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

[GoldbergsGold]

If you like a basketball style game I guess it looks better, they need to address the amount of uncontested marks etc. At the moment it's gone a little too far, contested football is what the games all about, a good tackle/turnover is as good as a good goal.

They need to address the incorrect disposal rule to balance out the amount of uncontested football, imo.

Reminds me of Netball, I've even seen the players not even moving because of being paranoid of being penalised 50 metres whenever the opposition play on. The last thing The AFL need to do is make any more horrible rule changes, the game has gotten really bad, I wish they'd get rid of a number of these garbage new rules changes. Even at the end of the 2000's, I remember I thought back then it was going to the dogs, but looking at it now on YouTube, its a stark contrast of how more lenient, less stupid and nonsensical the umpiring was.

 

[ashep]

There are 2 major issues with the rule:

1. Umpires are far too slow to call play on when the man with the ball clearly veers off the line

2. On set shots, the man with the ball ends up taking an unobstructed shot at goal from right alongside the mark

In both situations the man on the mark is stuck there helplessly whilst his man canters around him essentially making the game 18 v 17

 

[Grrr]

Reminds me of Netball, I've even seen the players not even moving because of being paranoid of being penalised 50 metres whenever the opposition play on. The last thing The AFL need to do is make any more horrible rule changes, the game has gotten really bad, I wish they'd get rid of a number of these garbage new rules changes. Even at the end of the 2000's, I remember I thought back then it was going to the dogs, but looking at it now on YouTube, its a stark contrast of how more lenient, less stupid and nonsensical the umpiring was.

I completely agree. Does a player moving a metre or so really make any difference at all, no way. If they had given some leeway for some lateral movement, in line with the kicker for example then I would have no problem with the rule, but the amount of times the player standing the mark is still not moving and the kicker is kicking laterally next to him, sometimes even in front of him, makes a mockery of the rule.

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

If you're standing the mark inside 50 you should be able to defend your space. If you're standing the mark in normal field play there should be zero tolerance to the player with the ball stepping off their line - play on immediately. The umpires should also be far less lazy in setting the player with the ball onto the correct line. So often the witches hat standing the mark can't even defend the line because they are told to stand when the ball carrier takes off away from their mark. It's a poor umpire interpretation issue as well as a rule issue.

Make these easy fixes and rule would be somewhat palatable. Unfortunately, the AFL media is hitting the spin pretty hard to mute the discussion, so there will be no changes going forward. Winds me right up when they laugh and ask "where are all the doubters now?" Well they are here.. on forums like this.. raising legitimate points, but without access to a microphone and an AFL Media badge

 

[Grrr]

If you're standing the mark inside 50 you should be able to defend your space. If you're standing the mark in normal field play there should be zero tolerance to the player with the ball stepping off their line - play on immediately. The umpires should also be far less lazy in setting the player with the ball onto the correct line. So often the witches hat standing the mark can't even defend the line because they are told to stand when the ball carrier takes off away from their mark. It's a poor umpire interpretation issue as well as a rule issue.

Make these easy fixes and rule would be somewhat palatable. Unfortunately, the AFL media is hitting the spin pretty hard to mute the discussion, so there will be no changes going forward. Winds me right up when they laugh and ask "where are all the doubters now?" Well they are here.. on forums like this.. raising legitimate points, but without access to a microphone and an AFL Media badge

I agree with you but how to you get players to get back over their line, as umps do when kicking for goals in the middle of play when they may be 40m from the player. Players never go over their marks unless they are directed to, especially wider out. The only control the ump has in these instances is to tell the player on the mark not to move as the player with the ball wants to move it on quickly. Hence by the time the ump reacts and calls play on, many times the player with the ball has a completely free reign and can be next to them but out of reach. In fact many times the player kicks the ball behind the mark. That is nonsense.

 

[NoobPie]

Get rid of the mics completely.

Yes, or at least don't have them dominating the audio. The whistles are just as annoying

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

I agree with you but how to you get players to get back over their line, as umps do when kicking for goals in the middle of play when they may be 40m from the player. Players never go over their marks unless they are directed to, especially wider out. The only control the ump has in these instances is to tell the player on the mark not to move as the player with the ball wants to move it on quickly. Hence by the time the ump reacts and calls play on, many times the player with the ball has a completely free reign and can be next to them but out of reach. In fact many times the player kicks the ball behind the mark. That is nonsense.

Yeah, logically the rule works if each play is set correctly but realistically the ump can't be everywhere so is having to make an 'interpretation'. To me if the ump has no time to set the mark he shouldn't have a right to call 'stand' because he's too far away to make the correct adjudication about the line that is being stood. We shouldn't punish the defending team for being the defending team. I think that shows there is a flaw in the rule, so it adds the interpretation element, makes everyone think their team is being hard-done-by, makes the umpires look hopeless etc etc. The 'how good is this rule' media brigade refuse to acknowledge any criticism and just laugh anyone against them off as being fossils

 

[mr bagcroft]

There are 2 major issues with the rule:

1. Umpires are far too slow to call play on when the man with the ball clearly veers off the line

2. On set shots, the man with the ball ends up taking an unobstructed shot at goal from right alongside the mark

In both situations the man on the mark is stuck there helplessly whilst his man canters around him essentially making the game 18 v 17

Been saying it since day dot myself.
Essentially, it becomes 18 V 17, every single time.
its total bullshit,
under the guise of " but but but its freeing up the game"
Yeah, artifically and unfairly.

