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

[Lavender Bushranger]

That is a separate issue. Just because one thing makes the game worse, doesn't mean you have to add another.

But I don't think they've really added anything though, have they?

The way I see it, they're just reigning in something that was being exploited by coaches.

 

[Obelix]

Here's a question that I think is worth asking - why didn't the AFL wait to see how last year's rules worked when quarters returned to 20 minute periods in 2021 before deciding on any more rule changes to speed the game up?

If they think that the game needs to be sped up because of how it looked in 2020 then of course that's true. But in 2020, the quarters were cut to 16 minute periods while the interchange cap remained at 90. So the ratio of time on ground vs time spent on the bench for players meant that they could play the game in such a way that it became bogged down again. That's how I saw it anyway.

If you remember when they reduced the interchange cap down to 90 from 120 a few years back it really opened the game up. The 2019 season should be our last reference point as to the true state of the game and I thought the speed of the game was pretty good back then.

 

[quotemokc]

Jude Bolton

Jude Bolton

Age

44

Ht

181cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.9

4star

K

9.6

4star

HB

8.4

5star

M

3.1

3star

T

4.6

5star

CL

3.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

11.8

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

4.6

4star

M

2.0

3star

T

1.6

4star

: Mr Hocking, how do you respond to the charge that goals from clearances are down 40% but goals from 50 metre penalties are up a shocking 900%
Hocking: Oh statistics can prove anything, over forty percent of people know that
Bolton: I see. And what about the accusation that the stand rule only results in more goals because they’re from 50m penalties
Hocking: Well I’d be lying if I said the umpires weren’t paying 50m penalties
Bolton: Touché

 

[mxett]

Why can’t the sport just be the sport? You don’t see the people running soccer removing the off side rule or saying the goal keeper must not be able to move when a penalty is taken, or introduce deliberate out of play. They accept their sport is the sport, there will be nil all draws that are good games and nil all draws that are bad games.
In footy we also have good games and bad games, 20 goals to 12 goals is not a good game it’s a hiding.
If footy had become a 7 goal to 5 goal regular game then yes something may need to be done, but it’s not that and not even close to it. It wasn’t broken and didn’t need fixing in my opinion. And they have not fixed it for the better.

Soccer is low scoring and accepted as such. Despite this, a further points reward was introduced for scoring to encourage higher scoring.

Short versions of cricket introduced power plays and a points bonus so boring middle-innings overs would more interesting.

Basketball introduced a 3 point line for excitement. They outlawed certain defensive structures to aid scoring. They introduced time limits for throw ins, shooting, and half-court to encourage ball movement.

All these were significant changes to enhance the appearance of the sport.

One of the greatest parts of aussie rules is seeing players compete 1 on 1. Carey v Jakovic, Dunstall v Silvani, etc. Now we have Buddy v 9. The AFL's limited rules controlling movement and location, such as a key or off-side, has meant coaches are free to choke the game into a scoreless mess. We have pretty much lost 1 on 1 contests.
Another great part is linked plays where a series of quality disposals can run the ball from one end of the ground to the other. Throw a defensive zone in there and that's basically gone because congestion forces a rushed disposal and zoning means forwards are outnumbered.

The AFL isnt just trying to create more scoring, they want more space for players to move so the game isnt just a collection of mistakes and tunrovers due to too much crowding and pressure.

 

[mxett]

That is a separate issue. Just because one thing makes the game worse, doesn't mean you have to add another.

it isnt a separate issue. Zoning and congestion causes slower ball movement which allows time for players to move to the defensive side of the ball. We end up with forwards being grossly outnumbered

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Soccer is low scoring and accepted as such. Despite this, a further points reward was introduced for scoring to encourage higher scoring.

Short versions of cricket introduced power plays and a points bonus so boring middle-innings overs would more interesting.

Basketball introduced a 3 point line for excitement. They outlawed certain defensive structures to aid scoring. They introduced time limits for throw ins, shooting, and half-court to encourage ball movement.

