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

Remove this Banner Ad

caitsith01

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
7,348
8,556
Earth
AFL Club
Geelong
Your in the minority because you like a boring slog that has more emphasis on congestion and not allowing the ball to move in a fluid motion. Yesterday’s game was a boring slog up until the last few minutes, the majority do not enjoy it. It’s why one day cricket has declined in popularity so much. You can walk away for most of the game come back at the end and watch the last few overs, difference is in footy we’ll watch the last few minutes. And if that continues the game slowly dies just like ODI’s are yesterday’s news.
To be clear, yesterday's game was horrible. But AFLX was also horrible, and it was designed to pretty much be a goalfest.

I guess I don't accept that the defensive side of the game is not a legitimate part of the spectacle.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆🏆🏆
Sep 13, 2015
15,989
43,431
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
Fair but even 50 points down if there is any side that COULD come back it was Richmond
40 at half time I'll give you. We could've come out breathing fire, maybe the Swans switched off a little, and we could cut 3 goals into the margin before they could switch back on. Then game on. Once it was clear that wouldn't happen, even at our best it would take forever to bring that margin back.
 

mxett

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 1, 2007
25,167
11,268
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
and sometimes it is bad to create a situation where a clearly inferior team has a "chance". I mean look at soccer, where an inferior team can win because of one really good or lucky shot at goal, even with the other team basically dominating the rest of the game. Not sure we would want that in AFL.
Yep. Would much rather see a skilfully side beat a mediocre side using skills and athletic ability. I don't want to see the better side dragged down to a lower standard using congestion, pressure, and flooding
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
128,147
51,394
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
On Sunday, the two NRL games outrated the two AFL games.

The game yesterday was the second highest rated AFL game behind the Lions v Pies.
So? Two Victorian sides will always rate higher. Similarly in NRL the derby’s in Sydney you’d assume rate higher. The game yesterday was close but it was as ugly as can be very scrappy.
 

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
6,876
14,794
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
Still pissing and moaning I see. Don’t stress the tigers will be at the business end of the season.
Up and about with the abuse because you beat Richmond, well done, what has that got to do with the subject.

I watched Gryan Miers on his mark 60m out run 45º until he was a meter inside the 50m line before his stationary defender was able to exert any pressure on his at all. Because he is such a crap kick he missed, but is this the sort of football we want to see, are easy rule assisted goals the measure of a game of football. The umps had a hand in about half the goals as was. It was a game played between arcs, not that exciting except for the last half of the last Q.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
6,876
14,794
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
how about a Richmond premiership and a bottle of hot milk before bed to settle your tum tum?
Why the mocking, and only after we lose a game. You think the rule had anything to do with the result on the weekend, Swans were just too good and wanted it more, pretty basic really.

I do not support the rule and I have no idea how it affects Richmond any more than any other team, and the poster you are mocking makes no reference to Richmond either. It is a rule that allows for one player to have to great an advantage over another, a rule that evens out skill like in the example I gave a couple of posts before, simple really.
 

CrowInFiji

Club Legend
Sep 29, 2018
1,139
1,454
AFL Club
Adelaide
Why the mocking, and only after we lose a game. You think the rule had anything to do with the result on the weekend, Swans were just too good and wanted it more, pretty basic really.

I do not support the rule and I have no idea how it affects Richmond any more than any other team, and the poster you are mocking makes no reference to Richmond either. It is a rule that allows for one player to have to great an advantage over another, a rule that evens out skill like in the example I gave a couple of posts before, simple really.
If you insist:

For starters I mock you because you've given a rule precisely 3 rounds before declaring it crap and in sith-style something you'll never change your mind on.

Just the fact you'd ever say never to an opinion is a logical fallicy in of itself but you doubled down on it by deciding the sample size was enough despite that same sample size being almost universally lauded as, again in sith-style, absolutely amazing.

As an aside I didn't choose to respond to you because Richmond lost but indeed because I saw your post and I am too lazy to set an alarm for next week when Richmond have won again.

Next I mock you because your criticism of a rule that is designed to allow players to show off their skill and open up the game somehow evens out skill. I argue the exact opposite, there is no excuses now not to hit your target and for those who are more skillful and creative we will see that come to the fore.

Getting back to your original post I found it laughable that you bemoan a 'mirror match' where teams have to both use their skills to win (oh the horror) as opposed to the rolling maul we have seen for the past 5 years.

I dont doubt Richmond's ability to adapt but I do think it disproportionately affects their game more than many other teams. JL made the note recently that Richmond didn't pick the most skillful players they picked the players who would fit the gameplan and boy was it an effective plan, just ugly to watch compared to now.

Anyway, the point is give it more of a chance than round 3. It's also just one piece of the puzzle. We need more time to assess the impact.

