Manning the Mark Rule Change

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

This rule has certainly has achieved its intention but I'm not sure what to think at this stage. 

I'm probably in the minority though, in that I like the contested game and feel like most of the games this weekend have had a training drill vibe, at times.

I enjoy watching teams try and unpick the congestion and the premium that puts on each goal.

There's just something about taking it in turns of running end to end that doesn't appeal.

[Maldonboy38 6,402]

Love this rule. I refuse to call it a new rule, because it is basically a return to what everyone did for the first 130 years until coaches pulled in ideas from other sports. It is simple - you "man the mark".  And look at the run and flow of the game, look at the shots on goal!

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

26 minutes ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Love this rule. I refuse to call it a new rule, because it is basically a return to what everyone did for the first 130 years until coaches pulled in ideas from other sports. It is simple - you "man the mark".  And look at the run and flow of the game, look at the shots on goal!

Take a look at games from the 80s and 90s. The man on the mark didn't just stand there. They'd essentially hold the player for as long as they could to slow the game down. This is definitely a new rule.

[Maldonboy38 6,402]

39 minutes ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Take a look at games from the 80s and 90s. The man on the mark didn't just stand there. They'd essentially hold the player for as long as they could to slow the game down. This is definitely a new rule.

Yes, but they did it at the mark. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,578]

watched the Hawks v Bombers game for a few minutes last night.

Hawks still using their tactic of having a non kicking player bump the man on the mark. Allows the kicker an extra ten metre of run and also allows the kicker to clear the receiving pack.

Because the man on the mark must stand still the tactic is even more easily employed than in previous years.

[Kent 2,909]

There were still plenty of smothers yesterday from manning the mark

Probably says more about our and Freo kicking skills 

It surprised me a little

[Sir Why You Little 37,034]

The rule is ok, except players should be able to move backwards if the wish

[Grr-owl 1,219]

3 hours ago, Maldonboy38 said:

Love this rule. I refuse to call it a new rule, because it is basically a return to what everyone did for the first 130 years until coaches pulled in ideas from other sports. It is simple - you "man the mark".  And look at the run and flow of the game, look at the shots on goal!

I agree. Love to see the ball moving on and moving on and moving on.

[sue 9,102]

Whether you like/dislike/indifferent to this rule there is either things that need explaining or the umpires are being more inconsistent than usual. For example in the game I’m just watching a player takes a mark and there is no oppo within 20 m foreword of him except one guy who isn’t even on the line towards goal. Yet the ump calls stand even though the player is no where near the actual mark and could be just guarding space   
 We also see players defining where the mark is inside of where it really is and umps calling stand when the real mark is elsewhere. 

One I enjoyed was the player on the mark getting pushed backwards by the player picking up the ball to take his free. The oppo stumbles back and the ump calls stand. A good way to get an extra couple of metres 

Edited March 21, 2021 by sue

[Go the Biff 3,418]

9 hours ago, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Take a look at games from the 80s and 90s. The man on the mark didn't just stand there. They'd essentially hold the player for as long as they could to slow the game down. This is definitely a new rule.

That was the main reason the 50 metre penalty was introduced. Sheedy figured it was worth the 15 metres you'd cop for holding a player down if it meant you could delay him long enough to get set up ahead of the ball. So his Bombers mastered it & other coaches followed. Unfortunately in addressing this tactic, the powers that be applied the 50 to every transgression.

[Go the Biff 3,418]

8 hours ago, Kent said:

There were still plenty of smothers yesterday from manning the mark

Probably says more about our and Freo kicking skills 

It surprised me a little

Smothers will happen if the umpires are quick to call play on the second the kicker steps off his line. Which they must do or the advantage to the player in possession is too great.

[Go the Biff 3,418]

In the light of Tex Walker winding back the clock yesterday there's been speculation that leading forwards may be among the main beneficiaries of this rule. Will watch with interest because if this proves to be the case, having recruited Sideshow Bob might end up a better move than originally thought. Once he gets back from his dodgy knee

[ManDee 7,134]

On 3/21/2021 at 12:29 PM, Cheesy D. Pun said:

Take a look at games from the 80s and 90s. The man on the mark didn't just stand there. They'd essentially hold the player for as long as they could to slow the game down. This is definitely a new rule.

You know that they played footy before the 80's and 90's don't you?

[tiers 2,833]

The new manning the mark rule is currently having little effect because the umpires, to their and their coaches credit, are calling play on very quickly so that as soon a the player with the ball moves an inch, or even thinks about it, they call play on.

The umpires have also been lenient with the "stand" rule and some teams are now not manning the mark behind the mark where sideways movement does not count.

In the end my guess is that, for the reasons above, it will not change footy much but I am always nervous about a trigger happy umpire who awards a 50m penalty with little justification or contrary to what has become accepted practice. As they say it could cost a grand final for some over technical penalty not arising from a contest.

One of the most perfect features of our footy is that frees have been awarded from the contest, not from technicalities as is common in most other sports eg offside.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

22 minutes ago, ManDee said:

You know that they played footy before the 80's and 90's don't you?

