Just watching the TV delayed telecast of Haw vs Coll, and in this instance , Franklin's arc was gone;he did not have it when in this position on the ground.

I think he has the umpires fooled, and get an advantage when kicking from the right side of the ground.

He should be made to start to the right of the line between the man on the mark & the goal,and have no extra advantage.

Edited August 28, 201015 yr by RedsoxMan

I think he has the umpires fooled, and get an advantage when kicking from the right side of the ground.

He should be made to start to the right of the line between the man on the mark & the goal,and have no extra advantage.

Of course he has them fooled. He should be made to kick OVER the man on the mark. As soon as he strays to the left of the man on the mark it's play on!!!

Thing is, he's far from the only one and nearly each and every player does it to a degree.

He is just the one that the media focuses on.

We have a few that do it severely.

Yes, like Lynden Dunn.

If you want to see Franklin stopped then Dunn's proficiency in front of goal might disappear too.

And I'm starting to really like those Lynden Dunn goals from 50.

I'm thinking of growing a little 'tache in his honour.

One can still utilise the arc, but you MUST kick over the man on the mark.

Colliwobbles much????

150 years of footy and there was no such thing as 'natural arc' until this year.

A player must run in a straight line which is extended from the centre of the goal posts and the man on the mark, if he deviates from this it is play on.

That doesn't mean franklin or dunn cannot play on to get the extra distance they like, but most players only do it for a step or two and by the time 'play on' is called it is too late for the reaction from the man on the mark. franklin runs right around and gains an unfair advantage.

if 'natural arc' flows through, all midfielders, who generally are not particularly good kicks for goal from ste shots, will start arcing around like they can when on the run.

What happens if the'natural arc' happens after the siron isnt that play on

Why is it that the forwards get to use their "natural arc" but if someone so much as looks sideways further up the ground they are immediately called to play on? Also, why is it that they allow 30 seconds for a shot on goal but less than 10 seconds for a kick further up the ground? How about when a player takes his 30 seconds and then passes rather than taking the shot? Shouldn't that be penalised in some way since they have claimed an unfair advantage by faking the shot for goal?

Why is it that the forwards get to use their "natural arc" but if someone so much as looks sideways further up the ground they are immediately called to play on? Also, why is it that they allow 30 seconds for a shot on goal but less than 10 seconds for a kick further up the ground? How about when a player takes his 30 seconds and then passes rather than taking the shot? Shouldn't that be penalised in some way since they have claimed an unfair advantage by faking the shot for goal?

I honestly think that if a person taking a mark in the back pocket lined up as if they were taking a shot on goal (did up the laces, pulled up the socks, threw the grass up in the air, put their mouth-guard away, etc.), they'd be allowed to take as long as the forwards, and go off their line, which is silly, since a mark is a mark, no matter where it's taken.

Mark Stevens wrote an article about it a few weeks ago now and he made a good point. He said that maybe it is invariable that some players simply need to run on that curved line to give themselves the best chance of kicking the goal. So what the rule should be is that the deviation needs to make your line no better off.

So if you're a leftie like Franklin, and you've marked the ball on the right side for a leftie, then you would have to start your 'deviation' from a position that is already off the line, so that, as you run in and to the left, you end up on the line of the mark. If you marked it on the other side, then you would have to start your 'deviation' from the line of the mark, making you worse off. That way no player can improve the angle without being called to play on.

But tbh, if Dunn's kicking goals for us by flaunting the rules, I don't particularly want to see them changed.

Mark Stevens wrote an article about it a few weeks ago now and he made a good point. He said that maybe it is invariable that some players simply need to run on that curved line to give themselves the best chance of kicking the goal. So what the rule should be is that the deviation needs to make your line no better off.

So if you're a leftie like Franklin, and you've marked the ball on the right side for a leftie, then you would have to start your 'deviation' from a position that is already off the line, so that, as you run in and to the left, you end up on the line of the mark. If you marked it on the other side, then you would have to start your 'deviation' from the line of the mark, making you worse off. That way no player can improve the angle without being called to play on.

That's pretty much what all the sensible people are saying. The only ones who disagree are Hawthorn supporters and the AFL, who like to stick their heads in the sandy dunes of Etihad stadium, rather than deal with their problems.