Enjoy the ride.
 

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆🏆🏆
Sep 13, 2015
15,989
43,431
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
If you insist:

For starters I mock you because you've given a rule precisely 3 rounds before declaring it crap and in sith-style something you'll never change your mind on.

Just the fact you'd ever say never to an opinion is a logical fallicy in of itself but you doubled down on it by deciding the sample size was enough despite that same sample size being almost universally lauded as, again in sith-style, absolutely amazing.

As an aside I didn't choose to respond to you because Richmond lost but indeed because I saw your post and I am too lazy to set an alarm for next week when Richmond have won again.

Next I mock you because your criticism of a rule that is designed to allow players to show off their skill and open up the game somehow evens out skill. I argue the exact opposite, there is no excuses now not to hit your target and for those who are more skillful and creative we will see that come to the fore.

Getting back to your original post I found it laughable that you bemoan a 'mirror match' where teams have to both use their skills to win (oh the horror) as opposed to the rolling maul we have seen for the past 5 years.

I dont doubt Richmond's ability to adapt but I do think it disproportionately affects their game more than many other teams. JL made the note recently that Richmond didn't pick the most skillful players they picked the players who would fit the gameplan and boy was it an effective plan, just ugly to watch compared to now.

Anyway, the point is give it more of a chance than round 3. It's also just one piece of the puzzle. We need more time to assess the impact.

Enjoy the ride.
Yet this thread is filled with people labelling the rule as the best thing since sliced bread.. after 3 rounds
 

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
6,876
14,794
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
If you insist:

For starters I mock you because you've given a rule precisely 3 rounds before declaring it crap and in sith-style something you'll never change your mind on.

Just the fact you'd ever say never to an opinion is a logical fallicy in of itself but you doubled down on it by deciding the sample size was enough despite that same sample size being almost universally lauded as, again in sith-style, absolutely amazing.

As an aside I didn't choose to respond to you because Richmond lost but indeed because I saw your post and I am too lazy to set an alarm for next week when Richmond have won again.

Next I mock you because your criticism of a rule that is designed to allow players to show off their skill and open up the game somehow evens out skill. I argue the exact opposite, there is no excuses now not to hit your target and for those who are more skillful and creative we will see that come to the fore.

Getting back to your original post I found it laughable that you bemoan a 'mirror match' where teams have to both use their skills to win (oh the horror) as opposed to the rolling maul we have seen for the past 5 years.

I dont doubt Richmond's ability to adapt but I do think it disproportionately affects their game more than many other teams. JL made the note recently that Richmond didn't pick the most skillful players they picked the players who would fit the gameplan and boy was it an effective plan, just ugly to watch compared to now.

Anyway, the point is give it more of a chance than round 3. It's also just one piece of the puzzle. We need more time to assess the impact.

Enjoy the ride.
That's quite some extrapolation from your mocking have a milk a lie down post.
As pointed out on the post above, 3 weeks is okay for you to endorse, but for not for me disendorse.

For what it is worth I am not totally against it in theory, but players like Miers and from our side MacIntosh who every time he gets the ball, never goes anywhere near his mark, and is never called to play over it. Miers kicked the ball closer to goal than his mark because he wasn't called to play on fast enough, i.e a rule assisted score. That is not skill.

So umps have to control that, just like they do every other aspect of the game. That is my main beef, umpire inconsistency which gives potentially game winning or losing decisions if a player moves a foot either way, when the player with the ball has already gone 5m. It is impossible to umpire like that. If some degree of latitude is given then not so bad. But right now that latitude is so inconsistent.

I don't agree with your rolling mall of the last 5 seasons, especially when applied to Richmond, who have almost half the stoppages that some other sides have had over the last few years. Hardwick quoted that last season, Richmond having about 55 per game, some teams around the 100.

Richmond may not be the most skilful by foot, but by hand easily. They move the ball faster than anyone, hence they lead the league in scores from defensive 50m. Hawthorns Mitchell had 20 disposals against us at half time for 20m gained two weeks ago. Is that skill? Edwards was double the metres gained by handball than any player in the league a year or so ago, and was no.1 for score assists with a lot less possessions. That is skill.

So I don't agree with the premise that it has lifted the skill level, it has enabled less skilled players to hit targets and get into situations that they would never be able to do before the rule.

For what it is worth, I like watching West Coast play. They get the ball and kick it long to a multitude of tall forwards who are all targets, add Liam Ryan and it is exciting. They are great to watch when they are on. It is good old fashioned get the ball and use it well, and they don't need a new rule to help them, or bring them down to others level.
 

