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

Remove this Banner Ad

HPKS

Club Legend
Apr 6, 2012
1,155
1,003
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
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.
Now your changing tact from leave it alone it’s not the game I recognise to let’s look at it every 5 years. So what is it then? Leave it alone and hope that you get back the game you grew up with or let’s change it every five years?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
10,136
12,987
AFL Club
Essendon
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.
Basketball has certainly done it, NRL brought in the 5 again rule mid year which had a massive impact on the game last year from memory. Cricket has various formats.

AFL has a lot of variables in play at any given time, the free flowing nature of the game means that you have to account for 360 degrees of movement, massive playing fields, long duration games with high levels of distances covered.

The AFL has been fully professional for a much shorter period of time than many international sports as well.

People don’t like rule changes, I get it, and many of the rule changes made by the AFL have had unintended side effects, but these two - man on the mark and reduced rotations go hand in hand - appear thus far to have a positive impact on scoring, more open play, and has brought big forwards in to the game in a way they haven’t been for most of the last decade.
 

greatwhiteshark

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 3, 2007
12,125
12,123
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
West Perth
Now your changing tact from leave it alone it’s not the game I recognise to let’s look at it every 5 years. So what is it then? Leave it alone and hope that you get back the game you grew up with or let’s change it every five years?
No I have not said leave it alone totally, I have said there is no need for yearly changes, give the game a chance to breathe and let the players and coaches evolve it. I am suggesting once every 5 years a committee sits down and goes through it and then makes recommendations based on what has happened the previous 5 years.
Why do you want it changed yearly?
It has nothing to do with the game being different than when I grew up, the players and coaches were always going to evolve the game just as every other era did. It wasnt the game I grew up with in 1995 but at least they were playing basically the same rules. The game has changed dramatically based on rule changes more than anything else. I am asking why is this necessary and based on what information is the AFL basing these changes on? Crowds dropped off? TV ratings down? Membership numbers down? Social media discussion down? TV footy shows lost support? I would say the answer to all those key indicators is NO.
So what are they basing it on?
 
Last edited:

owen87

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 23, 2016
10,136
12,987
AFL Club
Essendon
What do you mean no goals, like the last 100 years goals haven't existed. I didn't realise that football was in such bad shape. I think the congestion that everyone complains about was way more noticeable 10 years ago.
Clearly you missed the bits I quoted
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
9,193
6,826
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Again, they literally changed the handball rule midseason off the back of a Premier League game.
AGAIN, they have been deliberating this change since the 90's. This did not come out of the blue.

Also, it doesn't fundamentally chsnge the game or make it look stupid. It just makes it easier to officiate.

None of the rule chsnges in soccer have ever been an issue and always improved it. Not like AFL at all, AGAIN.
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
103,337
64,380
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
AGAIN, they have been deliberating this change since the 90's. This did not come out of the blue.

Also, it doesn't fundamentally chsnge the game or make it look stupid. It just makes it easier to officiate.

None of the rule chsnges in soccer have ever been an issue and always improved it. Not like AFL at all, AGAIN.
Well yes it did come out of the blue since in the pre season they had made an almost completely opposite change. You're thinking of the original change - that being that all touches of the ball in the lead up to a goal counts as handball and won't count as a goal. They FLIPPED that mid-season out of the blue. After a Fulham goal was disallowed.

Dig up.
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
9,193
6,826
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Well yes it did come out of the blue since in the pre season they had made an almost completely opposite change. You're thinking of the original change - that being that all touches of the ball in the lead up to a goal counts as handball and won't count as a goal. They FLIPPED that mid-season out of the blue. After a Fulham goal was disallowed.

Dig up.
This is just EPL. It's not going to be in the world cup or Champions League or other leagues like serie A.

How often have the actual soccer rules changed per World Cup which is every four years?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
103,337
64,380
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
This is just EPL. It's not going to be in the world cup or Champions League or other leagues like serie A.

How often have the actual soccer rules changed per World Cup which is every four years?
So just confirming, they did change a rule spur of the moment?
 

SM

Bigfooty Legend
Aug 3, 2008
103,337
64,380
North Shore
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Hull City, Adelaide United, EH
You didn't answer my questionquestion. Dig up, again.
Your question is fundamentally flawed and doesn't merit a response.

Soccer has introduced rules at short notice which was my example. You don't get to reinterpret the parameters of my example yo be an arbitrary tournament.
 

harrythetiger

Jack Graham That Is 🏆🏆🏆
Sep 13, 2015
15,965
43,323
Hillary Step
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
76ers
Basketball has certainly done it, NRL brought in the 5 again rule mid year which had a massive impact on the game last year from memory. Cricket has various formats.

AFL has a lot of variables in play at any given time, the free flowing nature of the game means that you have to account for 360 degrees of movement, massive playing fields, long duration games with high levels of distances covered.

The AFL has been fully professional for a much shorter period of time than many international sports as well.

