game after all.

Perhaps it is a generational thing. For me, watching two teams slug it out in a low scoring game is like an arm wrestle. I don't need cheap highlights to get my thrill. I want to see two bulls lock horns and the stronger one comes out on top. That's everything about human nature. Cheap scoring just cheapens the game. The only thing worse is manufactured scoring to suit advertisers.

If soccer relied on high scoring it wouldn't be the No1 game in the world. And yet more people watch soccer than any other sport and their players are incredibly highly paid. Apart form the Olympics the World Cup is the biggest sporting event in the world and at the end of the World Cup final the score could be nil all and yet it could have been an absorbing game.

Dont be too quick to usher the traditionalists out of the game because the games traditions are what have made it great over a hundred and fifty years. If you try to turn footy into basketball you end up with a second rate product. Leave the bloody game alone.

The game has had super high scoring in the past (full forwards kicking 150 goals in a season !) and anyone who tried to tell me football was better then, than it is now has rocks in their head. The problem with the game now is the constant tinkering with the rules !

Lol, another fuddy duddy throwing shit and blaming the young generation for all the problems.

The only people bitching and moaning about footy today are the 'back in my day' old people who want the game to be like it was 40 years ago and think that a game is no good if it's not 16 goals to 20.

 

[YeOldTiger]

Sorry, I don't understand your post.

Then you understood me perfectly.

 

[YeOldTiger]

I'm not here to tell you what you should or shouldn't like. It's none of my business and you're entitled to your opinion.

But you've wasted a bunch of words when you hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph.

It is a generational thing. The AFL must adapt to the market. Cricket had to, the NRL has.
The Aussie market is far more aligned with the U.S. than it is with Europe in regards to sport.
That's why Soccer struggles.


Personally, I too love the contest in sport. Scoring, in isolation, matters little.
But the contest has to be a battle of the fundamental skills of the sport. Modern footy isn't a contest of the fundamental slills. It's become a contest of who can pressure more, who can zone better, who can force the opposition to make mistakes, who can gang tackle the most.

It's just boring.

This is weird but I think we are agreeing to disagree whilst disagreeing about what we agree about.

 

[YeOldTiger]

Lol, another fuddy duddy throwing sh*t and blaming the young generation for all the problems.

The only people bitching and moaning about footy today are the 'back in my day' old people who want the game to be like it was 40 years ago and think that a game is no good if it's not 16 goals to 20.

Sorry, I don't understand your post.

If you're going to come in over the top at least have the sense to read the posts that led up to what you're commenting about.

Otherwise you look like you didn't have the sense to read the posts that led up to what you're commenting about.

Would you agree ?

We're talking about the "stand" on the mark rule yes ?

 

[theyellowsash]

Sorry, I don't understand your post.

If you're going to come in over the top at least have the sense to read the posts that led up to what you're commenting about.

Otherwise you look like you didn't have the sense to read the posts that led up to what you're commenting about.

Would you agree ?

We're talking about the "stand" on the mark rule yes ?

You're blabbering on about the kids of today needing instant gratification constantly and complaining that the game is boring if it's a slog. The only people actually complaining about the state of the game are the middle aged crybabies who want the game to be like the 80s and early 90s.

 

[YeOldTiger]

You're blabbering on about the kids of today needing instant gratification constantly and complaining that the game is boring if it's a slog. The only people actually complaining about the state of the game are the middle aged crybabies who want the game to be like the 80s and early 90s.

Go back and read the entire thread and you won't look so silly. You have your wires crossed.

 

[YeOldTiger]

You're blabbering on about the kids of today needing instant gratification constantly and complaining that the game is boring if it's a slog. The only people actually complaining about the state of the game are the middle aged crybabies who want the game to be like the 80s and early 90s.

I made one post about "the kids of today" in satirical response to previous "Boomer" posts. Do you understand satire ? Only a millennial wouldn't understand. Lol

 

[YeOldTiger]

"Blabbering" - English. Verb. The only word a millennial is reduced to using when they can't be bothered/understand/have to make an effort to do the reading when an adult is talking. "I don't understand what you mean and I cant be bother to find out, it all sounds like to much work to try to comprehend...you're just blabbering"

 

[gingernuts]

This is something that many don’t get I feel. We as Richmond supporters know what a defensive Richmond looks like. For example, Richmond used to be defensive in the 2014-2015 era when we tried to hold on to possession and chip the ball. We defended when we didn’t have the ball and we were defensive with the ball as well, trying our best not retain possession of the ball.

