Manning the Mark Rule Change

[monoccular 17,432]

Just watching the replay - Tom McDonald’s last goal from a free.

Tom clearly ran wide to the right of the mark, and the Freo man on the mark just stood like a statue.   Anyone who was there, was the man on the Mark casual or stupid, or was play on not called? Not clear from the replay. 

[Go the Biff 3,435]

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

Just watching the replay - Tom McDonald’s last goal from a free.

Tom clearly ran wide to the right of the mark, and the Freo man on the mark just stood like a statue.   Anyone who was there, was the man on the Mark casual or stupid, or was play on not called? Not clear from the replay. 

It was called but too late. TMac had got well off his line before the ump released the bloke on the mark

[monoccular 17,432]

13 hours ago, monoccular said:

Just watching the replay - Tom McDonald’s last goal from a free.

Tom clearly ran wide to the right of the mark, and the Freo man on the mark just stood like a statue.   Anyone who was there, was the man on the Mark casual or stupid, or was play on not called? Not clear from the replay. 

 

10 hours ago, Go the Biff said:

It was called but too late. TMac had got well off his line before the ump released the bloke on the mark

Exactly the problem with this “quick fix”: it requires umpires to act instantly  (and impartially).  We got lucky this time but in a crucial very close game this will decide games, one way or the other. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

13 hours ago, deanox said:

I hope they call Franklin for veering off the line too

I believe the AFL has said that if Franklin follows his "natual arch" it will be called "play on". What I haven't seen is the media picking up this point which is clearly an admission from the AFL that it was a mistake to allow Franklin his "natural arch" in the first place.

[whatwhat say what 22,783]

the umps are calling 'play on' really late

[roy11 3,858]

25 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I believe the AFL has said that if Franklin follows his "natual arch" it will be called "play on". What I haven't seen is the media picking up this point which is clearly an admission from the AFL that it was a mistake to allow Franklin his "natural arch" in the first place.

With Petracca's kick after the siren it was deemed play on as he deviated from his line. Hopefully there is some consistency here with Franklin. 

[deanox 9,940]

46 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I believe the AFL has said that if Franklin follows his "natual arch" it will be called "play on". What I haven't seen is the media picking up this point which is clearly an admission from the AFL that it was a mistake to allow Franklin his "natural arch" in the first place.

The AFL are probably salivating at the prospect of Franklin being called on after the siren, the swans losing as a result, the ball sailing through but not counting, and the month of news cycle it will generate.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

The rule forever has been that you have to kick directly over the mark. Anything else -- any deviation, any step sideways -- and it's play on. This "new" rule, although introduced with indecent haste, has the effect of taking things back to the way they were before numerous coaches bent the rule to breaking point, and successive umpires' directors , who apparently did not know what the rule is/was, let them. In fact the "new" rule was not even needed at all. What was needed was for the umpires department to enforce the "old" rule as it is written. Strange that it took this draconian "new" rule to assert what was actually the status quo.

[sue 9,107]

4 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The rule forever has been that you have to kick directly over the mark. Anything else -- any deviation, any step sideways -- and it's play on. This "new" rule, although introduced with indecent haste, has the effect of taking things back to the way they were before numerous coaches bent the rule to breaking point, and successive umpires' directors , who apparently did not know what the rule is/was, let them. In fact the "new" rule was not even needed at all. What was needed was for the umpires department to enforce the "old" rule as it is written. Strange that it took this draconian "new" rule to assert what was actually the status quo.

One reason players got away with not kicking over the mark in recent years is that the man of the mark was allowed to move, so everyone lost track of exaclty where the mark was.  The trouble with the new rule is that often the man on the mark is not placed on the mark before the ump call 'stand'.  (Though that is usually done when player intends to kick for goal.)

[one_demon 826]

Love the rule.  Well done AFL!

[Rocknroll 1,004]

What I would love to see this week, if Max King is taking a shot at goal, the man on the mark lines up a tee shot, does a little tiger wood wiggle and drives the imaginary 3 wood at him. If anything you will make the highlights packages for the year!

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

I've been calling for the introduction of this rule for many years.  It had become was to easy to block the corridor by standing metres off the actualy mark.  Forced the ball to be kicked down the line resulting in boring footy.  Still some work to be done with the umpires firstly ensuring the man on the mark gets in the correct position before being told to "stand" and quicker and louder calls of "play on" when the player with the ball moves off the line.

Love where it's heading though.

[tiers 2,840]

5 hours ago, roy11 said:

With Petracca's kick after the siren it was deemed play on as he deviated from his line. Hopefully there is some consistency here with Franklin. 

The umpire went up to Petracca as he prepared to kick after the siren and from the grandstand it seemed as if he was reminded him that any deviation from a straight line would mean a call of "play on".

This in fact happened when Petracca moved slightly off the line and the umpires arms went into the air as if calling "play on".

A Franklin deviation is one thing, a player adjusting his run up but still kicking over the mark from some distance (where the angles are not improved) should not be penalised. Imagine if this happened after the siren in a close final (heaven forbid a grand final) and the result was overturned. There would be a riot on the ground.

The umpires had better clarify this interpretation or the game will suffer. Over to you Gil.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

I believe players at the top level should have mastered the fundamental skill of kicking in a straight line. The rules should not be altered to accommodate technical deficiencies in players.

[sue 9,107]

Didn’t they change the rule some time ago allowing a player on the boundary to not have to move on the line as long as they came round and  kicked over the mark.   But I don’t recall how carefully they worded that to stop that line of approach being used when the mark is more in field. 