HPKS

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2012
1,158
1,014
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
I am all for progression, let the players evolve, the coaches evolve, the tactics, the strategy etc. Always play the same sport though. Changing the rules is not evolving it is changing the sport. Changing them yearly is seriously changing the actual sport.
You didn't answer the question, why have the majority of fans as you claim not turned away with the so called crap footy of the last 10 years or longer?
Did you complain 20 years ago? Because as I’ve posted previously theyve been changing every year for almost the last 30 years. If you’d let it evolve you’d still have an ugly mess. Defensively knocking it out of bounds, rushed behinds, slowing the play up to set up a zone, four men on the bench with no limitations. It’d be worse than last year. Nothing in sport evolves, it’s always legislated.

As for turning away fans. After that revolting sh*t from last year it’s called being proactive before it gets out of hand. Who’d wana pay to watch that garbage.
 

juss

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 23, 2009
23,810
30,566
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
The AFL has tried to manipulate a style of play by making a rule change.
My only question from that is once coaches have found a way to counter and defend this, then what? The AFL has to manipulate the game further?
 

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
10,228
13,134
AFL Club
Essendon
The AFL has tried to manipulate a style of play by making a rule change.
My only question from that is once coaches have found a way to counter and defend this, then what? The AFL has to manipulate the game further?
Depends where the changes take us. The transition from a semi-professional to fully-professional era has certainly brought with it massive changes to how the game has been played, along with the physical capabilities of the players. They're taller, faster, with greater endurance than ever before.

Wayne Carey is the same height as Polly Farmer, they're both an inch shorter than Patrick Cripps. One was a ruckman, the other a CHF, the other a midfielder. We're seeing the King twins run around as forwards, at the same height Dean Cox was as a ruckman. Coaching has leapt forward enormously with zones and systems, much greater access to data, stats, insights and coaching resources.

The game between the 80s and 90s to the 10s and 20s is light years apart, which means the rules have to move with it. Will the game have changed and evolved as much by 2040 - 2050 to necessitate massive rule changes? Who knows, but going from an amateur, to semi-professional, to professional sport is such a drastic leap in the physical and mental capability of the players and coaches that I don't think will leap quite as far over the next 20-30 years.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
12,134
12,133
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Did you complain 20 years ago? Because as I’ve posted previously theyve been changing every year for almost the last 30 years. If you’d let it evolve you’d still have an ugly mess. Defensively knocking it out of bounds, rushed behinds, slowing the play up to set up a zone, four men on the bench with no limitations. It’d be worse than last year. Nothing in sport evolves, it’s always legislated.

As for turning away fans. After that revolting sh*t from last year it’s called being proactive before it gets out of hand. Who’d wana pay to watch that garbage.
Exactly and what sport does this except for this sport? The AFL need to give coaches and players time to work through the changes.
Sit down once every 5 years and look at the rules and where the game is and then make changes if required. There is no need for these yearly rule changes crap.
Have you ever thought that coaches may just find a way through these defensive zones if given a chance to work on it? The AFL don't give them the chance and because they introduce another set of yearly rule changes the coaches have to again spend a year learning new rules and putting a plan into action.
I have been upset with the AFL since they started the rule changes some 30 years ago, the sport was fine and the fans loved it and there is not ounce of evidence to suggest the fans didn't love the sport.

Utopia does not exist in footy, it will never ever be a 20-18 goal game all the time, you may get 5-10 of those a year just as you will this year.
Using last year as an example is just ridiculous. Go and ask Richmond fans what they thought of season 2020. That same crap season you talk of had huge TV numbers so on what parameter did the AFL feel the need for change, what survey did they do to find out what the fans want?
They are just guessing and while it looks right now they may have got one right finally I can bet you by mid year the scoring is down again and defense is well and truly back on top.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
12,134
12,133
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Depends where the changes take us. The transition from a semi-professional to fully-professional era has certainly brought with it massive changes to how the game has been played, along with the physical capabilities of the players. They're taller, faster, with greater endurance than ever before.

Wayne Carey is the same height as Polly Farmer, they're both an inch shorter than Patrick Cripps. One was a ruckman, the other a CHF, the other a midfielder. We're seeing the King twins run around as forwards, at the same height Dean Cox was as a ruckman. Coaching has leapt forward enormously with zones and systems, much greater access to data, stats, insights and coaching resources.

The game between the 80s and 90s to the 10s and 20s is light years apart, which means the rules have to move with it. Will the game have changed and evolved as much by 2040 - 2050 to necessitate massive rule changes? Who knows, but going from an amateur, to semi-professional, to professional sport is such a drastic leap in the physical and mental capability of the players and coaches that I don't think will leap quite as far over the next 20-30 years.
How come every other sport in the world has not felt the need for this? We have had more rule changes in 2-5 years than pretty much every other sport has had in its history.
 

Remove this Banner Ad