It's man on the mark, not man moving around the mark.
What rule would you Add/Remove/Change to improve the game?
- Thread starter kingbob182
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The difference between soccer and footy is we have a minor score and they don't. You either score or you don't in soccer. It wouldn't make great sense for the ball to be play on if it hit the post and came back in, if a less accurate shot that went wide scored one point.
- Sep 30, 2015
- 3,229
- 4,988
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It wasn't "stand still on the mark". You could still be on the mark and move your legs around, which was the rule before the 2020's, which was much better.
The people making the rule changes haven't umpired.
It's not a big thing, but I saw it again in the opening minutes of the Power v Eagles game. An Eagles player ran nearly 30 metres without bouncing the ball, that was okay. A couple of minutes later, a Power player does a little chip kick off the side of the foot, wouldn't have gone 10 metres, a mark is paid. Why is there such discrepancy when it comes to distance a ball travels?
Cleansweep17
Club Legend
- Dec 20, 2023
- 2,764
- 1,294
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Gets rid of score reviews altogether and can add some cool goals. Still not worth it?
They heavily consult with umpires though to ensure any new rules are enforceable.
I can tell you right now the stand rule is very easy to enforce and provides a clear advantage to the attacking side, hence why the AFL is happy with it and it will stay. At the start when the rule came in, if a 50 was paid, 90% of the time it's because the umpire didn't communicate properly. Now we are comfortable with the change you only see a 50 paid once every couple of rounds. It's a really simple rule that has only improved the game.
Front on contact is ridiculous. It only gets paid against defenders and means you have to be in the perfect position to compete for a mark or else you have to just sit and watch.
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,090
- 34,348
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I would stop allowing Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast to use their "academy" trump card whenever another club selects a NSW or QLD kid with their 1st round draft pick.
It's not good for the game to artificially boost these clubs up into the top 8 at the expense of the 14 other clubs.
AFL footy should be a level playing field for all 18 clubs. Same rules for all.
I'm sick of all the concessions. It's a blight on the game.
Why does the AFL need to favour those franchises?
(I'll tell you why... Because NOBODY from Vic, SA, or WA would bother to watch Sydney v Carlton on a Friday night if the Swans sucked and the Blues belted them by 10 goals... These northern teams are used as a TV ratings mechanism to get as many Vic/SA/WA viewers as possible barracking for them as their 2nd/3rd side.)
It's not good for the game to artificially boost these clubs up into the top 8 at the expense of the 14 other clubs.
AFL footy should be a level playing field for all 18 clubs. Same rules for all.
I'm sick of all the concessions. It's a blight on the game.
Why does the AFL need to favour those franchises?
(I'll tell you why... Because NOBODY from Vic, SA, or WA would bother to watch Sydney v Carlton on a Friday night if the Swans sucked and the Blues belted them by 10 goals... These northern teams are used as a TV ratings mechanism to get as many Vic/SA/WA viewers as possible barracking for them as their 2nd/3rd side.)
Last edited:
- Sep 20, 2010
- 1,371
- 3,681
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I see there is more controversy about whether the ball was out or not.
AFL should change it to more like the basketball rules ie the ball is only out if it hits the ground out of bounds or played at from an out of bounds position.
It's impossible for a boundary umpire's to determine if a rotating oblong ball has crossed a curved plane from 30m away. The basketball rule would give the umpire something definitive to look at.
As an (recent) example, the below pic would definitely be in as the players feet are in bounds.
AFL should change it to more like the basketball rules ie the ball is only out if it hits the ground out of bounds or played at from an out of bounds position.
It's impossible for a boundary umpire's to determine if a rotating oblong ball has crossed a curved plane from 30m away. The basketball rule would give the umpire something definitive to look at.
As an (recent) example, the below pic would definitely be in as the players feet are in bounds.
76woodenspooners
Brownlow Medallist
Free kick to the away team if the goal celebration song hasn’t finished playing before the umpire is signalled to restart play.
I’d hope that it never needs to get paid, we’d just want the home team to not be so sloppy with that stuff.
I’d hope that it never needs to get paid, we’d just want the home team to not be so sloppy with that stuff.
This happened again last night. Collingwood player, I think Miocheck - went up for a mark leading up to the ball. Harris from Brisbane came from the other direction, kept his body out of the way and punched the ball out of Miochek's hands. Got nothing but ball and still got pinged for 'front on contact'.
Why is everyone so accepting of this bullshit rule? A defender should be able to defend. At the moment it's as though they just have to watch the forward take the mark if they're coming from the other direction.
