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

[spudmaster]

looking forward to the man on the mark sitting down to ensure he doesn't move.

 

[Hamingja]

I don't mind the rule but the umpire has to blow play on as soon as the player steps off the mark. In the second example, the umpire should have called almost straight away.

And that is the biggest problem with this rule. If the umpire is not on the job the player on the mark is either going to have to stand there helplessly and watch the player run around them like on the second video or move with the player and risk giving away a 50 because the umpire didn't make the call early enough. Who'd want to be an umpire.

 

[Power Raid]

And that is the biggest problem with this rule. If the umpire is not on the job the player on the mark is either going to have to stand there helplessly and watch the player run around them like on the second video or move with the player and risk giving away a 50 because the umpire didn't make the call early enough. Who'd want to be an umpire.

Watch inconsistency with overzealous umpiring the first few weeks, inconsistent calls later in the season and the rule going missing at crucial moments in finals.

If only umpires and the AFL did their job and ruled correctly in the past on the creep.

 

[Do the Dew]

The rule will be relaxed after Carlton get gifted 5+ goals in the opening game vs us. Happened 2 years ago when they brought in the protected area rule. Was immediately softened straight after the game.

This stand rule is legitimately a farce though. Hocking can * off right. If I was the player who had taken the mark, I would be faking running off my line, thereby initiating a response from the guy on the mark, and bang, 50m penalty. It'll only take a couple of savvy players (T. Greene is my choice) to completely make a mockery of this rule before Hocking and his ex-Geelong mates hopefully scrap it.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Stepping over the mark has always been a 15/50m penalty.

Red is the mark. Where can I kick from without being called to play on? Blue? Or blue or yellow?

If I go behind the mark properly, I have to kick over the man on the mark to get to the orange X in the pocket. If I move to one of the yellow positions I can kick around the man on the mark. How often do you see the player with the ball go back behind the mark and creep sideways while the man on the mark waves his arms and jumps up and down calling for 'play on' to be blown? Every game.

The AFL has introduced a rule to penalise the man on the mark when he is not the player seeking an advantage. Ridiculous.

View attachment 1067607

No you don't.

If you go behind the mark properly you would be positioned at your upper yellow cross.
So for him to kick to the guy in the pocket, he would NOT be kicking over the man on the mark.

 

[Dirty Bird]

The rule will be relaxed after Carlton get gifted 5+ goals in the opening game vs us. Happened 2 years ago when they brought in the protected area rule. Was immediately softened straight after the game.

This stand rule is legitimately a farce though. Hocking can fu** off right. If I was the player who had taken the mark, I would be faking running off my line, thereby initiating a response from the guy on the mark, and bang, 50m penalty. It'll only take a couple of savvy players (T. Greene is my choice) to completely make a mockery of this rule before Hocking and his ex-Geelong mates hopefully scrap it.

I expect some forward who's just beyond their range to run full speed on the set shot and play on 2-3 meters away from the man on the mark who's flat footed.
Run around them, kick.

I hate the rule. Just creating an uncontested situation. I prefer low scoring games with contest after contest (but not the repeat stoppage contests) than free flowing shoot outs. Give me a 70-65 game over a 150-140 game every day of the week.

 

[sprockets]

Behind the whistle: New 'stand the mark' rule in the spotlight

Callum Twomey spent last week's Bulldogs-Hawks practice match with the umpires group. This is what he learned

www.afl.com.au

.

 

[quotemokc]

Generally speaking it's a great rule. The man on the mark should have to stay on the mark, it should never be a defendable position

The mark exists to stop players getting too close to the player with the ball, should have nothing to do with sideways or backwards movement.

 

[sprockets]

Thinking of the situation where someone immediately stands on the mark and a teammate comes in and takes the mark, waving the first guy away. Obviously that can't happen any more, once you're on the mark the AFL has committed you.

Such a ridiculous rule for many reasons and once again the AFL has botched it by bringing in rules when they should be taking them away. Basically you can't even jump up on the mark in case you don't land on the exact same spot (I haven't seen the rule so you may not even be allowed to jump?).

 

[sprockets]

Behind the whistle: New 'stand the mark' rule in the spotlight

Callum Twomey spent last week's Bulldogs-Hawks practice match with the umpires group. This is what he learned

www.afl.com.au

.

Quoting my own post sorry but...

""In a matter of 30 seconds there, the umpire made 10 to 20 decisions. Was that tackle fair? Was that handball OK? Was that a high tackle?" Kennedy said."

..just shows us how ridiculous it is. MAKE THE GAME SIMPLER, NOT MORE COMPLEX!!!

 

[Jugada]

The mark exists to stop players getting too close to the player with the ball, should have nothing to do with sideways or backwards movement.

Yes it should. If a player has to kick over the mark then the offending team should have to actually stand the mark where the offence occurred. Has never made sense and glad they are fixing it

 

[quotemokc]

I want to hear less from the umpires, not more.

Imagine having to hear "STAND!" after every mark.

The focus was on the 'stand on the mark' rule, which will see the umpire yell 'Stand' and raise their hand in a 'stop' fashion after a mark or free kick is paid. But another rule, seeing the man on the mark at kick-ins push from 10 metres back to 15 metres to open up more space, will also be implemented for the first time in the Dogs and Hawks clash.

 

[Final Siren]

It's an interesting one.

Is it just the man on the mark?

What if a second player stands next to him on a 45? Is there nothing stopping him from moving around like a Brittney Spears back-up dancer?

