Manning the Mark Rule Change

[tiers 2,883]

On 2/18/2021 at 6:59 PM, tiers said:

Correct. But only if the umpires are correctly trained to call play on as soon as the player with the ball moves of a straight line over the head of the man on the mark.

No more Buddy curves, no more B Brown long run ins (how can the ump be sure he hasn't deviated from the line), no more feigned give offs to passing player (in fact there should be no passing team mates), limits on banana kicks (strict interpretation must be that player has moved off the line) and no doubt there will be many more absurd examples of when a man on the mark has stood on the wrong blade of grass.

 

It seems that the brainiacs at the AFL read this forum. I read today that the rules will prevent Buddy and others from abusing the latitude of the previous rules.

[ManDee 7,395]

11 hours ago, dworship said:

Umm, maybe I'm missing something, regardless of the "stand" command what you said is the current rule and has been so for many years.

However the player in possession regularly moves off-line, sometimes several metres before the umpire calls play on. Unfortunately I think the AFL wants this to happen.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,137]

32 minutes ago, ManDee said:

However the player in possession regularly moves off-line, sometimes several metres before the umpire calls play on. Unfortunately I think the AFL wants this to happen.

I also think that the AFL wants it to happen this way, but I'm not so sure it's "unfortunate". The AFL has had to find ways to overcome the "defence first" mantra of the coaches. It wasn't prepared to wait for a natural evolution which may never happen, so this is a rule change that deliberately swings the pendulum towards attack.  

Let's wait and see how it pans out.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,137]

55 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I also think that the AFL wants it to happen this way, but I'm not so sure it's "unfortunate". The AFL has had to find ways to overcome the "defence first" mantra of the coaches. It wasn't prepared to wait for a natural evolution which may never happen, so this is a rule change that deliberately swings the pendulum towards attack.  

Let's wait and see how it pans out.

Don't just take my word for it. Stephen Hocking on SEN this morning said, “They’re finely tuned athletes and they’ll adapt. We think with the kicking change with the guy standing the mark, the return to 20-minute quarters and this, all of it working together is about finding a better balance between attack and defence.”

Here's the full story.

 

Edited February 24, 2021 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[Grimes Times 1,278]

On 2/22/2021 at 8:46 PM, DeeSpencer said:

Disagree, as soon as you ban 3rd man up you have to specify who the 2 rucks actually are to stop a decoy situation. 

If Gawn (ruck), Jackson (FF), Grundy (ruck) and Roughead (FB) were all at a ball up deep in our forward line we could hover Gawn around, have him pull out at the last second and then send Jackson up against Grundy with every chance Roughead bumps in to Jackson as he's defending him, triggering a 3rd man up or block in the ruck scenario. Teams would rort it as much as possible.

The umps got really good last year of just identifying when both big men were at the stoppage and getting it going without delay. It just took about 3 years of umpires having conferences with the big boys first which wasn't needed. It's a necessary rule but can be streamlined as it was.

Someone gets it. 

On 2/23/2021 at 8:12 PM, dworship said:

This is a great example of one of the things I've been banging on about. It doesn't matter what came first, it only matters when the Umpire called "play on". So an Umpire has a clear and obvious judgement, no interpretation required and a clear observation to be made. Have I called play on? No. Has the defender moved forward, back or to a side? Yes = 50m penalty. As long as this is applied consistently and it should be because there is no need for interpretation; just the 2 questions. Then I think this might be a good change and is a counter to how defensively based the game has become. If the players cannot adapt then that's on them and the Coaching.

SNAP

 

[DubDee 26,674]

The footy season is finally about to start up again the biggest story is about a manning the mark rule change? that'll get the kids excited!

I could not give a rats clacker

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,137]

1 minute ago, DubDee said:

The footy season is finally about to start up again the biggest story is about a manning the mark rule change? that'll get the kids excited!

I could not give a rats clacker

It's all the fault of the players. In years gone by, the big off-season stories were about player misbehaviour. That line of storymaking has virtually disappeared (for AFL, not so much NRL) so the footy journos - and supporter bulletin boards - have to find something else to discuss.

[jnrmac 20,375]

On 2/23/2021 at 9:26 PM, low flying Robbo said:

I reckon there will be players with the ball who will run straight towards the guy on the mark and then with a few metres to go they'll dart out to one side. They'll be passed the guy on the mark before the ump has even had a chance to call play on

Good for Hunt coming off half back

[daisycutter 30,021]

the only thing i don't want to see is an umpire being slow on calling play on, the defender being spot on, then penalised on the technicality that he moveda split second before umpire called play on. a good umpire would realise he was a bit slow (maybe he was distracted watching downfield or just slow) and use some common sense, but i wouldn't hold my breath

the other problem is hearing the umpire in front of a big crowd. i.e. not hearing "stand" or "play on"

[low flying Robbo 979]

Are the umpires going to stand closer to the man on the mark to make sure they can hear them calling play-on? They are obviously not doing it loud enough at the moment because there are numerous times when the players just don't respond...

[sue 9,277]

14 hours ago, daisycutter said:

the only thing i don't want to see is an umpire being slow on calling play on, the defender being spot on, then penalised on the technicality that he moveda split second before umpire called play on. a good umpire would realise he was a bit slow (maybe he was distracted watching downfield or just slow) and use some common sense, but i wouldn't hold my breath

the other problem is hearing the umpire in front of a big crowd. i.e. not hearing "stand" or "play on"

There is also a delay in the play-on call resulting from the fact umpires breathe -  that affects when the words 'play-on' exit their mouths. As I don't get tired of saying (though some may well be tired of hearing), the solution is to let the player on the mark decide if the player with the ball has played on.  If he gets it wrong the umpire can issue the penalty. 

