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

[FlowersByIrene]

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.

Theres a difference between identifying an exploit that takes the contest out of the game and addressing it. I.e deliberate out of bounds, rushed behinds etc.

Versus trying to mold the game to look a certain way and inhibiting natural competition between teams like with this rule.

There is only one man on the mark, if he goes left, the space to the right is opened up. If he goes right, vice versa. You could put more players on the mark but then more of the opposition team would be unmanned, its a part of the game that has inbuilt checks and balances. it doesn't need Hocking or Gil to come in and **** around with it because they want more goals and more ad breaks.

No one likes goals for goals sake. We like our team winning. We like competition. Pressure. The game to be influenced by the 18 players in our clubs jersey not the campaigner in high vis.

If you don't understand the difference... what are you even doing.

 

[quotemokc]

Mute the maggots, don't need to hear them yell stand for every single mark.

 

[mxett]

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.

you think the people who have been heavily criticizing what the game has become over the last few years, and agree with a minor rule change, are AFL shrills?

LOL

 

[mxett]

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.

it also gives time for the player to play on, and when the player is already in the corridor they have room to deliver both sides of the ground. We've been waiting for the game to balance for years

 

[PetterdHoisted]

it also gives time for the player to play on, and when the player is already in the corridor they have room to deliver both sides of the ground. We've been waiting for the game to balance for years

but if a player scrooches around to the right of the mark you have oodles of time to play-on to the left side. That has been exploited by the attacking side since 1858.

The whole premise of this rule, that there are uber-defensive properties associated with moving to one side or the other on the mark, is totally flawed.

 

[darcytiger]

Are we likely to see set shot accuracy increase a lot this year due to this? The player has to stand like a statue on the mark like those plastic things they use at training rather than marking the spot, moving back then running at the player taking the shot (which can make it tough to judge, especially when you’re at the edge of your distance).

 

[mxett]

but if a player scrooches around to the right of the mark you have oodles of time to play-on to the left side. That has been exploited by the attacking side since 1858.

The whole premise of this rule, that there are uber-defensive properties associated with moving to one side or the other on the mark, is totally flawed.

flawed if you think there is uber-defensive properties

 

[NoobPie]

Theres a difference between identifying an exploit that takes the contest out of the game and addressing it. I.e deliberate out of bounds, rushed behinds etc.

Versus trying to mold the game to look a certain way and inhibiting natural competition between teams like with this rule.

There is only one man on the mark, if he goes left, the space to the right is opened up. If he goes right, vice versa. You could put more players on the mark but then more of the opposition team would be unmanned, its a part of the game that has inbuilt checks and balances. it doesn't need Hocking or Gil to come in and fu** around with it because they want more goals and more ad breaks.

No one likes goals for goals sake. We like our team winning. We like competition. Pressure. The game to be influenced by the 18 players in our clubs jersey not the campaigner in high vis.

If you don't understand the difference... what are you even doing.

The whole point of this rule is to weaken the man on the mark's ability to limit the options for the player who was either infringed, or otherwise won a free kick through mark or tackle.

You can already see the implications, the player can more confidently move the ball forward more aggressively.

The defending team still has 17 players with free movement. The man on the mark is just fixed

This is hardly some contrived outrage on the game like how you and others are reacting

 

[Shane Heard]

The whole point of this rule is to weaken the man on the mark's ability to limit the options for the player who was either infringed, or otherwise won a free kick through mark or tackle.

You can already see the implications, the player can more confidently move the ball forward more aggressively.

The defending team still has 17 players with free movement. The man on the mark is just fixed

This is hardly some contrived outrage on the game like how you and others are reacting

A good point

Food for thought

 

[greatwhiteshark]

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.

I know, the Eagles have been kicking sideways and backwards for years. Nothing new is happening here except we now have a dead person on the mark. There will be no outcome in regards to higher scoring.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

flawed if you think there is uber-defensive properties

well exactly, there is no preferential defensive position for the man on the mark, so why invent a rule attacking one.

look at the game now, noone knows what is going on, hesistant, not even standing the mark.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The whole point of this rule is to weaken the man on the mark's ability to limit the options for the player who was either infringed, or otherwise won a free kick through mark or tackle.

You can already see the implications, the player can more confidently move the ball forward more aggressively.

The defending team still has 17 players with free movement. The man on the mark is just fixed

This is hardly some contrived outrage on the game like how you and others are reacting

Only a poor very average footballer could of been limited by options with a player moving on the mark, any basic amateur footballer can still hit a target with a player moving on the mark. Can’t believe some think the elite of the game should get help doing the most basic and simple skill kicking to a target.