 

[Grrr]

Yeah, logically the rule works if each play is set correctly but realistically the ump can't be everywhere so is having to make an 'interpretation'. To me if the ump has no time to set the mark he shouldn't have a right to call 'stand' because he's too far away to make the correct adjudication about the line that is being stood. We shouldn't punish the defending team for being the defending team. I think that shows there is a flaw in the rule, so it adds the interpretation element, makes everyone think their team is being hard-done-by, makes the umpires look hopeless etc etc. The 'how good is this rule' media brigade refuse to acknowledge any criticism and just laugh anyone against them off as being fossils

I've been saying this from day one, too much umpire interpretation. I think if they allowed a certain leeway then the rule would work better, i.e in line with where the player with the ball has it and their line to goal. So if they take the ball 5m inward from the line to goal that they should, then the marker should be able to adjust similarly. An ump can see this even from far away. If a player on the mark, goes to cover an anticipated short kick then that should be 50, because that is what the rule was brought in for. It wasn't designed to let the player with the ball have an unfair advantage, but was designed to stop the man on the mark having the unfair advantage.

 

[wobblypunt]

Umpires are so slow to call play on, i've seen defenders move off the mark before the ref said play on and not get called on it likely because the refs forgot and were reminded when the defender moved. They couldn't penalise them because they realised the defender was in their rights to move when the attacker played on.

 

[Grrr]

Umpires are so slow to call play on, i've seen defenders move off the mark before the ref said play on and not get called on it likely because the refs forgot and were reminded when the defender moved. They couldn't penalise them because they realised the defender was in their rights to move when the attacker played on.

Because the ump has his eyes set on the man on the mark first and not the kicker. If it was the other way round, then it would work much better.

 

[Jacktar]

I have not watched much footy in the last ten years as it is no longer the man's game that I grew up watching or played. I'm 64—a former member at Carlton. However, I have been holidaying in SA and watched some SANFL. Wow, such a pleasure, pure running hard footy. Heaps of talent and kudos to the umpire brigade. They are so good you didn't notice them, and stop play was rare. Umpiring in the AFL has not improved as I watched a bit of Port Collingwood, and they were dreadful. Other's will no doubt disagree that's ok. Furthermore, I always cringe when I see the pathetic running around kissing each other after a goal (Is that for TV?) like Grundy yesterday carrying on, then they lost by one. Thank God Collingwood lost as Port made them look more talented than they are. The chopping of the hands nonsense has to go; otherwise, why even attempt to touch a fwd. Award the goal and be done with it. Every year rule changes stuff up. In this once-great game, Umpires should be seen and rarely heard. AFL take a leaf out of the SANFL now there's pure footy.

 

[LordLucifer]

I have not watched much footy in the last ten years as it is no longer the man's game that I grew up watching or played. I'm 64—a former member at Carlton. However, I have been holidaying in SA and watched some SANFL. Wow, such a pleasure, pure running hard footy. Heaps of talent and kudos to the umpire brigade. They are so good you didn't notice them, and stop play was rare. Umpiring in the AFL has not improved as I watched a bit of Port Collingwood, and they were dreadful. Other's will no doubt disagree that's ok. Furthermore, I always cringe when I see the pathetic running around kissing each other after a goal (Is that for TV?) like Grundy yesterday carrying on, then they lost by one. Thank God Collingwood lost as Port made them look more talented than they are. The chopping of the hands nonsense has to go; otherwise, why even attempt to touch a fwd. Award the goal and be done with it. Every year rule changes stuff up. In this once-great game, Umpires should be seen and rarely heard. AFL take a leaf out of the SANFL now there's pure footy.

Well said, every word of it !!

 

[Roby]

Soooo... We are heading for the lowest scoring season since 1967. The new rule or rules have been...

 

[theyellowsash]

I have not watched much footy in the last ten years as it is no longer the man's game that I grew up watching or played. I'm 64—a former member at Carlton. However, I have been holidaying in SA and watched some SANFL. Wow, such a pleasure, pure running hard footy. Heaps of talent and kudos to the umpire brigade. They are so good you didn't notice them, and stop play was rare. Umpiring in the AFL has not improved as I watched a bit of Port Collingwood, and they were dreadful. Other's will no doubt disagree that's ok. Furthermore, I always cringe when I see the pathetic running around kissing each other after a goal (Is that for TV?) like Grundy yesterday carrying on, then they lost by one. Thank God Collingwood lost as Port made them look more talented than they are. The chopping of the hands nonsense has to go; otherwise, why even attempt to touch a fwd. Award the goal and be done with it. Every year rule changes stuff up. In this once-great game, Umpires should be seen and rarely heard. AFL take a leaf out of the SANFL now there's pure footy.

ah yes, a mans game from when men were men, emotion was for sissys, wives were for raping and gays were for bashing. a punch to the back of the head was just part of the game and you should have expected it because youre a forward. calling a black man a black campaigner wasnt racist because you were merely calling him a campaigner like any white person and also just describing that he was black, nothing to do with race at all.

 

[Grrr]

ah yes, a mans game from when men were men, emotion was for sissys, wives were for raping and gays were for bashing. a punch to the back of the head was just part of the game and you should have expected it because youre a forward. calling a black man a black campaigner wasnt racist because you were merely calling him a campaigner like any white person and also just describing that he was black, nothing to do with race at all.

A bit of a stretch.

 

[joop]

ah yes, a mans game from when men were men, emotion was for sissys, wives were for raping and gays were for bashing. a punch to the back of the head was just part of the game and you should have expected it because youre a forward. calling a black man a black campaigner wasnt racist because you were merely calling him a campaigner like any white person and also just describing that he was black, nothing to do with race at all.

Well that’s a strange route you’ve taken.