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

[Scorpus]

AFL Exchange podcast today basically telling people to stop whinging about the rule, with all three hosts in unanimous agreement that it's a good rule change.

Given the overwhelming negative feedback from the public, you reckon that's suspicious?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

AFL Exchange podcast today basically telling people to stop whinging about the rule, with all three hosts in unanimous agreement that it's a good rule change.

Given the overwhelming negative feedback from the public, you reckon that's suspicious?

No, but actually yes.

I think it is probably their genuine thoughts, but I reckon they got a nudge to push it hard. They're genuinely pretty good guys but are obviously part of the state-owned-propaganda arm of the AFL that is AFL.com.su

 

[Sarcoidevo]

They’re trying to limit coaches ability to structure up defensively. This takes a man out of the zone, opens up more kicking angles, or the ability for a quick player to run off the man on the mark more easily. All whilst introducing a rule that requires no interpretation.

If you’re fundamentally opposed to defensive slogfests and rule interpretations, this is trying to go the opposite direction.

Opens up more kicking angles??

When the player with the ball is back 10m from the mark every kicking angle possible is already open to him

What the AFL/SHocking don't like is when the player on the mark mans the mark 10m to the side from the original mark spot closer to the middle corridor

Even then he hardly cuts off the angle it just means the player with ball might have to kick over him

Umps just need to tell the player on the mark you can move 3m either side of the original mark spot (no angles cut off there) and back as far as you like - any further than 3m sideways or forward of the mark and we will call 50

What the AFL has done with this braindead rule is effectively penalising a side because the opposition side took a mark by taking a player out of the game - its like a 10 sec mini red card

The player may as well sit on the ground or maybe he has to stand in the star formation and can only move when one of his team mates passes the ball through his legs once they get the ball back.

Sorry but the game I used love playing and watching is now becoming unwatchable and unplayable ....... its like the AFL have a deathwish ...... AFLX here we come

 

[Suma Magic]

It’s a decent premise, but it just leads to so many problems.

I think that if they had just said “no sideways movement unless it’s at 45 degrees (equal back and sideways).

That change in itself would have issues, but nowhere near as many as the one they went with. And it would still open the game up a bit.

 

[gingernuts]

Get the players to stop throwing the fooking pill
Stop the stupid in the back stacks on the mill holding the ball decisions
Take the microphones off the umpires so we do not have to hear their special comments

Piss this new rule off and do the same with mclachlan

 

[Thetrader15]

Opens up more kicking angles??

When the player with the ball is back 10m from the mark every kicking angle possible is already open to him

What the AFL/SHocking don't like is when the player on the mark mans the mark 10m to the side from the original mark spot closer to the middle corridor

Even then he hardly cuts off the angle it just means the player with ball might have to kick over him

Umps just need to tell the player on the mark you can move 3m either side of the original mark spot (no angles cut off there) and back as far as you like - any further than 3m sideways or forward of the mark and we will call 50

What the AFL has done with this braindead rule is effectively penalising a side because the opposition side took a mark by taking a player out of the game - its like a 10 sec mini red card

The player may as well sit on the ground or maybe he has to stand in the star formation and can only move when one of his team mates passes the ball through his legs once they get the ball back.

Sorry but the game I used love playing and watching is now becoming unwatchable and unplayable ....... its like the AFL have a deathwish ...... AFLX here we come

Agree. I'd be telling my players to run away from the contest if it looks like a mark is about to be taken.

Let them play on, they will anyway, at least we will have 18 effective players then.

 

[Makka]

It's f**ken stupid! It's f**cken idiotic! It's f**ken pathetic! It needs to go, as does that turd burger Hocking!

 

[BigBreakfast]

That Curnow example is what I think will end up happening for a lot of marks, guys won't stand the "mark" but will drop back 6-7 metres from the mark and do what they used to do, i.e. cut off the 45 etc.