However, that is not the case in the Premiership era. We are defensive when we don’t have the ball (I mean, why wouldn’t we?) and rely on our pressure in the forward line and midfield to stop teams getting clean disposals on the field and especially into our defensive 50. When we have the ball though, we go directly for the goals. Hardly any of this sideways, kicking backwards and chipping stuff. Just straight towards the goal. Therefore, I’d say that we’re actually extremely attacking when we have the ball (probably one of the most in the league). That’s why we basically had the highest total and average inside 50 count in the league last year and ranked top 3 in this stat since 2017 despite not being a high-ranking clearance, contested possession and uncontested possession side.

The real defensive sides are Collingwood and Sydney in my opinion. They are the ones who flood a team’s backline so that you cannot score and when they have the ball it doesn’t really seem like they have a strong intent of scoring. No surprise that our games against them last year was 36-36 and 34-26 our way respectively.

At my local watering hole 90% of the patrons are Richmond flogs (mostly my mates).Half of them were on the sackhardwicke .com committee before tiges turned the corner. Typical Richmond come out of the woodwork when you win. However I do have to admit that I like watching Richmond play because they are an attacking football side.
ps. These flogs give me shit when I am trying to have a quiet beer. I always reply "thank god for Mason Cox"

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Haha. All teams do do it! That's the whole problem. Richmond just maintain it for longer.
I totally disagree with this bit:

"If they applied the same principle you'd have two teams using high pressure to get the ball, then attack and score.."

When all teams focus on defence amd pressure which involves 5 on 5 contests all over the ground, which is what literally happens, you end up with a hideous scrum of a game.

That's why the AFL has spent the past few years trying to change it so it's watchable again!

No coach is going to allow shootout footy. If the AFL or it’s fans think that we are ever going to see one on one contests, free flowing mark, handball, kick hit target then they need to forget about it. Will never ever happen.

 

[BillHickman]

Everyone except Richmond supporters I’ve spoken to likes the rule after seeing it. And I think it’s the concern that the rule will harm them. It won’t they’re the best side in the comp and they’ll adapt and be contending again.

Except that just on the first page of this thread alone, there are Ess, Carl, WCE, Melb, Haw and Freo supporters bagging the rule.
If the attacking player moves off the line, the ump needs to call play on, not 3 steps later, if that happens we won't care as much about this rule.
Will be frustrating to watch early in the season when players cop 50 for something that had zero impact on the play. ...... until they slacken off by round 6 like every other new rule or interpretation. But as long as they ump every team the same, then who cares.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

a steady decline in TV ratings over a number of seasons suggests many fans are less than happy with games full of low-scoring fumbling mistakes due to over-crowding and pressure

I think you will find the decline is more about the AFL changing the sport to a different sport. I am 53 and all my friends who grew up with Aussie rules dislike this hybrid version of the sport. The interest has seriously gone now because they changed the actual sport. All anyone talks about is what head office has done to our once great game. Add to that the same sides yearly in prime time slots no matter their ladder position and it has just become a bore to follow.

 

[BoundbyKreuze]

I actually like it. What I don’t like is saint kilda stepping back 5m and avoiding being told to stand. Makes no sense. Where is the limit. Did they contact the umpires to say they’d be doing this. What happens if while lining up to kick and a saints player is on the mark. The player walks in to kick but gets really close to the player on the (pretend mark that saints player made up) and then the kicking player plays on forcing the saints player to move forward on their line. This would have made them be in a ‘stand’ position. And hence a 50 every time.

A Fremantle player can be called for 50 by moving backwards why can a saints player move as they like behind the ball. They should be called to stand as well.

 

[D-N-R]

I've o nly watched the one game ( WCE vs Freo) with the new rule, so I don't know what to make of it yet.

What I can say is that it didn't bother me as much as I thought it might. The umpires were fairly quick in calling play on, which is only fair. But WC play on quite quickly and kick sideways or back. Its the best way to stay ahead of the flood. It also means the rule doesn't have any effect in those situations.

I think a few teams and players may have developed some tactics to take advantage of the new rule and won't show their hand until the season proper starts.

Also, what is the metric we are going to use to deem this rule successful or otherwise? Goals scored? Fewer tackles and stoppages? Are there stats for attacking through the corridor?