[Pates 9,660]

It is going to be interesting to see what they do about Buddy’s arc, what they all seemed to decide on AFL360 is that if you have an arc then you almost have to start off the mark and arc to be kicking over the man. Unsure if this is exactly the rule but I why can’t they just teach players to kick in a straight line? You could use Plugger’s kicking for goal as a ruler it was that straight. Is the arc a modern players invention?

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

8 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

the umps are calling 'play on' really late

I think they were calling play on around the ground too early but too late with set shots.

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

19 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I think they were calling play on around the ground too early but too late with set shots.

I’ve noticed that. Players even shaping to look sideways or hand pass get call play on without actually moving anywhere. 

[Go the Biff 3,435]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

It is going to be interesting to see what they do about Buddy’s arc, what they all seemed to decide on AFL360 is that if you have an arc then you almost have to start off the mark and arc to be kicking over the man. Unsure if this is exactly the rule but I why can’t they just teach players to kick in a straight line? You could use Plugger’s kicking for goal as a ruler it was that straight. Is the arc a modern players invention?

The "natural arc" was a Jeff Gieschen invention when he was the umpires' head man. Bloody clod that he was ! I'll be spitting chips if they give an exemption to one player again

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

There's nothing to be done about Buddy's "natural arc". It's illegal.

3 minutes ago, Go the Biff said:

The "natural arc" was a Jeff Gieschen invention when he was the umpires' head man. Bloody clod that he was ! I'll be spitting chips if they give an exemption to one player again

It's almost a guarantee that they will though!

[Grimes Times 1,278]

On 2/18/2021 at 11:19 AM, Accepting Mediocrity said:

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.

 

 

On 2/18/2021 at 11:46 AM, daisycutter said:

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

 

On 2/18/2021 at 1:08 PM, FireInTheBennelly said:

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.

 

On 2/18/2021 at 3:11 PM, godees said:

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

 

On 2/18/2021 at 6:19 PM, Pickett2Jackson said:

 

 Of all the absurd pointless rule changes over the years, this one has to take the cake.

(Sub rule excluded)

 

On 2/18/2021 at 6:57 PM, NeveroddoreveN said:

Sure to confuse and frustrate both players, umpires and supporters.  Got a feeling this one will be altered during course of season.  Utterly absurd rule.  Would love to see 50 m penalties for the random gut punches, cheap hits etc, not this minor infringement that is going to be hard to adjust to.  Most metres gained? Free kicks for standing the mark, going to be ridiculous haha!

 

On 2/18/2021 at 10:20 PM, Lord Travis said:

Haven’t read this thread yet, but I touched on this rule change in a training thread recently. Fair to say it’s another [censored] rule change by a bunch of out of touch idiots who need to justify their jobs.

 

On 2/24/2021 at 9:12 AM, Sydee said:

This rule seems very unnecessary to me - I can see games won and lost simply by someone standing the mark moving laterally by one step - maybe even just getting balanced 

50m penalty for what has no real bearing on the ability of the player to effectively dispose of the ball just seems crazy 

 

 Only 1 week and 1 game in but a few people may have jumped the gun a bit early on this one.

[Sydee 4,449]

3 minutes ago, Grimes Times said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Only 1 week and 1 game in but a few people may have jumped the gun a bit early on this one.

Really I stand by my comments - the games I’ve watched there seems to be quite a gap in the way the umpires assess lateral movement off the mark, sometimes they wait until the ball carrier has almost run past the player on the mark - other times they call play on almost straight away 

Maybe this will be judged more consistently in time but for now it’s a bit of a lottery 

The more scope for umpires to influence the game = a risk to me and a source of confusion and frustration for supporters IMHO

is this rule change bad - maybe not 

is this rule change really necessary - not sure 

[Grimes Times 1,278]

3 minutes ago, Sydee said:

Really I stand by my comments - the games I’ve watched there seems to be quite a gap in the way the umpires assess lateral movement off the mark, sometimes they wait until the ball carrier has almost run past the player on the mark - other times they call play on almost straight away 

Maybe this will be judged more consistently in time but for now it’s a bit of a lottery 

The more scope for umpires to influence the game = a risk to me and a source of confusion and frustration for supporters IMHO

is this rule change bad - maybe not 

is this rule change really necessary - not sure 

"no real bearing on the ability of the player to effectively dispose of the ball just seems crazy "

can you see its having a huge bearing on the ability of players to effectively dispose of the ball and hit leading targets???

[Lord Travis 10,742]

Stand by early observations that it’s a [censored] rule. Any rule that is reliant on umpires to make snap judgement and communicate it while somehow watching both the player with the ball and the player on the mark is never going to work.

I think we’re all just sick of rule changes designed to artificially create scoring opportunities that are often having the adverse effect. New rule change to fix another rule change to fix another rule change etc. It’s tiresome and the game’s getting progressively worse as a result.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

17 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Stand by early observations that it’s a [censored] rule. Any rule that is reliant on umpires to make snap judgement and communicate it while somehow watching both the player with the ball and the player on the mark is never going to work.

I think we’re all just sick of rule changes designed to artificially create scoring opportunities that are often having the adverse effect. New rule change to fix another rule change to fix another rule change etc. It’s tiresome and the game’s getting progressively worse as a result.

It's a small sample size upon which to make a judgement, but do you think the game has got worse because of this rule?