Fair point, ManDee but I generally try and stick to what I know. 

I imagine my point may have applied to the 50s, 60s and 70s but I've only seen limited footage of those games and would be speaking out of turn to reference them without any first hand knowledge.

Take it as a humble admission that I know little about the game pre-1980.

[jnrmac 20,060]

From Rd 1

33% of kick ins resulted in an i50. 5yr avg is 19%

Avg pressure rating 176 vs 5 yr avg of 182

42% of scores came from the back half vs 36% 5yr avg

Stoppages avg 49 vs 5yr avg 63

 

1. Its a small sample but if continued suggests Ruck dominance is now not so important - Gawn Grundy and others had average games in Rd 1. Gawn should spend more time in the fwd line.

2. Less pressure is good for the Demons. We have typically fallen apart under pressure and turned the ball over.

3. Back half generating scores is good for us. With May Lever Salem distributing the ball from the back half we should do better

4. Kick ins have been a problem for us for years. Maybe now its easier to get the ball out of the defence we will see more i50s and scores...

5. Fitness also looks like it will be a key factor this year 

Coaches will adjust and adapt but will be interesting to see if these resultsstay the same.... 

 

[daisycutter 29,613]

14 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

From Rd 1

Coaches will adjust and adapt but will be interesting to see if these results stay the same.... 

 

this is the only relevant point :)

[deanox 9,914]

I actually like the rule as long as they keep being super hot in calling play on, the moment the player sneezes sideways (this needs to include kicking for goal). Otherwise it just feels like a player is trapped.

I think it will promote faster ball movement and maybe take away some of the importance of stoppages, but more goals means more centre bounces, which makes rucks and mids really important. Also the ruck role becomes very important as a sweeping marker, in defence cutting off, or as a kick out target, or up forward. So less about ruck taps, more about contested marking.

I actually think it will suit us. We like to rush and play on, this helps. We also like to zone and cover space, meaning we are more likely to chop off or slow down attacks vs man on man defence. I'm positive.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,754]

1 hour ago, deanox said:

I actually like the rule as long as they keep being super hot in calling play on, the moment the player sneezes sideways (this needs to include kicking for goal). Otherwise it just feels like a player is trapped.

I think it will promote faster ball movement and maybe take away some of the importance of stoppages, but more goals means more centre bounces, which makes rucks and mids really important. Also the ruck role becomes very important as a sweeping marker, in defence cutting off, or as a kick out target, or up forward. So less about ruck taps, more about contested marking.

I actually think it will suit us. We like to rush and play on, this helps. We also like to zone and cover space, meaning we are more likely to chop off or slow down attacks vs man on man defence. I'm positive.

I've just been reading the "Tackling Down" thread where it has been eloquently argued that tap ruckmen are no longer important. And now this arguing just as eloquently for the opposite . I don't know what to believe any more!

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

2 hours ago, deanox said:

the moment the player sneezes sideways (this needs to include kicking for goal). Otherwise it just feels like a player is trapped.

Absolutely.

Two of TMac's goals were ludicrous. 

A tight angle near the point post turned into a shot from almost right in front and what should have been a long bomb from an acute angle turned into a fairly straightforward shot from a 45 degree angle.

The umpires need to be right on this one or, as others have suggested, perhaps east-west movement could be allowed for shots inside 50.

[deanox 9,914]

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I've just been reading the "Tackling Down" thread where it has been eloquently argued that tap ruckmen are no longer important. And now this arguing just as eloquently for the opposite . I don't know what to believe any more!

You know we have already considered it more than the AFL rules committee did.

[Pates 9,660]

I found it interesting to watch, no doubt forwards were taking every bit of the advantage but it was great to see Hunt leering at the umpire waiting for the play on call and as soon as he heard it he sprinted hard to smother, so it’s not infallible for the forwards. It was also interesting to see Petracca get calls play on from his kick after the siren, it looks like the arc is going to be given a tighter ruling. Trac and Jack Reiwoldt were on AFL360 last night and it was interesting hearing Jack say, “why can’t the players just stay in a straight line?” I have to admit I’ve always thought the same thing. 

[sue 9,102]

Before this new rule a moving player on the mark tended  to watch the player with the ball. Twisting around to try to see the ump at the same time was difficult. Since they now can't move they can  watch the umpire more closely to ensure they don't miss the play on call and maximise their chance of smothering. 

[Dee Zephyr 19,267]

I didn’t notice it but apparently in our game only the umpires stood either directly behind the man on the mark or the player kicking during a shot for goal as to see when exactly the player with ball moved off the line. 

I also didn’t have a clue Trac’s after the siren shot for goal wouldn’t have counted as he veered off to the right and ump called it as play on.

[deanox 9,914]

53 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

I didn’t notice it but apparently in our game only the umpires stood either directly behind the man on the mark or the player kicking during a shot for goal as to see when exactly the player with ball moved off the line. 

I also didn’t have a clue Trac’s after the siren shot for goal wouldn’t have counted as he veered off to the right and ump called it as play on.

I hope they call Franklin for veering off the line too