Manning the Mark Rule Change

[ANG13 2,067]

37 minutes ago, Demonland said:

What did you think of the Stand Rule and do you agree with Kane that it should be scrapped?

 

I agree with Kane, get rid of it. Everything the rule achieved could be done without it, it’s just up to the umpires to either call play on if the player with the ball moves off the line or a fifty metre penalty if the person on the mark takes ground. 

[adonski 12,473]

It somewhat worked in the first few rounds as the umpires actually gave players time to kick the footy.

After a few weeks they went back to calling play two seconds after every mark, rushing the kicker.

Edited October 27, 2021 by adonski

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,902]

I'd rather it stayed, for the simple reason that I think  that the way the MFC play, we are able to take better advantage of it than other sides.

When we go, we play on hard and use this rule to help break lines, but so many of our rivals just do the slow chip or long down the line over the man on the mark, because we force them into that and then they just turn the ball over to our defense, such that the rule is not of as much use to them.  I don't care if it doesn't work for the rest of the comp.

[Gawndy the Great 9,011]

I’m all for penalising this rule however I think any 50m penalty paid in the forward half should terminate on forward 50m arc. No easy goal should be allowed from this as it’s too much of a penalty. Still get a shot on goal but it’s not a guarantee at least.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,902]

6 minutes ago, CYB said:

I’m all for penalising this rule however I think any 50m penalty paid in the forward half should terminate on forward 50m arc. No easy goal should be allowed from this as it’s too much of a penalty. Still get a shot on goal but it’s not a guarantee at least.

I like where you are heading with that, but there still needs to be some penalty closer to goal, or the rule will be flouted.  I actually like the way this rule helps players get that bit of extra distance from around 50+ out and opens up scoring and breaks up defensive zones a bit in an era when flooding and low scoring had become the norm.   

Perhaps just a 10m penalty within 50m would be a fairer thing, But overall, I don't recall too many 50m penalties being paid because of this rule, as it's so simple and much more black and white than the protected zone rule for instance.

[rjay 25,113]

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

It needs tweaking. The problem I saw is that the umps are looking for the player to get on the mark which can disadvantage the player with the ball. It means that defenders can ‘put the hands up’ and run right next to the player with the ball to get to the mark.

I would tweak I to say that players can only get on the mark from the front - the defensive side - and any players coming from the side or behind to get on the mark (unless right on them) it’s a 50.

Players should play on more often but I think the above impacts their ability to do that.

Agree with this...

I would add that if a player shapes to handball then it's play on.

I don't like the idea of trying to milk a 50.

In general I like the rule but the umps did relax their interpretation as the year went on.

[darkhorse72 1,925]

Rule needs refinement from the umpires, but it helped us this year. 

[Queanbeyan Demon 6,870]

11 hours ago, Demonland said:

What did you think of the Stand Rule and do you agree with Kane that it should be scrapped?

 

Just do the opposite to what Cornes wants and the rule will be fine. 

[Demonstone 22,850]

10 hours ago, CYB said:

I’m all for penalising this rule however I think any 50m penalty paid in the forward half should terminate on forward 50m arc.

I know where you're coming from, but it would mean that a "penalty" might be no more than, say, five metres if the offence occurs 55m from goal.  This is clearly no punishment at all for flouting the rule.

[Vipercrunch 2,827]

The rule was bought in to stop players manning the mark 5m corridor side of where the mark actually was.  This made it so difficult to attack the corridor because one man could effectively block a large area of attacking territory.  The rule has acheived what it was brought in to do.  Now, to block the corridor, defensive teams need to have several players there, thinning out the numbers down the line.

Yeah, there are things to look at and maybe tweak (when play on is called, who can man the mark, penalty for infringement etc), but it would be a big backward step to throw it all away imo.

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

A quote from Kane in the article “The stand rule did nothing to improve the game, it made it harder to watch, you got sick of the umpires yelling ‘stand’ and you’re requiring teams to play with 17 players instead of 18 which is a joke."

Isn't that the point/award/advantage of kicking the ball more than 15 meters and taking a mark?
so the player opposed of you has to man the mark and be at a slight disadvantage?

I think the AFL got itself in a hole when it started to allow buddys "natural arc" which is just rubbish, run in a straight line like everyone else

[Robbie57 2,022]

I dont like it with my main beef being the advantage it gives to the person taking a set shot especially from about 55 as that is my view unfair. 

[sue 9,146]

One of the things I hate about this rule (which was intended to increase scoring - hah!) is that it introduces yet another distance for umpires to estimate and for players to fudge or second guess the umpires.  They often get 15m in a straight line wrong, what hope of getting 5m on an arc right?

 

[Pates 9,660]

I don’t like it being 50m as the penalty, I don’t mind the rule itself but for something so low in severity it seems so wrong for it to be on the same level as the go to penalty for dangerous/malicious acts. I’d halve it to 25m (I know a further distance for the umps) as that can take a player from outside 50 into a shot on goal but not a certainty. 

The rule definitely puts it back on teams to be better at patrolling space (something we’re very good at), I also love seeing that our players are absolutely on it for the play on call for shots on goal. Petty’s smother in the GF was a great 1 percenter moment. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Pates

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

I'm happy to keep the rule although it makes the game seem a bit unnatural at times because the man on the mark is so static. However, I've often wondered whether it was ever really necessary. I would have rather seen a crackdown on the player who lost the marking contest or gave away a free kick (who I'll call Player B for the sake of this discussion) from impeding the player with the ball (Player A). How often do we see Player B holding on to Player A to stop them from moving? How often does Player B stand or crouch over the ball to stop it being returned quickly to Player A? Fix that with 50m penalties and the "stand" rule may not be needed.  

[Axis of Bob 11,855]

The rule worked well. One of the best rules to be implemented in a while.