The risk for actually manning the mark will be too high you're better off giving 6 metres of space, especially if it's a meaningless chip kick like the Curnow example was.

Disagree. At some stage the umpire will can stand, or halt play and reset the mark, and call stand. There will be no cutting off 45 or anything else.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Disagree. At some stage the umpire will can stand, or halt play and reset the mark, and call stand. There will be no cutting off 45 or anything else.

But if the player is 6 or 7 meters back from the mark not raising his hands how does the umpire define that he is player standing the mark?

What if there is another player 6 or 7 meters back from the mark spot and 2 or 3 meters to the side of the first player ......... which one is standing the mark? ........ are they both standing the mark? ....... Do they both have to stand still? ............. how far back from the mark do you have to be so as not to be deemed standing the mark?

 

[BigBreakfast]

But if the player is 6 or 7 meters back from the mark not raising his hands how does the umpire define that he is player standing the mark?

What if there is another player 6 or 7 meters back from the mark spot and 2 or 3 meters to the side of the first player ......... which one is standing the mark? ........ are they both standing the mark? ....... Do they both have to stand still? ............. how far back from the mark do you have to be so as not to be deemed standing the mark?

You are hurling hypotheticals. The AFL knows they scrutiny they are under with this rule and will over-adjudicate. Protected zone will come into play and, in your hypothetical, the man on the mark is giving up metres or not playing a defensive role, neither of which are going to please the coaches.

Part of calling stand is to clearly indicate who and where, the sear is poor defence or semantics.

 

[Coops93]

Disagree. At some stage the umpire will can stand, or halt play and reset the mark, and call stand. There will be no cutting off 45 or anything else.

Why will they reset the mark with no one on it? The guy will be more than 5 metres away, so no one is actually on the mark.

 

[Tomford]

There’ll be a betting market on how many 50s are paid per game because of it

 

[melbournemartin]

I normally think that reactions to rule changes are pretty over the top and things will still be fine... but this is bloody stupid.

I can imagine them swinging too far the other way to stop the Daniher type situation. You'll then have the slightest of arcs called play on, and the already mediocre art of set shot goal kicking will get even worse.

 

[Do the Dew]

Need Dusty to walk straight into AFL head office and give Gil the don't argue.

Scarlett can go with him and land one on Hocking's chin Ballantyne-style.

 

[faible]

You know what would break up a defensive zone. Paying a free kick at a stoppage where a player drops the ball instead of allowing it to descend into a rolling maul as the player "tried to dispose of it". While the tackler gets up to take his kick, a swarm fo players spread out - presuming the tackler is quick enough, you can get a quick ball away while the players spread and breakdown the zone.

No need to artifically take a player out of the contest by freezing the man on the mark when they were effectively out of the contest already. The only difference being they can't move side to side. It's hardly a big issue, the man on the mark being an active player just promotes the kicker doing a little feint or a fake one way and a move to the other, much like a lookaway pass or a hesitation in other sports. Those players skillful enough to do that should reap the benefit of an open kicking lane, those who can't won't. We shouldn't legislate itby freezing the player on the mark as it just feels hollow and the fans recognise that theres no great awe or excitement in the kicker taking a kick other than down the ground as the defender wasn't permitted to try and stop them.

These two things aren't mutually exclusive though. Most people (aside from, it seems, the AFL rules committee) agree that holding that ball needs to be fixed. That doesn't mean there isn't other rules that can't be tidied up, or rule changes made that will help limit what coaches can do to shut down games.

Opens up more kicking angles??

When the player with the ball is back 10m from the mark every kicking angle possible is already open to him

What the AFL/SHocking don't like is when the player on the mark mans the mark 10m to the side from the original mark spot closer to the middle corridor

Even then he hardly cuts off the angle it just means the player with ball might have to kick over him

Umps just need to tell the player on the mark you can move 3m either side of the original mark spot (no angles cut off there) and back as far as you like - any further than 3m sideways or forward of the mark and we will call 50

It stops the man on the mark pushing in to the corridor forcing a kick down the line, or a high kick over the man on the mark inbound that's easier to spoil.

