The AFL has warned in briefings to clubs that even the slightest movement to the left or right from the man on the park will incur an immediate 50m penalty.

 

Umpires now warning that this absurd change will be incredibly difficult to police and the effects either way will have a big influence as  50m penalty may be awarded or missed.

 

Remember when they introduced the pritected zone how over zealous the umps were ? This is likely to be a lot worse....

The Rule

1. Players on the mark will be told to “stand” by the umpires. They can jump straight up but have to land in the same spot. 

2. Any lateral movement from the man on the mark before "play on" is called will incur a 50m penalty.

3. It means players on the mark will not be permitted to take a single step to the left or right before "play on" is called. 

4. Once the player in possessions moves off his line and "play on" is called, the man on the mark is free to leave their position. 

 

The AFL are idiots.

I don’t mind this in theory, the issue is they will need to point out exactly the point of the mark each time which will slow things down.

It could be a nice, small rule change that opens up play just a little without causing any disruption at all.

It has just the specific problem of over-riding coach's demands which will have been drilled into players from about 8 years old so it would be appropriate to have plenty of consultation, a good lead-in time for clubs to train the new habit, and a fairly generous interpretation in initial implementation.

Zero from three.  Good to see the Imperial office maintaining their batting average.

Add this to the long list of poorly thought out, untested rule changes the AFL have introduced on the back of the myth that high scoring = good football.

If a player takes a mark, and takes a couple of lateral steps and is clearly about to play on, is the bloke standing the mark seriously just meant to stand there glued to the spot until the umpires call play on? They'll be paying an extra dozen 50m penalties a game. Although that will increase scoring, so I guess the AFL will pat themselves on the back.

 

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I suspect there'll be criticism of over-officiating by umpires initially, but if this speeds up the game as intended, it may have the result of stopping flooding. Teams may well have to ensure they keep a couple of defenders well back to stop the breakaway forward movement from having a free run at goal.

Nevertheless, I would prefer to see this rule change tested properly before it is introduced.  

I wouldn’t mind them being this rule in if it didn’t incur such a massive penalty, if it was 25m I think that would be fair. Like @Clint Bizkiti get the theory behind it but I think the execution is going to be interesting to see. I think there’s going to be a lot of frustration in the early rounds. 

I think one consequence of this rule change will be that, with the man on the mark anchored, it may well be so much easier to determine when the player with the ball moves off his mark, and hence many more play ons will be called, as opposed to 50m penalties imposed. 

I would add that if the player with the ball goes off-line 1 step it is play on. No natural arcs, off-line is off-line. If Buddy wants to go off-line he should start a bit further back.

Edit. Including outside the boundary, off-line is still off-line, play on.

Edited February 18, 20214 yr by ManDee

2 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I would add that if the player with the ball goes off-line 1 step it is play on. No natural arcs, off-line is off-line. If Buddy wants to go off-line he should start a bit further back.

This is the issue, they changed the rule to allow for natural arc, essentially if a player standing the mark can't move left or right using your arc you don't have to kick over the man on the mark.  

Buddy or anyone that wants to use an arc should have to start 1-2m outside the line of the mark and as soon as he crosses the line of the mark it should be play on.  

This is a bloody stupid rule, it is natural to follow the kickers arc and also cut off the handball.  What sides might do is have 2 -3 players on the mark, one standing the mark the other 2-5ms either side

 

they will have to rename the game of australian rules to "australian 50 metres rules"

 

and we can thank kevin sheedy for even having a 50 metres penalty

3 minutes ago, ManDee said:

I would add that if the player with the ball goes off-line 1 step it is play on. No natural arcs, off-line is off-line. If Buddy wants to go off-line he should start a bit further back.

