Manning the Mark Rule Change

[daisycutter 28,452]

one good thing with this is that because the man on the mark is fixed it will make it easier for everyone, but especially the umpire, to see the actual mark and therefore the kicker's legal "line"

this will make it easier to spot when a player goes off-line and therefore to call play-on 

if the umpires are going to be strict with man-on-mark then they need to be just as strict with kicker going off their line, which is something we see all too frequently, especially around the boundaries

only time will tell how well umpires adjudicate both these situations   

[sue 8,409]

22 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

Everyone here has condemned this before they have even seen it. I put it in the category of 'most people hate change'. There will be some implementation issues (and dire headlines capitalising on the fear of change), as there always are, but those will inevitably fade as it becomes normalised.

I don't mind the rule at all. It'll annoy people (because change = scary and bad) but it will encourage less crowded defensive zones because it will force a defence to commit more players to defending short kicks. 

Short kicks (and maintaining possession) will now be far more valuable since they are a more attacking option now. A short kick means that there is space to attack, or finding overlap runners from behind who have space to kick. In previous seasons defenses encouraged the opposition to take a short kick because it would slow the play down and left only two attacking options: a chip sideways, or a bomb down the line. 

The best football happens when teams link up with handball and run the ball through a defence. It's exciting and creates goals (and turnovers too). The current 'bomb down the line' game doesn't encourage that at all because it's too easy to block up space around the ball. This at least encourages space and movement around the ball, which should encourage riskier attacking play. 

It isn't the high scoring we're trying to encourage, it's the risk taking. Taking risks is what generates excitement, and this encourages more risk taking because they're more likely to come off. 

Yes, most people don't like change, and I expect you will agree that is not in itself an argument to support a specific proposed change.   We see in this forum plenty of posts pointing out why this won't work (in various senses) and some saying the opposite.   But how about actually trialling it in  the VFL or wherever to see who is right first?  If the AFL had nowhere to try things and had to rely on a theoretical analysis of possible pros and cons, then they'd have no choice but to either can the idea or just go for it.  But they do have that choice and yet frequently just go ahead with finger crossed.

I'm obviously conservative because before going on a 10km hike, I try on the new shoes I plan to use in the shop first.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

I will be interested to see how this rule works in practice. In particular, players supposedly "on the mark" regularly position themselves a few metres inboard to encourage (or force) the player with the ball to play along the boundary rather than going more centrally. If it is not now possible for the player on the mark to choose to be anywhere along the lateral line, but solely to a single spot, I expect a lot more attacking football through the middle. I think that's going to be a good thing for the game.  

[4_Kent_Watts 846]

On 2/18/2021 at 12:04 PM, nosoupforme said:

How can you look at where you are standing and the player you are minding  on the mark ? What if you lose balance and accidently fall?  Do you keep your feet together  or apart?   What if Razor Ray is one of the umpires ?      God help us !

That's 50 he took a step to the right. 

[Lord Nev 13,511]

Might have already been canvassed here, so apologies if so, but does that player have to stand the mark? In particular, I'm thinking of the circumstance where there is a 2 on 1, a forward takes a mark 50m out and his team mate runs towards goal with no one on him. The man on the mark wouldn't be allowed to defend properly and the attacking player running in would get basically a 'free shot'.

 

[loges 6,002]

2 hours ago, dworship said:

Actually no, players are all coached to play to the whistle so onus is on the player. It's immaterial how long it takes for the umpire to call play on. We regularly see frees given when the player with the ball moves a little but not off the line and the player on the mark moves forward over the mark in anticipation.

When a player with the ball does move off the line the player on the mark still couldn't move forward over the mark until "play on" was called. This has just been extended to sideways and backward movement and it will be much more obvious when a player moves in anticipation instead of waiting for the umpires call.

As I've said in an earlier post, I think this will be easier for Umpires to adjudicate and it's up to the players to play to the call. Will there be some howlers? Probably, and while I understand the angst around yet another rule change (especially when we look at previous flaws). I'm starting to warm to this one but we won't really know till halfway through the season. The better drilled and disciplined teams will no doubt get an advantage in the early rounds and I hope we're one of them. It will be a litmus test in that regard.

Technically correct of course but that won't help supporters frustration when it occurs. 

[daisycutter 28,452]

no more hokey pokey

[dworship 3,342]

17 hours ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

The umps used to call out to the man on the mark 'back 2 metres' etc, but now they'll have to bring them exactly to the mark, as we know one step off that mark in any direction is a 50.

So now it'll be back 2 metres, 1 metre right, further right, too far, a little to the left, inch right. That's it. 

Maybe we call it the JFK rule. Back and to the left.

I don't believe the above will happen. They will be called back like they currently do but if you're in the vicinity of the mark then they will just call "Stand" and the player will not be able to move in any cardinal direction. Before the chorus of naysayers starts; where the mark is, is an arbitrary point determined by the Umpires already. Per the rules below, that's allowed.