All these were significant changes to enhance the appearance of the sport.

One of the greatest parts of aussie rules is seeing players compete 1 on 1. Carey v Jakovic, Dunstall v Silvani, etc. Now we have Buddy v 9. The AFL's limited rules controlling movement and location, such as a key or off-side, has meant coaches are free to choke the game into a scoreless mess. We have pretty much lost 1 on 1 contests.
Another great part is linked plays where a series of quality disposals can run the ball from one end of the ground to the other. Throw a defensive zone in there and that's basically gone because congestion forces a rushed disposal and zoning means forwards are outnumbered.

The AFL isnt just trying to create more scoring, they want more space for players to move so the game isnt just a collection of mistakes and tunrovers due to too much crowding and pressure.

We will never ever see one on one contests again. It won’t matter what the AFL do.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

it isnt a separate issue. Zoning and congestion causes slower ball movement which allows time for players to move to the defensive side of the ball. We end up with forwards being grossly outnumbered

Move the ball quicker and don’t let the zone fully setup.

 

[Leon]

Just saw the rule for the first time in the North vs Hawks game.

Unbelievable. Awful.

Steve Hocking - just **** off already.

 

[RUNVS]

Just saw the rule for the first time in the North vs Hawks game.

Unbelievable. Awful.

Steve Hocking - just **** off already.

46 points scored with 5 minutes still to go in the first quarter. Seems to be working.

 

[mxett]

Move the ball quicker and don’t let the zone fully setup.

exactly

 

[mxett]

Just saw the rule for the first time in the North vs Hawks game.

Unbelievable. Awful.

Steve Hocking - just **** off already.

what part didnt you like exactly?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I'm surprised at how many AFL shills are in here. Really scary for the future of footy when people can be conned by AFL house so easily.

The rule isn't terrible but the benefits they claim as the reason for it being introduced are fake. It will have no effect. Other than a few 50m shots on goal.

Leave. The. Game. Alone.

 

[RUNVS]

I'm surprised at how many AFL shills are in here. Really scary for the future of footy when people can be conned by AFL house so easily.

The rule isn't terrible but the benefits they claim as the reason for it being introduced are fake. It will have no effect. Other than a few 50m shots on goal.

Leave. The. Game. Alone.

Or perhaps we are willing to withhold judgement until we have seen how the rule actually affects things rather than just immediately deciding that it is the worst thing ever.

 

[Leon]

what part didnt you like exactly?

It’s stupid.

A 50m penalty for moving to the side one or two steps on the mark?

Hocking, the rules committee and co meddle with the game way too much, they think they have to bring in new rule changes every season or something.

 

[mxett]

It’s stupid.

A 50m penalty for moving to the side one or two steps on the mark?

Hocking, the rules committee and co meddle with the game way too much, they think they have to bring in new rule changes every season or something.

few if any 50's are even paid because the players know the rule. The concept is pretty simple, when you stand the mark you actually stand the mark. That was the intent of the rule in the first place. The coaches are the ones who made the player on the mark into part of the defensive zone, cutting off many offensive choices

 

[banzai]

The worst part of the new rule is that whenever a kick goes inboard the commentators act like no ones ever kicked back to the middle of the ground before.

 

[Leon]

few if any 50's are even paid because the players know the rule. The concept is pretty simple, when you stand the mark you actually stand the mark. That was the intent of the rule in the first place. The coaches are the ones who made the player on the mark into part of the defensive zone, cutting off many offensive choices

If the player on the mark impedes the player with the ball illegally i.e goes over the mark, stops them playing on before the umpire calls play on, sure, pay a 50m penalty.

This is how it’s worked for years and everyone was fine with it.

Now they have changed it to a 50m penalty to simply moving slightly off the mark, when the player with the ball has not been impeded/disadvantaged at all.

Just stupid and completely unnecessary, along with virtually every other rule change bought in in recent years.