Your solution is requiring umpires to estimate what 3m is, in relation to an estimated spot on the ground, using players of differing heights, and thus different stride lengths. This is just more of the same, where umpires are performing psychic interpretations and geometry on the fly, leading to inconsistency and mistakes.

The AFL solution is simple. Move / Don't Move. More rules should be like this one where there's no room for interpretation.

What the AFL has done with this braindead rule is effectively penalising a side because the opposition side took a mark by taking a player out of the game -

Yes. You're getting it. They're making it harder to defend.

its like a 10 sec mini red card

The player may as well sit on the ground or maybe he has to stand in the star formation and can only move when one of his team mates passes the ball through his legs once they get the ball back.

Sorry but the game I used love playing and watching is now becoming unwatchable and unplayable ....... its like the AFL have a deathwish ...... AFLX here we come

This is just being dramatic.

 

[hcd199]

The AFL solution is simple. Move / Don't Move. More rules should be like this one where there's no room for interpretation.

Perhaps now people will come to understand that black and white rules aren't the panacea they're cracked up to be? Sure, where you can produce a straightforward rule that also achieves the intended objective in a worthwhile manner, that's preferable to leaving grey areas, but usually what you'll end up with is a rule that's either too permissive (so it's easy to do something you shouldn't, like how the shot clock allowed a form of overt time wasting until they bothered to apply some fuzzier principles to allow them to hurry such players along) or it's too prohibitive (like how actually enforcing the protected area rule, rather than squibbing out of it by calling an arbitrary 'play on' whenever there's about to be an infringement, would lead to even more junk 50m penalties).

This rule only achieves its intended objective if the objective is to make attacking play as dreary and uncontested as possible, since the man on the mark (or even 'vaguely near the mark', apparently, if what we're hearing is correct) can no longer defend anything, and so teams in attack will prioritise short kicking to give themselves as many marks as possible. Nothing "free-flowing" and "exciting" about that, and I'd far rather the pre-2021 status quo that basically no-one was complaining about when it comes to manning the mark...

 

[faible]

Perhaps now people will come to understand that black and white rules aren't the panacea they're cracked up to be? Sure, where you can produce a straightforward rule that also achieves the intended objective in a worthwhile manner, that's preferable to leaving grey areas, but usually what you'll end up with is a rule that's either too permissive (so it's easy to do something you shouldn't, like how the shot clock allowed a form of overt time wasting until they bothered to apply some fuzzier principles to allow them to hurry such players along) or it's too prohibitive (like how actually enforcing the protected area rule, rather than squibbing out of it by calling an arbitrary 'play on' whenever there's about to be an infringement, would lead to even more junk 50m penalties).

This rule only achieves its intended objective if the objective is to make attacking play as dreary and uncontested as possible, since the man on the mark (or even 'vaguely near the mark', apparently, if what we're hearing is correct) can no longer defend anything, and so teams in attack will prioritise short kicking to give themselves as many marks as possible. Nothing "free-flowing" and "exciting" about that, and I'd far rather the pre-2021 status quo that basically no-one was complaining about when it comes to manning the mark...

I'd like to see rules across the board reviewed and have as much of the 'interpretation' removed from them as possible.

For example; holding the ball should be holding the ball, it shouldn't be that if the umpire thinks that you intended to try to get rid of it, even if you didn't actually get rid of it, it's fine. Players doing a salmon impression on the ground to pretend they're trying adds nothing to the game. When spectators and players can recognise holding the ball, but umpires can't, or aren't calling it, there's clearly something wrong.

The shot clock being used a time wasting strategy was fine in my view, it happens in basketball all the time and people just get used to it being a tactical tool as well as forcing offensive play.

I don't mind the change to the man on the mark rule, but it should also have come with a change to play on and not having to wait for the umpire to call it to move off the mark. The umpire only then pings the player if they've moved ahead of time, instead of the player having to respond to the umpires call.

