Manning the Mark Rule Change

[Happy Jack 197]

What will we see next? Players having to wear a cap that they place on the mark as they did in the early days of Australian Rules ( don’t get me started it’s not AFL, just like it’s rugby league, not NRL).

[Pickett2Jackson 3,904]

7 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The AFL has warned in briefings to clubs that even the slightest movement to the left or right from the man on the park will incur an immediate 50m penalty.

 

 

 

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

(Sub rule excluded)

Edited February 18, 2021 by Pickett2Jackson

[sue 9,143]

33 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

This is what I was alluding to. A player on the mark can go back 5m and then 10m laterally either side. It might be preferable to do that and stop a player from running around...

Of course it will all be interpretation and will all happen fairly quickly.

And like when they introduced the protected zone it will be a dog's breakfast that will be overpoliced in the first 4 weeks and then forgotten about for 18 weeks until melbourne is winning a game to make the finals and we get pinged because some cretinous umpire drags out this rule again. The resulting 50m penalty and goal costs us a spot in the finals...

 

But as I posted earlier, are they allowed to go back 5m?  The rule reads like you are either on the actual mark or you are classified as one of the other players not allowed in the zone.  Take a step back and you are one of the latter and in trouble.

It's an insult to those who prepare breakfasts for dogs.

[NeveroddoreveN 1,034]

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!

[tiers 2,843]

7 hours ago, Neil Crompton said:

I think one consequence of this rule change will be that, with the man on the mark anchored, it may well be so much easier to determine when the player with the ball moves off his mark, and hence many more play ons will be called, as opposed to 50m penalties imposed. 

Correct. But only if the umpires are correctly trained to call play on as soon as the player with the ball moves of a straight line over the head of the man on the mark.

No more Buddy curves, no more B Brown long run ins (how can the ump be sure he hasn't deviated from the line), no more feigned give offs to passing player (in fact there should be no passing team mates), limits on banana kicks (strict interpretation must be that player has moved off the line) and no doubt there will be many more absurd examples of when a man on the mark has stood on the wrong blade of grass.

The 30 second rule should be reduced to 15 seconds when having shot for goal - how unfair would it be for the man on the mark to have to stand motionless for even 15 seconds. S.Hocking should be made to stand still for 15 minutes as punishment.

50m penalty is outrageously harsh and should be applied to the AFL administrators who thought up this nonsense (if off field than should be $50k per time). Our great game (not their's) is a dynamic game of motion and movement and should not be restricted.

If this does not apply beyond AFL then I might spend my time watching the ammos where the game is the game.

[dworship 3,342]

9 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

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?

Yes, that would be no different than the current rule ie; if the man on the mark takes a forward step before play on is called.

 

[demon3165 2,804]

Stand five metres back from the mark and wait for the umpire to call play on you can still be on the move as you are not on the mark.

[skills32 229]

I believe the AFL are  licencing universities to add a course, Law-AFL- rules and laws, to their existing curriculum.

Players are invited to attend for a fee 50% of which will be on forwarded to the AFL.

 

[dworship 3,342]

4 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

This should clear things up.

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.
For the avoidance of doubt, all other Players from the opposing Team must be positioned behind The Mark or otherwise outside  the Protected Area defined in Law 20.1.2.
20.1.2 Protected Area
(a) The Protected Area after a Player is awarded a Mark or Free Kick is a corridor which extends from 10 metres either side of The Mark and five metres behind,  to 10 metres either side of, and five metre arc behind, the Player with the football,  as illustrated in Diagram 4.
(b) No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls ‘Play On’ or the Player from the opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent. Any Player caught in the Protected Area must  make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area. 

Thanks Mazar, do you have a link for the 2021 LotG? I download these every year and when I tried to last week I couldn't find them.

In particular I'm trying to find the reference to the Umpires call to "Stand". From what I've read elsewhere the "Mark" will become wherever the opposition player is when the command is given.

In Jnrmac's comment "This is what I was alluding to. A player on the mark can go back 5m and then 10m laterally either side. It might be preferable to do that and stop a player from running around..." The thing that's being overlooked is the Umpire calling "Stand".

If we put it into some context during a game;

A/ Two players contest for a mark, player 1 is awarded the mark and often tries to backpedal in a direct line behind the mark. Player 2 (the opposition) often hangs on to slow the play but knows not to step forward over the mark. The Umpire will call "stand" or "back a metre" (in some circumstances) and then "stand" which will immediately become the mark. Player 2 now cannot move so he cannot go back or laterally until play on is called.

B/ When an uncontested mark is taken by Player 1, past practice sees the nearest opposition player rush up to where they think the mark is or just behind it. If Player 1 plays on the Umpire immediately calls it and no issues for the opposition player. Where the difficulty will come is if an opposition player rushes up and stops 1m to 4m from the mark. The umpire will call "stand" and now that player cannot move. This aspect will be the most interesting to watch.

C/ Manning the mark after a free kick will be much the same as the above.

From an umpiring perspective it's possible this will be easier for them to adjudicate. In the past we have often seen the man on the mark creep across, sometimes blatantly, now the Umpire needs to command "stand" and if they move in any cardinal direction it's 50.

Yes, I think 50m is too big a penalty when first introducing the rule but it will make players and coaches sit up and take notice when it happens a lot in the first few weeks.

I hope the delaying tactic employed by many players and teams where the player walks around pointing at the ground asking the Umpire "where is the mark?" will become a thing of the past. The Umpire only has to say "stand" and that's the end of the matter.

 

[Lord Travis 10,763]

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.

“Word coming out of the clubs is they’re training their players to flood the defensive 50 as a way to combat not being able to control the angles of the field as much. It’s going to backfire for the AFL and lead to yet a further reduction in scoring.