2021 Laws of the Game.

20.1 STANDING THE MARK AND THE PROTECTED AREA
20.1.1 Standing The Mark
When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may:
(a) stand on The Mark; or
(b) otherwise be directed by a field Umpire.

[Lord Travis 10,141]

6 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

Might have already been canvassed here, so apologies if so, but does that player have to stand the mark? In particular, I'm thinking of the circumstance where there is a 2 on 1, a forward takes a mark 50m out and his team mate runs towards goal with no one on him. The man on the mark wouldn't be allowed to defend properly and the attacking player running in would get basically a 'free shot'.

 

They don’t have to stand the mark. Heard from a few people at different clubs that some coaches were trialing abandoning manning the mark in certain parts of the ground and instructing players to instead just flood back to clog up the defensive 50. This rule change is going to make for some ugly defensive matches of footy IMO.

[Deemania since 56 6,119]

On 2/18/2021 at 10:49 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.

 

As this new rule reads, this will be an outcome; another AFL black mark and gametime interruption. Additionally, it may negatively affect the 'mark and play on ... ' character of the game - most inadvisable. 

[Deemania since 56 6,119]

On 2/18/2021 at 12:38 PM, FireInTheBennelly said:

it opens up another option for umpires to influence results

 Sure does! They muck up games enough as it is, these days. Very unfair modification for backmen near opposition goal.

[Lord Nev 13,511]

11 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

They don’t have to stand the mark. Heard from a few people at different clubs that some coaches were trialing abandoning manning the mark in certain parts of the ground and instructing players to instead just flood back to clog up the defensive 50. This rule change is going to make for some ugly defensive matches of footy IMO.

Have vague memories of us not manning marks as a tactic under Daniher for a while back in the day. Am I imagining that?

[BDA 19,978]

Give it chance and see how it goes. By the law of averages one of these rule changes will eventually have a positive impact and it may well be this one. Just instruct the umps to show some leniency while players adjust so as not to turn any game into a farce.

As ever, well coached teams will adjust better than poorly coached teams. Hoping Yze can demonstrate his strategic acumen in this area.

[Ollie fan 2,113]

The really bad thing about this rule change and all rule changes is the AFL never never never never NEVER admits they got it wrong - eg nominating a ruckman.

[whatwhat say what 18,775]

7 minutes ago, Ollie fan said:

The really bad thing about this rule change and all rule changes is the AFL never never never never NEVER admits they got it wrong - eg nominating a ruckman.

"who's up? who's up?"

maybe the 6 foot 9 dudes facing each other, razor!

the 'nominate who rucks' rule has to be the most superfluous of them all - if two blokes from the same team go up, it's a free...it ain't complicated

[4_Kent_Watts 846]

7 hours ago, daisycutter said:

no more hokey pokey

I dont know how many 50's are in that clip but he's surely gonna get penalised. The rules are already too hard for me to follow. 

[dworship 3,342]

3 hours ago, dworship said:

I don't believe the above will happen. They will be called back like they currently do but if you're in the vicinity of the mark then they will just call "Stand" and the player will not be able to move in any cardinal direction. Before the chorus of naysayers starts; where the mark is, is an arbitrary point determined by the Umpires already. Per the rules below, that's allowed.

2021 Laws of the Game.

20.1 STANDING THE MARK AND THE PROTECTED AREA
20.1.1 Standing The Mark
When a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick, one Player from the opposing Team may:
(a) stand on The Mark; or
(b) otherwise be directed by a field Umpire.

Oh I get it Loges, the face palm reaction is pay back for your inability to analyse, form a logical argument and present a thoughtful post of substance. Have never expected more than a 2 liner so the brevity of your reply is welcome, it requires little in the way of scrutiny. Do keep up the good work.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,398]

16 hours ago, daisycutter said:

seems like there is a 20m (10m either side) x 5m area where no-one allowed except man on mark. This 20m x5m area already exists.

man on mark must be directly on the mark and no movement laterally or back (until ball kicked or play-on called)

one can only pray that umps will apply a bit of common sense and not go 50m penalty crazy

Do you remember a couple of years back when there was 5 or 6 goals from 50m penalties in the Rich/Carl season opener for players encroaching on the protected area?

Common sense ?

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

On 2/19/2021 at 10:03 AM, Axis of Bob said:

Everyone here has condemned this before they have even seen it. I put it in the category of 'most people hate change'. There will be some implementation issues (and dire headlines capitalising on the fear of change), as there always are, but those will inevitably fade as it becomes normalised.

I don't mind the rule at all. It'll annoy people (because change = scary and bad) but it will encourage less crowded defensive zones because it will force a defence to commit more players to defending short kicks. 