TheVillageIdiot7
Club Legend
- Apr 25, 2021
- 1,420
- 2,842
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
wtf is this thread??
The most insane and bizarre suggestions.
Remove dissent?!?!? - clearly anyone suggesting this doesn’t have kids and goes to junior footy.
Remove front on——wtf?!?!? Just let people smash in in protected?!?!?
Suggestions that make it harder and more complex?!?!?
Some questions:
Is there another professional league with the constant “umpire blaming” of AFL?
How many other professional sports change their rules as much as afl?
Why is that do you think?
Maybe the rules are too hard?
AFL rules are like the US constitution. Terrific and balanced for when they were written….but horribly inadequate for today.
why would anyone suggest rules that are “if this then y, if F then g, else x”.
Like that will end up working out well!!
Also the “feel for the game” for umpires is outta death knock…,apply the rules….why do the rules have so much interpretation?
Best way to improve the game is remove interpretation as much as possible.
Many ways to do that. AFL just doesn’t seem to want to.
Still amazed at “remove dissent” and people thinking that it’s bad?!?!?…..like wtf…..
The most insane and bizarre suggestions.
Remove dissent?!?!? - clearly anyone suggesting this doesn’t have kids and goes to junior footy.
Remove front on——wtf?!?!? Just let people smash in in protected?!?!?
Suggestions that make it harder and more complex?!?!?
Some questions:
Is there another professional league with the constant “umpire blaming” of AFL?
How many other professional sports change their rules as much as afl?
Why is that do you think?
Maybe the rules are too hard?
AFL rules are like the US constitution. Terrific and balanced for when they were written….but horribly inadequate for today.
why would anyone suggest rules that are “if this then y, if F then g, else x”.
Like that will end up working out well!!
Also the “feel for the game” for umpires is outta death knock…,apply the rules….why do the rules have so much interpretation?
Best way to improve the game is remove interpretation as much as possible.
Many ways to do that. AFL just doesn’t seem to want to.
Still amazed at “remove dissent” and people thinking that it’s bad?!?!?…..like wtf…..
Can every ump please just come together and work out what the * "prior opportunity" is please? Last night players were getting pinged htb when they were being held as they were picking up the ball. How do you have "prior" if you never have possession without being held?
Today it only seemed to matter which team was doing the tackling (44 tackles for ONE htb decision, please). Players get a handball away? Nah that's htb. Player feigns a handball then drops it, nah that's an attempt to dispose, play on.
Farcical
Today it only seemed to matter which team was doing the tackling (44 tackles for ONE htb decision, please). Players get a handball away? Nah that's htb. Player feigns a handball then drops it, nah that's an attempt to dispose, play on.
Farcical
Totally agree Maddo, it was disgraceful again today for both Sydney and Richmond.
And the free kick for a deliberate behind. I thought I had it worked out until the last few weeks.
The same can be said about Roughead's "controversial" out of bounds against West Coast in the 2015 H&A season which set up a goal. Most famously known for BT's "that was out of bounds!" outburst. The ball was in fact, not out of bounds.
- Sep 20, 2010
- 1,371
- 3,681
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Yep, under the AFL's rule it was probably still in.
Under basketball style rules, it would have 100% been out.
I don't understand why the AFL want include such a subjective rule.
- Feb 13, 2011
- 10,903
- 13,745
- AFL Club
- Richmond
A free kick for infringing the kicker should always be down field.
At least that one was close to the line, I've seen three already this year which were a long way out.
- Sep 20, 2010
- 1,371
- 3,681
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
The way BT was carrying in, it wasn't close at all.
The thing you are not realising is that the 'northern teams' have much more trouble than the traditional footy states to get good people in assistant coaching roles, footy department roles etc. It's far easier for Hawthorn to lure a hot assistant away from one of the other 8 vic teams than it is for Brisbane/Sydney etc because coaches aren't going to have to uproot their entire lives. Clubs in the non-footy states seem to have more issues with player retention, the academies drafting home-grown kids does help that to some extent.
All in all the way the AFL is run still heavily favours the Vic teams, whether it is by design or not.
It is a 360 degree game. If the player makes contact with the ball, why does it matter where they came from?
I don't think anybody here is advocating for a complete removal of a rule if someone takes the player and not the ball from front on. But if you spoil the ball or mark the ball etc then why should there be a free kick?
There won't be. The only time you're allowed to make front on contact in a marking contest is if you spoil or mark the ball. If you try and miss and make any contact at all it's a free.
It's one of those rules that isn't written verbatim in the law book but umps are instructed to pay it that way
But we see it paid when the player makes contact with the ball.
Then that's an umpiring error
