Manning the Mark Rule Change

[Its Time for Another 4,301]

4 hours 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. 

Thanks for more of your detailed analysis AOB. 

Interesting hitouts are down more than clearances. What's your theory on that. I would have thought hitouts went hand in hand with clearances unless I guess there's no clear hitout but interesting this stat has got worse. 

I would argue none of these are very significant changes and it's hard to know for sure what is causing them. There are often evolutions of the game naturally which I'm sure would cause a variance in stat's like this over two seasons. There could be other causes such as the increase in the distance for the kickouts or the reduction in the interchange which was meant to impact these stat's more than the standing on the mark rule which was mostly meant to impact scoring.

One thing is for sure and that is that it has failed utterly in increasing scoring despite the fact that players having a set shot from  around the 50 get a free probably 10 metres at least closer to goal which IMO is a major flaw in the rule that should be fixed. So if the rules main purpose has failed why have such a significant change to the game.

What is your opinion of why it hasn't helped scoring. I have no idea. 

Out of interest where do you get your stat's from I'm always looking for sources for stats. 

[rpfc 28,895]

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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.

It’s designed to stop teams being suffocated by far better teams and not being able to clear their defensive 50. We don’t want those type of goals. We want flowing games not grinds where a dominant teams keep the ball in their 50.

[Rob Mac...... 638]

Most importantly, we've performed fantastically with the rules just as they are, so I'm against any rule changes right now.
Who knew just how screwed we'd be in 2019 when 6-6-6 came in after our good 2018? 

We're rolling well, so let's not disturb our groove please. 

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

13 hours ago, Rob Mac...... said:

Most importantly, we've performed fantastically with the rules just as they are, so I'm against any rule changes right now.
Who knew just how screwed we'd be in 2019 when 6-6-6 came in after our good 2018? 

We're rolling well, so let's not disturb our groove please. 

And now the 6-6-6 creates moments like Surely not another one, handball to Oliver, Streaming through... BANG

BANG BANG BANG

Edited October 28, 2021 by FritschyBusiness

[sue 9,171]

13 hours ago, rpfc said:

It’s designed to stop teams being suffocated by far better teams and not being able to clear their defensive 50. We don’t want those type of goals. We want flowing games not grinds where a dominant teams keep the ball in their 50.

Do we really?  While the ball zinging down the ground leading to a goal is exciting for the team scoring (and its supporters), in some ways it is a bit repetitive and even tedious.   Whereas some grinding in the forward 50 leading to  snapped goal is more likely to look like goal of the year to me.

 

[sue 9,171]

A question.  Would it achieve the same ends as the new rule without giving so much advantage to the player with the ball and avoiding the paying of ridiculous 50m penalties if:

The man on the mark was required to start on the mark and stay there, but once the player with the ball starts to move, either off the line or on the line, allow the player on the mark to move sideways.

Can't say I have spent any time thinking this through and how different  it would be from earlier years, but perhaps it's a compromise worth looking at?

[FritschyBusiness 1,478]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

The man on the mark was required to start on the mark and stay there, but once the player with the ball starts to move, either off the line or on the line, allow the player on the mark to move sideways.

I wouldn't do moving on the line but once they are two steps to the left or right I think the player should be allowed to move. 
I dont think they should be allowed to move if the player is moving straight on his line towards the man on the mark.

I did notice in alot of games the umpire would tell the player to stand and it was nowhere near where the actual mark should be. so that needs to get fixed.

Even with this stand rule we did still see players kick into the man on the mark so it's not as advantageous as it seems

[La Dee-vina Comedia 17,009]

14 hours ago, rpfc said:

It’s designed to stop teams being suffocated by far better teams and not being able to clear their defensive 50. We don’t want those type of goals. We want flowing games not grinds where a dominant teams keep the ball in their 50.

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure I agree that we don't want those types of goals.

[daisycutter 29,891]

1 hour ago, sue said:

A question.  Would it achieve the same ends as the new rule without giving so much advantage to the player with the ball and avoiding the paying of ridiculous 50m penalties if:

The man on the mark was required to start on the mark and stay there, but once the player with the ball starts to move, either off the line or on the line, allow the player on the mark to move sideways.

Can't say I have spent any time thinking this through and how different  it would be from earlier years, but perhaps it's a compromise worth looking at?

i don't understand this

once the player moves off the line it is play-on. umpire must first call it though. a good umpire should use a bit of common sense here if he is a bit late calling play-on

[DeeSpencer 26,266]

Achieved its desired outcome of keeping the ball in play more and moving end to end.

Didn't achieve its desire to up scoring.