To be fair, I think quite a few in the camp against this rule change (myself included) aren't necessarily anti-change per se. Your first sentence highlights my main concern  - we haven't seen it, because it hasn't been tested, nor does it sound like they have consulted with coaches. The AFL's form on this isn't great - they have introduced a raft of rule changes in recent years, mostly under the guise of reducing congestion and increasing scoring, and I'd argue that not a single one has worked as intended.

The thing with these rule tweaks is that they will almost certainly have unintended consequences, which history suggests are impossible to predict without the benefit of hindsight, and tend to have frustrating teething issues with over-zealous umpiring interpretations. This one might turn out to be successful, or it could be an unmitigated disaster; the point is that I'd rather see potentially significant tweaks such as this to be trialed in state leagues first.

[loges 6,002]

14 hours ago, dworship said:

Oh I get it Loges, the face palm reaction is pay back for your inability to analyse, form a logical argument and present a thoughtful post of substance. Have never expected more than a 2 liner so the brevity of your reply is welcome, it requires little in the way of scrutiny. Do keep up the good work.

You take yourself far too seriously, I'll repeat my request that you don't respond to my posts and I'll ignore yours.

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

Channel 7: "first the lowest scoring season in 600 years, then the covid thing with short quarters ... we're trying to sell ads here, guys. Just remember the rights are up for renewal after this year. Give us more goals or you might find your product, your entertainment experience, whatever s*** you want to call it, isn't as valuable as you thought."

Gil: "Yes Mr Stokes. I'm right on it, Mr Stokes."

(back at AFL house)

Gil: "Steve, find a way for these [censored]ers to score more goals or your [censored] is finished."

Hocking: "Hmmm ... is that open slather?"

Gil: "Yes"

Hocking: Does it have to make sense?"

Gil: "No"

Hocking: *thinks* "finally!!!!" *aloud* "I've got one or two ideas, Gil. Leave it to me."

Edited February 20, 2021 by Mazer Rackham

[jnrmac 18,914]

On 2/19/2021 at 11:33 AM, Axis of Bob said:

Everyone here has condemned this before they have even seen it. I put it in the category of 'most people hate change'. There will be some implementation issues (and dire headlines capitalising on the fear of change), as there always are, but those will inevitably fade as it becomes normalised.

I don't mind the rule at all. It'll annoy people (because change = scary and bad) but it will encourage less crowded defensive zones because it will force a defence to commit more players to defending short kicks. 

Short kicks (and maintaining possession) will now be far more valuable since they are a more attacking option now. A short kick means that there is space to attack, or finding overlap runners from behind who have space to kick. In previous seasons defenses encouraged the opposition to take a short kick because it would slow the play down and left only two attacking options: a chip sideways, or a bomb down the line. 

The best football happens when teams link up with handball and run the ball through a defence. It's exciting and creates goals (and turnovers too). The current 'bomb down the line' game doesn't encourage that at all because it's too easy to block up space around the ball. This at least encourages space and movement around the ball, which should encourage riskier attacking play. 

It isn't the high scoring we're trying to encourage, it's the risk taking. Taking risks is what generates excitement, and this encourages more risk taking because they're more likely to come off. 

Its the umpires themselves - or at least one senior umpire Shaun Ryan - that is alerting people to the fact that this rule is likely to cause chaos.

[Grimes Times 1,278]

On 2/19/2021 at 7:52 PM, Lord Travis said:

They don’t have to stand the mark. Heard from a few people at different clubs that some coaches were trialing abandoning manning the mark in certain parts of the ground and instructing players to instead just flood back to clog up the defensive 50. This rule change is going to make for some ugly defensive matches of footy IMO.

Thats no different to whats been happening for 10+ years

 

On 2/19/2021 at 9:35 PM, whatwhatsaywhat said:

"who's up? who's up?"

maybe the 6 foot 9 dudes facing each other, razor!

the 'nominate who rucks' rule has to be the most superfluous of them all - if two blokes from the same team go up, it's a free...it ain't complicated

The whole nomination is to stop the non ruckman going up and being blocked in the process and causing any confusion about who was going up. ie if Jackson was playing on ball and wanted to go up instead of Max and his opposition player denying him a direct path to the ball up. You can block a players path as a defender but not as a ruckman.

[jnrmac 18,914]

Lachie Henderson discussing the rule in the little paper.

Says that once the umpire has called "stand", the player must stand and cant move backwards out of the protected area.

"Henderson says if a supporting player charges into space inside 50m with no other defender in sight, the defender will just have to stand and watch while it is kicked to them.

Previously a player could man the mark then abandon it to pick up an opponent running into space."

Maybe ANB will get a lot of goals this year running into open space behind defenders...

[sue 8,409]

Still totally bewildered how the AFL can make such a change without having trialled it somewhere other than a smoke filled room.