People don’t like rule changes, I get it, and many of the rule changes made by the AFL have had unintended side effects, but these two - man on the mark and reduced rotations go hand in hand - appear thus far to have a positive impact on scoring, more open play, and has brought big forwards in to the game in a way they haven’t been for most of the last decade.
Myth
 

mr bagcroft

Premiership Player
May 19, 2017
4,437
5,086
AFL Club
St Kilda
AGAIN, they have been deliberating this change since the 90's. This did not come out of the blue.

Also, it doesn't fundamentally chsnge the game or make it look stupid. It just makes it easier to officiate.

None of the rule chsnges in soccer have ever been an issue and always improved it. Not like AFL at all, AGAIN.
er yup, it looks pretty damn stupid.
 

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
7,065
10,794
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
AGAIN, they have been deliberating this change since the 90's. This did not come out of the blue.

Also, it doesn't fundamentally chsnge the game or make it look stupid. It just makes it easier to officiate.

None of the rule chsnges in soccer have ever been an issue and always improved it. Not like AFL at all, AGAIN.
The new Man on the Mark rule doesn't fundamentally change anything either.

Manning the mark has never been a core skill of the sport. Not all that long ago, kicking across the ground was a sin - no one did it. You'd actually kick over the mark, so the man on the mark had no reason to move laterally anyway.

The fundamental of footy has always been that the team with the ball has the advantage. In recent times, this changed as teams started generating the bulk of their scores from turnovers. This literally means that you are more likely to score if you don't have the ball! You literally are at a disadvantage if you have the ball!

Now that is ridiculous. That is a ludicrous situation for a sport to be in. When good offence doesn't beat good defence, your sport is ruined.


All this new rule has done, is really close a loophole that coaches were exploiting. The Man on the Mark being used as a defensive weapon was just bullshit. It didn't add anything to the game. It was just yet another way for coaches to clog up the game and slow it down.

Reducing the impact of the Man on the Mark is a great example of subtle tweaks that DON'T mess with the fundamentals of the sport, whilst making an impact in line with the spirit of the game. And that spirit I'm referring to is that the team with the ball should have the advantage.
 

Grrr

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 16, 2009
6,847
14,718
mildura
AFL Club
Richmond
The new Man on the Mark rule doesn't fundamentally change anything either.

Manning the mark has never been a core skill of the sport. Not all that long ago, kicking across the ground was a sin - no one did it. You'd actually kick over the mark, so the man on the mark had no reason to move laterally anyway.

The fundamental of footy has always been that the team with the ball has the advantage. In recent times, this changed as teams started generating the bulk of their scores from turnovers. This literally means that you are more likely to score if you don't have the ball! You literally are at a disadvantage if you have the ball!

Now that is ridiculous. That is a ludicrous situation for a sport to be in. When good offence doesn't beat good defence, your sport is ruined.


All this new rule has done, is really close a loophole that coaches were exploiting. The Man on the Mark being used as a defensive weapon was just bullshit. It didn't add anything to the game. It was just yet another way for coaches to clog up the game and slow it down.

Reducing the impact of the Man on the Mark is a great example of subtle tweaks that DON'T mess with the fundamentals of the sport, whilst making an impact in line with the spirit of the game. And that spirit I'm referring to is that the team with the ball should have the advantage.
Don't you need a good forward line to score, not just a good defence. Defence has always been the cornerstone of a good side.

I get what you say in regard to disadvantage if you have the ball, but setting up defensively behind the ball won't win you matches either unless you have quality mids to transfer the ball. West Coast are good to watch and they score by getting the ball quickly into their strong forward line. Richmond score heaviliy from turnovers, but do not mess around with the ball so score quite heavily.

Sides that chip it around, are equally uninteresting to watch as sides that play defensively. Fast ball movement is still the way to go, and you can see with the injection of speed in the game that coaches know this. The Swans played a small and lively forward line and took apart Richmond's defence. Nothing to do with the new rule. I think people are underestimating that coaches don't just sit around all summer, but that they devise new ways of beating the good sides. Good coaching for Longmire and something that they have probably worked on all pre-season.
 

Roby

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 27, 2008
9,193
6,826
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The new Man on the Mark rule doesn't fundamentally change anything either.

Manning the mark has never been a core skill of the sport. Not all that long ago, kicking across the ground was a sin - no one did it. You'd actually kick over the mark, so the man on the mark had no reason to move laterally anyway.

The fundamental of footy has always been that the team with the ball has the advantage. In recent times, this changed as teams started generating the bulk of their scores from turnovers. This literally means that you are more likely to score if you don't have the ball! You literally are at a disadvantage if you have the ball!

Now that is ridiculous. That is a ludicrous situation for a sport to be in. When good offence doesn't beat good defence, your sport is ruined.


All this new rule has done, is really close a loophole that coaches were exploiting. The Man on the Mark being used as a defensive weapon was just bullshit. It didn't add anything to the game. It was just yet another way for coaches to clog up the game and slow it down.

Reducing the impact of the Man on the Mark is a great example of subtle tweaks that DON'T mess with the fundamentals of the sport, whilst making an impact in line with the spirit of the game. And that spirit I'm referring to is that the team with the ball should have the advantage.
Scores aren't up.
 

Remove this Banner Ad