 

[an unbiased carlton man]

I love the rule - of course it's a salty * fan complaining about it. With Saad gaining 8km a game in 2021 I look forward to flat footed forwards league wide being unable to chase the mighty Saad down.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

AFL Exchange podcast today basically telling people to stop whinging about the rule, with all three hosts in unanimous agreement that it's a good rule change.

Given the overwhelming negative feedback from the public, you reckon that's suspicious?

I've seen a few other non-AFL.com.au journos say similar things too after watching the rule in action at intraclubs and the practice matches. People are just ridiculously overreacting to a couple of prominent examples having not actually watched any footy where the rule is used to see the positive effects.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Did anyone see the AFL's "explainer" video today featuring SHocking, the Umpire Boss and an Umpire?

EXPLAINER: How the new 'standing the mark' rule works

AFL.com.au takes you through how the new 'standing the mark' rule will be adjudicated

www.afl.com.au

At one point that moron Hocking states "once the players stand they won't be able to move laterally" - oh, is that so. Then how come the Freo player the other day was pinged for moving backwards. Come on you clown, you don't even understand your own rule or you haven't communicated it properly to the umpires and AFL media cronies who maintained that the Fremantle decision was correct.

 

[theyellowsash]

It’s a decent premise, but it just leads to so many problems.

I think that if they had just said “no sideways movement unless it’s at 45 degrees (equal back and sideways).

That change in itself would have issues, but nowhere near as many as the one they went with. And it would still open the game up a bit.

want the umpires to be out there carrying protractors to make sure theyre moving at 45 degrees?

 

[Purple Suit]

I'd like to see rules across the board reviewed and have as much of the 'interpretation' removed from them as possible.

For example; holding the ball should be holding the ball, it shouldn't be that if the umpire thinks that you intended to try to get rid of it, even if you didn't actually get rid of it, it's fine. Players doing a salmon impression on the ground to pretend they're trying adds nothing to the game. When spectators and players can recognise holding the ball, but umpires can't, or aren't calling it, there's clearly something wrong.

The shot clock being used a time wasting strategy was fine in my view, it happens in basketball all the time and people just get used to it being a tactical tool as well as forcing offensive play.

I don't mind the change to the man on the mark rule, but it should also have come with a change to play on and not having to wait for the umpire to call it to move off the mark. The umpire only then pings the player if they've moved ahead of time, instead of the player having to respond to the umpires call.

100% spot on regarding the holding the ball rule and how they should change it back. The reason the AFL made the change was because they have the number of ball ups as a KPI. Therefore they reduce the number by playing bullshit frees they all give themselves a big bonus for making the game better.

Now we have another bullshit rule change that will be tied to scoring. Fans will pull their hair out watching it unfold but the AFL will tell us that scores are up, rule is perfect. The fact that quarters went back to 20 minutes will be forgotten and the AFL will hand out big bonuses to themselves.

Within 12 months coaches will train teams with a way to cut off the corridor with the new rule, like a player manning the zone 25m off the kicker. Scores will go back to normal if they even change. Fans will be left with another braindead rule that slowly kills the game and sucks the life out of them because the AFL will not reverse it.

 

[Bostonian]

So I might have missed this part of it, but can a player jump up to try and another a ball when on the mark?

If your coming in for a set shot you're never called to play on so can you not try and touch it as it passes over your head now?

 

[faible]

So I might have missed this part of it, but can a player jump up to try and another a ball when on the mark?

If your coming in for a set shot you're never called to play on so can you not try and touch it as it passes over your head now?

I would assume this is fine, you're not allowed to step off the mark, jumping up on the spot isn't stepping off the mark

 

[smashbox gill]

There will be than many 50m penalties given. It’s in a players nature to move if the ball carrier does.

If a player is smart they could fake a step, the man on the mark moves by instinct, 50m given.