[sue 9,146]

4 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

The rule worked well. One of the best rules to be implemented in a while.

Worked well for what objective? Certianly not the one stated when it was first introduced.

[Axis of Bob 11,855]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Worked well for what objective? Certianly not the one stated when it was first introduced.

The game moves far more quickly and there's a lot more overlap running. It makes transition from defence a lot easier and teams are far more willing to take risks with the footy with more porous defensive ground coverage.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Axis of Bob

[daisycutter 29,747]

i think the man on the mark should be able to move one step left or right, but not forward, before being penalised, .

to give a 50m for a player on the mark who loses his balance is too harsh

[rjay 25,113]

38 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

The rule worked well. One of the best rules to be implemented in a while.

Yep, agree...

I think the umpires varied interpretation a bit through the season which at times limited the positive effect of the change.

...but it's a keeper for sure.

[Axis of Bob 11,855]

21 minutes ago, sue said:

Worked well for what objective? Certianly not the one stated when it was first introduced.

Also, here are the statistics to back that up. I'm comparing 2021 with 2019. The 2020 numbers would actually demonstrate even stronger trends, but I'm ignoring them because the 2020 statistics are skewed by the reduced game time due to COVID.

Since the introduction of the rule:

Clearances down 6.9%, hitouts down 12% (ie, fewer stoppages because of less congestion).

Clangers up 3.8% (ie, more risks being taken with disposal rather than bombing defensively down the line).

Contested possessions down 6.1%, tackles down 9.0%(!!!) and uncontested possession up 1.2% (ie, less congestion)

Contested marks up 0.9% (ie, more one on one opportunities. Interestingly, the contested possessions were way down but the marks were slightly up, indicating fewer ground contests and an more even aerial contest).

Marks inside 50 up 3.0% from 1.0% fewer inside 50s (ie, more space for forwards).

 

Clearly this rule has helped to reduce congestion make the game faster. I think that represents a successful rule. 

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

14 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Also, here are the statistics to back that up. I'm comparing 2021 with 2019. The 2020 numbers would actually demonstrate even stronger trends, but I'm ignoring them because the 2020 statistics are skewed by the reduced game time due to COVID.

Since the introduction of the rule:

Clearances down 6.9%, hitouts down 12% (ie, fewer stoppages because of less congestion).

Clangers up 3.8% (ie, more risks being taken with disposal rather than bombing defensively down the line).

Contested possessions down 6.1%, tackles down 9.0%(!!!) and uncontested possession up 1.2% (ie, less congestion)

Contested marks up 0.9% (ie, more one on one opportunities. Interestingly, the contested possessions were way down but the marks were slightly up, indicating fewer ground contests and an more even aerial contest).

Marks inside 50 up 3.0% from 1.0% fewer inside 50s (ie, more space for forwards).

 

Clearly this rule has helped to reduce congestion make the game faster. I think that represents a successful rule. 

Some solid statistics there AOB!

I think the eye test is better than just looking at average points score and the game looks way better and is faster with this rule implemented.

Also averaging every games scores means you are kind of handcuffed to how well the worst teams perform.
Some teams get a lead and then just try to hold the game out so that affects the scoring line of both sides.

I know when the Dees play I want our score to be as high as possible and the oppositions as low as possible.

[rpfc 28,788]

26 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Also, here are the statistics to back that up. I'm comparing 2021 with 2019. The 2020 numbers would actually demonstrate even stronger trends, but I'm ignoring them because the 2020 statistics are skewed by the reduced game time due to COVID.

Since the introduction of the rule:

Clearances down 6.9%, hitouts down 12% (ie, fewer stoppages because of less congestion).

Clangers up 3.8% (ie, more risks being taken with disposal rather than bombing defensively down the line).

Contested possessions down 6.1%, tackles down 9.0%(!!!) and uncontested possession up 1.2% (ie, less congestion)

Contested marks up 0.9% (ie, more one on one opportunities. Interestingly, the contested possessions were way down but the marks were slightly up, indicating fewer ground contests and an more even aerial contest).

Marks inside 50 up 3.0% from 1.0% fewer inside 50s (ie, more space for forwards).

 

Clearly this rule has helped to reduce congestion make the game faster. I think that represents a successful rule. 

Causation and correlation… the are other factors to that openness. And we must concede it that hasn’t led to more scoring.

The best rule has been the play on from the kick out that gets the ball 80m away from goals.

The stand rule is good if it is tweaked to get what we need to get out of it; the player with the ball an advantage to get the ball into the forward half with movement and territory.

[Axis of Bob 11,855]

40 minutes ago, FritschyBusiness said:

 

Also averaging every games scores means you are kind of handcuffed to how well the worst teams perform.
 

Agree wholeheartedly. I initially had the median scores against in there to demonstrate this but took it out otherwise the post would be too long.

But the 2019 score stats were skewed because Gold Coast conceded 237 more points than any other team. The median AFL score conceded jumped about 50 points total (about 2.5 points per game) between 2019 and 2021, which illustrates your point nicely.

Effectively the typical games are better since the rule was introduced, it's just that teams aren't smashing Gold Coast by as much as they used to.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

Causation and correlation… the are other factors to that openness. And we must concede it that hasn’t led to more scoring.

The best rule has been the play on from the kick out that gets the ball 80m away from goals.

The stand rule is good if it is tweaked to get what we need to get out of it; the player with the ball an advantage to get the ball into the forward half with movement and territory.

Isn't there an argument that taking the ball 80 metres from goal may reduce scoring? It helps the team kicking in from a behind, but the team that scored that behind has to work harder to get another scoring opportunity. I'm not convinced the rule does what's intended. I am convinced, though, that having precise kickers, such as May and Salem, can make great use of the benefits that rule gives them.