Didn't make the Geelong chip around game the predominant game style which is great. Did annoy Richmond, also great.

Needs 1 obvious change:

1. On any set shot - signaled by the player taking some/all of their 30 seconds rather than the usual 8 or so seconds, the man on the mark is allowed to move laterally to man the mark.

Needs a couple of tidy ups:

a) Umps can't abandon the need to pay 50 by players clearly setting the mark well over the actual spot. Happens a lot now and they are told to stand or given the chance to move back 2-3 metres. If it's a clear infringement of manning the mark the 50 has to still be paid. 

b) umps need to punish attacking players who don't go back over the mark by calling play on right away if it's deliberate/reckless or stopping play to make sure they go back over their line. This will result in messy games, especially early in the year, but the attacking player has to take responsibility to kick over the mark. If the attacking player goes backwards a long way off the mark they then can run in straight right by the man on the mark without a plan on call, that's where it all looks farcical. 

[sue 9,171]

40 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't understand this

once the player moves off the line it is play-on. umpire must first call it though. a good umpire should use a bit of common sense here if he is a bit late calling play-on

Sorry, I 'misspoke'. I should have only said if they move (forward) on the line. 

Re going off-the-line, you are of course correct.  I fear they are almost always too late calling play-on when a player goes off the line, especially if they are simultaneously shouting 'stand'. 

To mount my usual hobby-horse, I reckon the whole play-on arrangement is the wrong way around.  The player on the mark should be allowed to move as soon as he thinks the player with the ball has played on.  Let the umpire judge if he moved too early and pay a penalty if so.   The only time the umpire need shout play-on is when the player with the ball stands still for too long holding up play.

[rpfc 28,895]

3 hours ago, sue said:

Do we really?  While the ball zinging down the ground leading to a goal is exciting for the team scoring (and its supporters), in some ways it is a bit repetitive and even tedious.   Whereas some grinding in the forward 50 leading to  snapped goal is more likely to look like goal of the year to me.

 

 

2 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure I agree that we don't want those types of goals.

Sustained periods of time at either end allow for even more flooding and zoning and congestion. 

To some degree, we benefit from that but anything that can build out the ground a bit more has to be a good thing for the spectacle.

The 6-6-6 rule from a few years ago is a perfect example of a rule that reduces congestion and provides a ‘bang, bang, bang’ spectacle.

[monoccular 17,642]

6 hours ago, sue said:

Do we really?  While the ball zinging down the ground leading to a goal is exciting for the team scoring (and its supporters), in some ways it is a bit repetitive and even tedious.   Whereas some grinding in the forward 50 leading to  snapped goal is more likely to look like goal of the year to me.

 

Tedious, like the last minute of Q3 GF 2021? 😮😮😮🙄🙄❤️💙❤️💙

[sue 9,171]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

Tedious, like the last minute of Q3 GF 2021? 😮😮😮🙄🙄❤️💙❤️💙

Ha ha. No, that was clearly very unusual and especially unusual in a GF as many posters have gleefully stated.  I mean uninteresting/tedious as a spectacle for the neutral spectator.  Aussie rules has a nice balance between too much scoring (eg. basketball) and too little (eg. soccer).   Goals scored from high pressure situations locked in the forward line are often very interesting, though preferably without congestion.   I'd be against rule changes that reduce their importance.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

On 10/28/2021 at 11:29 AM, sue said:

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?

Professional umpires may have the time and inclination to practice this.

 

On 10/28/2021 at 11:44 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

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.  

This comes down to better policing of the existing rules. Something the umpires department have shown themselves to be very selective at. Players have never been allowed to do these things, "stand" rule or not.

 

6 hours ago, sue said:

The player on the mark should be allowed to move as soon as he thinks the player with the ball has played on.  Let the umpire judge if he moved too early and pay a penalty if so.

Yes!

The rule really only takes us back to the way the game was played for decades, maybe even more than 100 years. Sometime in the aughts, this thing crept in to the game where the player on the mark felt free to go sideways, and for some reason known only to the umps, it was permitted, although not in the rules. (Peter Schwab, after some particularly contentious weekend, did some Monday morning waffling about going east-west in the defensive third of the ground ... utter nonsense.) The AFL even changed the rules some 5 or so years back to legalise this, then changed it straight back the next year. They created the monster, and now they're trying to stuff the smoke back in the bottle. With that goes draconian policing of the law they allowed to slip. It's their own stupid fault. But overall, the rule is right in that it is in the spirit of the game. Moving east-west isn't. They just need to ease up on the soviet crackdown they've put on the man on the mark.