 

[gingernuts]

Stats don't lie mate. Uncontested marking numbers were through the roof and it became a possession based game rather than a highly contested game. In the post-match presser, dimma acknowledged that the new rules were the cause of this. But hey... what does he know?

Look it's only one pre-season hit-out so it's not a great sample size. Hopefully come the regular season the pressure and intensity lifts and it becomes a better spectacle. But if last night is any indicator, this doesn't improve the game at all in my view - quite the opposite.

as i have said before: stats are like mini skirts, they reveal a lot but hide the best bits!

 

[mxett]

If the player on the mark impedes the player with the ball illegally i.e goes over the mark, stops them playing on before the umpire calls play on, sure, pay a 50m penalty.

This is how it’s worked for years and everyone was fine with it.

Now they have changed it to a 50m penalty to simply moving slightly off the mark, when the player with the ball has not been impeded/disadvantaged at all.

Just stupid and completely unnecessary, along with virtually every other rule change bought in in recent years.

No, players on the mark were moving laterally for a reason, to limit the kicker's lateral options. Already we've seen coaches say how the rule frees up ball movement. It isnt pointless, it's actually a very clever way of assisting forward ball movement without introducing a major change to the rules or the look of the game.

 

[Obelix]

as i have said before: stats are like mini skirts, they reveal a lot but hide the best bits!

Okay, so tell me about the best bits that those uncontested marking stats were hiding. I'm all ears.

 

[gingernuts]

Okay, so tell me about the best bits that those uncontested marking stats were hiding. I'm all ears.

my ears get held onto regarding the best bits

 

[estibador]

I think that's pretty much exactly what 'we' want.

The team that has won possession of the ball has an advantage. They have some level of control over the play.

Isn't that what footy (and sport in general) is about?

Yeah I don't know why people keep bringing it up as if it's some unintended consequence. It's exactly what the rule is designed to do - to provide a greater reward for taking a mark or winning a free.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Or perhaps we are willing to withhold judgement until we have seen how the rule actually affects things rather than just immediately deciding that it is the worst thing ever.

I didn't say it was the worst thing ever. I said it was a useless rule that was implemented by people who don't understand the repercussions of it.

And all the AFL shills in here being like

"ooh daddy Gil, thankwu for my latest rule change, so much more scoring, so many more "kicking lanes" opened up, gimme goals daddy gil" it's ******* disgusting.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

No, players on the mark were moving laterally for a reason, to limit the kicker's lateral options. Already we've seen coaches say how the rule frees up ball movement. It isnt pointless, it's actually a very clever way of assisting forward ball movement without introducing a major change to the rules or the look of the game.

Theres only one player on the mark.. if they move one way to block a particular kicking lane it only opens up the spot they used to be in. While it does oipen up lanes when the marks are taken near the boundary, as the boundary cuts off half the available kicking lanes, all this rule does is allow an easier intra corridor kick, thereby promoting easy wing and half back kicks over riskier down the corridor kicks. So what do you want, more Collingwood 2010 style football, come on, you don't know what you want, Gil and Hocking don't know what they want. Just leave the game alone and allow two sides to compete to the best of their ability instead of trying to manipulate the game through made up rules.

 

[RUNVS]

Theres only one player on the mark.. if they move one way to block a particular kicking lane it only opens up the spot they used to be in. While it does oipen up lanes when the marks are taken near the boundary, as the boundary cuts off half the available kicking lanes, all this rule does is allow an easier intra corridor kick, thereby promoting easy wing and half back kicks over riskier down the corridor kicks. So what do you want, more Collingwood 2010 style football, come on, you don't know what you want, Gil and Hocking don't know what they want. Just leave the game alone and allow two sides to compete to the best of their ability instead of trying to manipulate the game through made up rules.

If the AFL didn't change rules could you imagine how often teams would have used the boundary as a tactic to stop the play if there were no consequences for deliberately taking the ball over the line, or how teams would react if the rule for deliberate rushed behinds was not a thing.

The game would be worse today, much slower and with more stoppages if the AFL had done nothing in the last 30 years.