There was a 50m paid in the Freo/Eagles scratchie against Eagles for the man moving on the mark. The problem was, the mark was taken downfield and Freo were away. Instead, the ball was given back to the player, Eagles flooded back and the defence had time to set up. It was a disadvantage paying the free-kick.

Right, that was the question everyone had when the rule was first announced -- why not step back 30cm and then move however you like. Then last month the AFL decided that you have to either be on the mark or at least 5m away from it. BECAUSE WHAT WILL FIX THIS IS EVEN MORE RULES.

 

[masai]

The mark exists to stop players getting too close to the player with the ball, should have nothing to do with sideways or backwards movement.

We’re on the same page.

What happens if there is a market contest (mark paid) and the defender gets his arm caught in the contest, wrenching it painfully. The defender stands on the mark, but “rolls” backward in his stance due to excruciating pain. Yes he moves backwards, not affecting play, not deliberately moving - in pain / shock.

Does the ump use commonsense, and deem the player injured, and allow some flexibility with the rule ?.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The rule isn't bad. There are probably more examples from the practise matches of it being beneficial than there are of poor examples.
It's the consistency of how it's applied and the individual interpretations that make it look bad, but that's the same of pretty much EVERY rule.

It does need some tweaking though obviously. 'Natural arc' is rubbish. If the kicking player starts deviating from a straight line run up, then it's play on. Should still give the offensive player a bit of an advantage, and they should be allowed to play the angles if they are just standing and pivoting.

I've liked what I've seen of it so far. Everyone will adjust - players and umps.

 

[Obeanie1]

With the Freo v Eagles one, can some please explain. The player on the mark stepped back, not forward or sideways. Took a step back, if anything, advantaging the attacking team.

As I say regularly, please umpire with common sense.

 

[sprockets]

The rule isn't bad. There are probably more examples from the practise matches of it being beneficial than there are of poor examples.
It's the consistency of how it's applied and the individual interpretations that make it look bad, but that's the same of pretty much EVERY rule.

It does need some tweaking though obviously. 'Natural arc' is rubbish. If the kicking player starts deviating from a straight line run up, then it's play on. Should still give the offensive player a bit of an advantage, and they should be allowed to play the angles if they are just standing and pivoting.

I've liked what I've seen of it so far. Everyone will adjust - players and umps.

If it needs tweaking or interpretations it's not a good rule.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

The man on the mark moves sideways to cut off the player with the ball quickly kicking the middle into the middle of the field and opening up the ground.

If he stands still you can mark then quickly stab it to someone standing in a bit of space in the centre

Yeah but a player moving 2 or 3 feet off the mark even 2 to 3m aint gunna stop that kick

Its the players on the mark spot who move 5 to 10m into the corridor to cut off the kicking angle that are the supposed issue ...... but dont penalise a player who moves sideways a few feet or goes back off the mark and runs up to the mark cause that rarely effects the play at all

In its current state it is a very dumb rule but if they change it to penalising a player who moves excessively off the mark ..... say more than 5m then that might at least be palatable

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Can't wait to see the first coach explode in the box when his player just lets the oppo run straight past him standing on the mark and kick a goal, as the ump hasn't called play on.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

If it needs tweaking or interpretations it's not a good rule.

Wait, isn't that exactly what pre-season if for, to iron out these things?

And that's the point. It's preseason and so many people are cracking the shits over a couple of noteworthy bad calls, but if you actually listen to people within clubs and journos that were at some of the practice matches, their feedback is that the rule has had an enormous positive effect on the ability of teams to play faster attacking footy. These bad ones will get ironed out, but the rule change itself is a really good ones and people should actually wait until the televised games to see it in effect before they judge it off a couple examples of bad calls.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Got confirmation tonight that all country footy in Victoria is adopting this rule. If there was ever a rule not designed for local implementation by country umpires it's this one.

We've never brought in the rushed behind infringement so I don't know why it's necessary to bring in this joke of a rule.

 

[sprockets]

Wait, isn't that exactly what pre-season if for, to iron out these things?

And that's the point. It's preseason and so many people are cracking the shits over a couple of noteworthy bad calls, but if you actually listen to people within clubs and journos that were at some of the practice matches, their feedback is that the rule has had an enormous positive effect on the ability of teams to play faster attacking footy. These bad ones will get ironed out, but the rule change itself is a really good ones and people should actually wait until the televised games to see it in effect before they judge it off a couple examples of bad calls.

Pre-season is for practice. It's only in the last few years it's been about trialling new rules and they wouldn't need tweaking or interpretation if they were good rules that were thoroughly thought through. They also wouldn't need trialling if the AFL just stopped stuffing around with the game.

Interpretation is probably the greatest blight on football ever, made even worse when the PTB change it after a few games. How far can the man on the mark move? An inch? A foot? Can he jump up and down without landing on the exact same spot? What does the rule achieve?

I'm not interested in good or bad calls, as far as umpiring goes all I'm interested in is LESS calls. The game isn't about umpiring.

 

[Fat Nyfe]

I’d rather watch a low scoring game every day of the week than a bastard product that has been artificially contrived to be high scoring. AFL has always had a mix of low scoring contests and high scoring shoot outs which made it great. The recent narrative about fans only wanting high scores is ******* stupid.

And creating a rule just to pander to this narrative, a rule that doesn’t solve any problem and makes the game worse and even harder to adjudicate is even more stupid.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I've seen enough to know this new rule is going to be a disaster. Steve Hocking should resign in disgrace. They should send Gil to the Centrelink queue along with his talentless brother Hamish while they're at it.

 

[quotemokc]

The punishment doesn't fit the crime.