Makes sense to me and I could stomach that. The only thing is, when they showed footage of Gawn slotting the mark in the practice match / simulation a couple of weeks ago, didn't he go off his line for a better angle? I could be wrong but IIRC May couldn't do anything but flap and jump. It would infuriate me if players were given license by the umpire to do so.

someone who i met with this morning plays with the filth's vfl side

in their practice matches he said that every sweeping half-back flanker who uses overlap run in their game - and his example was john noble - will see their possession total skyrocket as a result of this rule interpretation change

i asked him who he thought would benefit for the mfc and he said it won't be salem as he doesn't get many handball received, but that it could actually end up being steven may

How can you look at where you are standing and the player you are minding  on the mark ? What if you lose balance and accidently fall?  Do you keep your feet together  or apart?   What if Razor Ray is one of the umpires ?      God help us !

What is stopping the defensive team of putting another player behind the man on the mark so he can move laterally.

28 minutes ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

someone who i met with this morning plays with the filth's vfl side

in their practice matches he said that every sweeping half-back flanker who uses overlap run in their game - and his example was john noble - will see their possession total skyrocket as a result of this rule interpretation change

i asked him who he thought would benefit for the mfc and he said it won't be salem as he doesn't get many handball received, but that it could actually end up being steven may

 

I think I nominated Rosman as being a strong candidate for being utilised in this way in the Rosman thread, likewise Isaac Smith at Geelong. 

Salem might not have aimed to do this much in the past, but I could see this becoming a clear instruction for him going forward.

9 minutes ago, djr said:

What is stopping the defensive team of putting another player behind the man on the mark so he can move laterally.

I believe the protected zone goes in all directions around the player.  

This idea might be useful at a kick for goal, but having essentially 2 on the mark leaves an opponent unmanned somewhere in front of the ball.  

16 minutes ago, djr said:

What is stopping the defensive team of putting another player behind the man on the mark so he can move laterally.

or just have no-one on the mark, and put another player behind the man on the mark so he can move laterally.

they will need to define a no-man area behind the mark.......more opportunity for 50m penalties....lovely

In the heat battle how is player supposed to just stand still and watch what is happening befoe him,his natural movement is sideways to prevent a player handballing to a player going past,wont be called play on because the player didnt move off his line.Players streaming down the ground with short kicks and handballs could leave ,say 5 players standing still .with no momentum to chase.How is the umpire going to be able to see if a player moves off his line with pace of the game these days

This has the potential to make footy unwatchable with so many 50m penalties, but the big concern for me is it opens up another option for umpires to influence results. For example if they give one team half a second longer before calling play on after the player has actually played on, the ball carrier will be off and gone. There'll be no stats on it so it goes completely under the radar.

Of all the rule changes over the last decade, this one has me the most concerned.

1 hour ago, ManDee said:

 

Edit. Including outside the boundary, off-line is still off-line, play on.

Can not understand the interpretation sometimes 

How can you run off line if you are out of bounds, if you do that it should be  

play on, then the ball is over the boundary line

throw it in !!

2 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

I think one consequence of this rule change will be that, with the man on the mark anchored, it may well be so much easier to determine when the player with the ball moves off his mark, and hence many more play ons will be called, as opposed to 50m penalties imposed. 

One thing you can be sure of is that the play-on call will usually be made too late, sufficiently after the player has played-on to give him an unfair advanatge.  Yet again I say let the player on the mark make the judgement as to whether the player with the ball has played-on.  If he gets it wrong, then impose a penalty. 

The other side of this rule is, I think, it will help players with huge tanks and speed that can run past and receive a handball/pop up kick. If the player on the mark cant roll off and another man take his place, It may open up space on the wings.  Slow and aging mids might get caught on the wrong side of the mark and stranded (or give away 50 if they get to close). 

Reckon it will help players like Langdon 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

or just have no-one on the mark, and put another player behind the man on the mark so he can move laterally.

they will need to define a no-man area behind the mark.......more opportunity for 50m penalties....lovely

Looophole identified. Well done.

2 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

someone who i met with this morning plays with the filth's vfl side

in their practice matches he said that every sweeping half-back flanker who uses overlap run in their game - and his example was john noble - will see their possession total skyrocket as a result of this rule interpretation change

i asked him who he thought would benefit for the mfc and he said it won't be salem as he doesn't get many handball received, but that it could actually end up being steven may

Hunt has been moved back for a reason. 

This is the worst rule change of the lot. Will be a spectacular mess. Will decide some games.