 

[mxett]

well exactly, there is no preferential defensive position for the man on the mark, so why invent a rule attacking one.

look at the game now, noone knows what is going on, hesistant, not even standing the mark.

what do you expect given the rule is a few practice matches in? It was never going to be a panacea, it's a small change via a rule that has minimal impact on the look and feel of the sport

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The whole point of this rule is to weaken the man on the mark's ability to limit the options for the player who was either infringed, or otherwise won a free kick through mark or tackle.

You can already see the implications, the player can more confidently move the ball forward more aggressively.

The defending team still has 17 players with free movement. The man on the mark is just fixed

This is hardly some contrived outrage on the game like how you and others are reacting

I reject the implication that a player couldn't attack with confidence last year because a bloke 6 metres away takes one step to the left/right.

A crazy premise, and they made up a statue rule based on it.

That is the contrivance here.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

what do you expect given the rule is a few practice matches in? It was never going to be a panacea, it's a small change via a rule that has minimal impact on the look and feel of the sport

The kiddies will have no pressure on them when they kick now, bless them.

 

[mxett]

Only a poor very average footballer could of been limited by options with a player moving on the mark, any basic amateur footballer can still hit a target with a player moving on the mark. Can’t believe some think the elite of the game should get help doing the most basic and simple skill kicking to a target.

what it allows is:

1. a player can more easily find a target with a low bullet pass without worrying about the player on the mark touching the ball
2. a player has equal opportunity to play on via both sides of the mark without the man on the mark limiting their option to along the boundary only. This forces the defensive zone to spread instead of narrowing to one area

 

[mxett]

I reject the implication that a player couldn't attack with confidence last year because a bloke 6 metres away takes one step to the left/right.

A crazy premise, and they made up a statue rule based on it.

That is the contrivance here.

a few coaches have already come out and said it speeds up play. Good thing you're here to tell us otherwise though

 

[mxett]

The kiddies will have no pressure on them when they kick now, bless them.

anything that makes attacking easier is a step in the right direction given how diabolical the game has become recently

 

[quotemokc]

I don't have a problem with the player not being able to move to the side.

But I don't see why players shouldn't be allowed to jump up and down, next they will make a rule that players on the mark can't talk to the player taking a shot at goal encase they put them off.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

anything that makes attacking easier is a step in the right direction given how diabolical the game has become recently

Disagree, the game is awesome at the moment when played by the Tigers and also the Bombers- and they play a gamestyle that is the very opposite of relying on marking the ball. Its all handballs and knock-ons at speed

the game looks terrible when played in chip-mark-chip-mark boring possession style, which this rule just encourages.

Very wrong way to take the game.

 

[mxett]

Disagree, the game is awesome at the moment when played by the Tigers and also the Bombers- and they play a gamestyle that is the very opposite of relying on marking the ball. Its all handballs and knock-ons at speed

the game looks terrible when played in chip-mark-chip-mark boring possession style, which this rule just encourages.

Very wrong way to take the game.

except that it also makes playing on from a kick easier. Also, teams are already chipping. This way at least it goes forwards

 

[greatwhiteshark]

anything that makes attacking easier is a step in the right direction given how diabolical the game has become recently

No issue with that but it’s the rule changes one after another every year that have made the game like it is. Football coaches forever have always been defensive.
Coaches and players evolve the game, rule changes change the actual game.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

except that it also makes playing on from a kick easier. Also, teams are already chipping. This way at least it goes forwards

nope, we just saw Geelong be more effective than ever in chipping the ball around their D50 and HB line, retaining possession, burning minutes, putting us all to sleep.

They are not compelled to attack by this rule change. It just gives an extra advantage to Chris Scott's preferred game plan.

What was hopeful about tonight was that EFC's attacking game style probably wins that game 9/10 times where they would kick straighter at goal.

 

[mxett]

nope, we just saw Geelong be more effective than ever in chipping the ball around their D50 and HB line, retaining possession, burning minutes, putting us all to sleep.

They are not compelled to attack by this rule change. It just gives an extra advantage to Chris Scott's preferred game plan.

What was hopeful about tonight was that EFC's attacking game style probably wins that game 9/10 times where they would kick straighter at goal.

exactly. If it makes retaining possession easier, the side attacking the scoreboard has a better chance of winning than the side being defensive

 

[pockets75]

Probably a question that's been answered before on here, but are you allowed to jump on the spot while the opposition is having a shot for goal? Would be ludicrous if you couldn't.