The rule changes the past few years have been ineffectual and pathetic and actually harmed the sport further. The next stage for them is to anchor players to parts of the ground for the entirety of the match, not just centre bounces.”

[Ethan Tremblay 30,966]

Why? 

[monoccular 17,573]

Maybe they should give the maggots a spray paint can, like the soccer referees, and they can paint a cross on the mark and draw a straight line backwards to define the line. 
 

Would add extra excitement for them to have a few different colour spray cans and the enthralled commentators on TV (like Derwayne for example) could speculate about and discuss the next colour.  It would be more exciting that the game will be when SHocking and Gill finish stuffing it up.  

[Dr. Gonzo 24,297]

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

or just have no-one on the mark, and put another player behind the man on the mark so he can move laterally.

they will need to define a no-man area behind the mark.......more opportunity for 50m penalties....lovely

I don't think you will be allowed a teammate within 5m of the mark unless they are the man on the mark. It will be a 50m for encroaching the protected zone.

Typical morons at AFL create another rule to try and fix the ****show the sport has become under their governance when the easiest thing to do to reduce congestion is reduce the number of players on the ground. So simple yet something they seem to refuse to even contemplate.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,099]

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.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

I want to defend the 50 metre penalty. I'm not defending any specific rule to which a 50 m penalty might apply, just the 50 metre penalty itself. If the penalty is any less than this (say, 25 metres), players will be encouraged to take more chances in defending illegally knowing that the penalty is not likely to be so dangerous. Those of us old enough to remember when the penalty was only 15 metres can remember how it was used as a "professional foul" to hold up play. 

While there is an argument to have both 50 metre and 25 metre penalties, I think that puts too much pressure on umpires who already have to be able to measure 50 metres, 15 metres, 5 metres and (maybe, if I remember correctly) 9 metres.

I would maintain the 50 metre penalty and players should be taught to defend properly and not infringe in a way that brings the penalty into play. 

The rules to which the 50 metre penalty applies? That's a different debate.

Edited February 18, 2021 by La Dee-vina Comedia

[daisycutter 29,738]

9 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't think you will be allowed a teammate within 5m of the mark unless they are the man on the mark. It will be a 50m for encroaching the protected zone.

Typical morons at AFL create another rule to try and fix the ****show the sport has become under their governance when the easiest thing to do to reduce congestion is reduce the number of players on the ground. So simple yet something they seem to refuse to even contemplate.

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

[Forest Demon 4,681]

I am actually all for rule changes. But I am talking more large sweeping changes that will simplify the game and fundamentally get it back on the right track and showcase what makes the game so great and unique.

But I hate these stupid little alterations and additions that only add to the confusion. It will no doubt create other side effects, leaving us in a bigger mess than before the rule was introduced.

[Accepting Mediocrity 1,418]

12 hours ago, dworship said:

22 hours ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

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?

Yes, that would be no different than the current rule ie; if the man on the mark takes a forward step before play on is called.

It's fundamentally different to the current rule. Otherwise, why bother changing it? As it stands, you're within your rights to move laterally when standing the mark. It's important in several contexts - for example, if a player runs past for a handball receive, you don't just stand there dumbly waiting for the umpire to call play on - you can move sideways off the mark to put pressure on them. Or if a forward is kicking at goal from the boundary, as a defender standing the mark you can follow them when they run around so that they still have to kick it over the mark.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

11 hours ago, dworship said:

Thanks Mazar, do you have a link for the 2021 LotG? I download these every year and when I tried to last week I couldn't find them.

Here's where I found them: https://www.yarrajfl.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-Laws-of-the-Game_Web.pdf

It's a joke that the one place where you can't find the laws of the AFL web site itself. In past years I have found the rules on the umpires' web site, on (I think) the VAFA site.

See for yourselves what is available on the AFL page named "AFL Rules - Laws of the Game" : https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/laws-of-the-game

All demonstrating the AFL's deep commitment to publicising and promoting understanding of the rules.

If you search for "laws" on the AFL web site, the most relevant thing available is this: https://www.afl.com.au/news/524846/game-adjustments-for-the-2021-toyota-afl-premiership-season

[loges 6,767]

Can't wait until an umpire, asleep on the whistle, is too slow to call play on as the player moves off his line. Player on the mark reacts so 50 meter penalty all because of the umpire.

[dworship 3,342]

1 hour ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

It's fundamentally different to the current rule. Otherwise, why bother changing it? As it stands, you're within your rights to move laterally when standing the mark. It's important in several contexts - for example, if a player runs past for a handball receive, you don't just stand there dumbly waiting for the umpire to call play on - you can move sideways off the mark to put pressure on them. Or if a forward is kicking at goal from the boundary, as a defender standing the mark you can follow them when they run around so that they still have to kick it over the mark.

I think you missed the point, I was trying to answer your question "seriously just meant to stand there glued to the spot until the umpires call play on?" My immediate answer was "yes" . I used the old rule to illustrate what happens when you step forward. The same thing now happens when you step sideways or backwards as well (if the Umpire has called "stand").

Thanks for pointing out the old rule and what it meant and allowed you to do but it's no longer important or relevant.

[Axis of Bob 11,844]

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. 

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

I think that the argument is, that if the player on the mark is quick enough to stop forward motion, he/she will be also able to stop lateral movement. Remember us that games have been won and lost on "on the mark movement" 

[dworship 3,342]

33 minutes ago, loges said:

Can't wait until an umpire, asleep on the whistle, is too slow to call play on as the player moves off his line. Player on the mark reacts so 50 meter penalty all because of the umpire.

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.

Edited February 19, 2021 by dworship
Grammar

[Grimes Times 1,278]

7 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. 

SNAP