[monoccular 17,760]

3 hours ago, sue said:

There is also a delay in the play-on call resulting from the fact umpires breathe -  that affects when the words 'play-on' exit their mouths. As I don't get tired of saying (though some may well be tired of hearing), the solution is to let the player on the mark decide if the player with the ball has played on.  If he gets it wrong the umpire can issue the penalty. 

Surely time to get real robots to umpire the game - no breathing, no 'feel for the game', just adherence to the rules.  

[ex52k2 250]

In the past we have seen the man on the mark starting to run in to the mark and jump to make it harder to kick a long goal. If a kicking player is on his kicking range a tall defender runs from behind the mark and jumps thus making the kicker kick higher. No more, if a defender jumps it now must be vertical and he must land in exactly the same spot. If he lands only close call the ball back and award a 50m penalty. The risk is just too great , no more jumping guarding the mark.

[sue 9,277]

Watching the game yesterday I had the impression players were reluctant to even approach where the mark actually was.  They'd run towards the mark but stop often 5 or more metres short of where they were entitled to be.  I don't know if is due to the new rule - can't think why it would be but..?

[Demonland 74,430]

 

[Hellaintabadplacetobe 4,335]

2 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Disgraceful !! 

[daisycutter 30,021]

just no feel for the game......no common sense.....afl 2021

 

[sue 9,277]

The Jackson 6 posted this in another thread and it raised a question for me:

Quote

Was just reading that stK have been practising standing  5m ‘outside’ of the man-on-the-mark zone instead of actually manning the mark. You can move freely there. Didn’t see that in our practice match.  An interesting move. Feels counter to the spirit of the rule though so I kinda hope the AFL make it 10m+ to give the team with the ball an advantage if players try to do this

How does the umpire decide which player is the man on the mark and therefore has to 'stand'?   Presumably whoever is nearest. And does the umpire first direct him to where the mark actually is?  I didn't see any clear evedence of this in the practice match.

Say a 1 on 1 mark is taken, can the defeated player runaway to a legal position 5 m away  before the umpire calls 'stand', at which point he won't be on the mark?  Can the umpire call him back? 

Even if there is a man on the mark, it may well be worth another player (who would not otherwise run forward) to also man the mark but 5m away to where the man on the mark used to stand in recent years.  

This all seems poorly thought out and coaches cunning plans may cause it to be changed frequently, eg. the above poster's suggestion that he hopes the area is extended to 10m.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,137]

3 minutes ago, sue said:

The Jackson 6 posted this in another thread and it raised a question for me:

How does the umpire decide which player is the man on the mark and therefore has to 'stand'?   Presumably whoever is nearest. And does the umpire first direct him to where the mark actually is?  I didn't see any clear evedence of this in the practice match.

Say a 1 on 1 mark is taken, can the defeated player runaway to a legal position 5 m away  before the umpire calls 'stand', at which point he won't be on the mark?  Can the umpire call him back? 

Even if there is a man on the mark, it may well be worth another player (who would not otherwise run forward) to also man the mark but 5m away to where the man on the mark used to stand in recent years.  

This all seems poorly thought out and coaches cunning plans may cause it to be changed frequently, eg. the above poster's suggestion that he hopes the area is extended to 10m.

The approach allegedly taken by St Kilda makes sense to trial in a practice match. However, I'm not sure of its value as it automatically gives the player with the ball an extra 5 metres added to their kick. It would also allow the player with the ball more freedom to kick on any angle as the man on the (new) mark will be too far away to stop it.

[Macca 17,127]

Mistakes will be made with regards to the adjudication of this new rule but mistakes are made with all adjudications. 

That's the sport and if you want perfection and/or consistency you won't get it

But I really like the new rule in terms of what it could do for the sport as a spectacle ... and that matters to me far more than a few iffy decisions

More open footy and more scoring with less congestion & stoppages is what I want to see and so do many others

So hopefully this new rule helps us get to that point. 

Those who like footy the way it is now need to remember that they used to watch (and enjoy) the sport when it was more open with less congestion and with more scoring

 

[sue 9,277]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Mistakes will be made with regards to the adjudication of this new rule but mistakes are made with all adjudications. 

That's the sport and if you want perfection and/or consistency you won't get it

But I really like the new rule in terms of what it could do for the sport as a spectacle ... and that matters to me far more than a few iffy decisions

More open footy and more scoring with less congestion & stoppages is what I want to see and so do many others

So hopefully this new rule helps us get to that point. 

Those who like footy the way it is now need to remember that they used to watch (and enjoy) the sport when it was more open with less congestion and with more scoring

 

I'm sure there will be mistakes, but I just fear they may be out of all proportion because this has not been thoroughly trialled, especially seeing what real coaches do to fiddle it in real matches.    The questions I and others have raised don't seem to be answerable yet.  That is unsatisfactory with the season only weeks away.  

I too would love more open footy (though I don't think we need much more scoring for the game to be a better spectacle) and hope this rule will achieve it.  I just wish it had been trialled first.  The AFL by their own admission are implying that the first few weeks of the season will effectively be the trial and they will tweak things as required.   Supporters of a club which misses the finals because of some losses early in the season due to errors or uncertainties in this rule will doubtless be overjoyed by the improved spectacle.

[george_on_the_outer 7,875]

You just know Razor Ray can't wait for the first game in which he officiates to be able to use this.....

[Demonland 74,430]

 

[sue 9,277]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

 

Pretty useless explanation - no detail. Doesn’t even cover the example of the Essendon player turning his back the other day. Unless the word laterally has a new meaning.  Hopefully it will become clear in actual consistent practice   

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

On 2/18/2021 at 10:53 AM, Clint Bizkit said:

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.

I love this rule in reality.

There still is a bit of grey areas as to where the mark should be but overall it’s excellent.