Jump to content

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor   

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor   

Manning the Mark Rule Change



Recommended Posts

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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.   Umpires now warning that this a

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 tea

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 cou

Posted Images

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 by Pickett2Jackson
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

image.png.12ccc20b96233549ddd1108b218ebf89.png

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.”

  • Like 4
  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by La Dee-vina Comedia
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by dworship
Grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Match Previews, Reports & Articles

    A WALK IN THE PAST by Whispering Jack

    On Monday night, the Melbourne Football Club handed out four life memberships. Two of those awards went to men who are long gone. Charles ‘Chubby’ Forrester and James ‘Jas’ Byrne played for the club in the 1870s, even before the Victorian Football Association was formed. The other two are current skipper Max Gawn and swingman Tom McDonald, who almost left the club at the end of the pandemic-affected 2020 season. Some fans might have raised their eyebrows and wondered whether the emphasis on hist

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    SOUNDS OF SILENCE by Whispering Jack

    This was my first game for points involving the Demons in more than a year and a half and the long march to Carrara turned out to be worthwhile. The game was won in a single withering quarter that was dominated by Melbourne on the back of an outstanding display from Karen Paxman. The four-time All Australian picked up 13 touches for the stanza to set up a five goal to nothing second term after a lacklustre start in which the cleaner, sharper Gold Coast notched up the first two goals of the game

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    BRIDESMAIDS AGAIN by Whispering Jack

    Historians of the future will have little difficulty in finding words to define the year 2020. “Covid-19”, “pandemic” and “plague” come readily to mind. The Covid-19 pandemic dominated the year in every aspect of life and it certainly didn’t spare AFL football or the Melbourne Football Club. In the circumstances however, it didn’t treat it as badly as the Spanish Flu epidemic which raged a century earlier from February 1918, through 1919 and into 1920 when it finally petered out in April of

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    THE TASMANIAN TIGER by Whispering Jack

    I first saw Ben Brown on a cold Tuesday night in May, 2013 playing for the Werribee Tigers against Queanbeyan in a televised Foxtel Cup game before a sparse crowd at Etihad Stadium. His teammate and former Demon Jordan Gysberts was the star of the side’s 85-point belting of the hapless ACT club but the then 20 year old, 200cm Brown was also a stand out.  Earlier that year, the athletic big man had left his native Tasmania in an effort to make the grade after being overlooked in three drafts

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    THE TRADING CHRONICLES 2020 by The Oracle

    Part One: The Cure It could be coincidental but since the AFL Free Agency and Trade Period began, the State of Victoria has recorded eight consecutive days of no new active cases and no deaths from Covid19. It might be a little early to announce that a cure for this dreaded virus has been discovered but one thing can be said with some certainty after following the ins and outs of the free agency and trading process — mankind is still a long way off finding a cure for boredom. That stat

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features 1

    CHANGES 2020 by The Oracle

    Part One: A very strange year Things might have been somewhat hairy when the 1919 football season opened up in the wake of the ending of a world war and in the middle of a pandemic that took millions of lives but it’s difficult to imagine a more unusual football season than the one that ended a week or so ago. For starters, the footy is supposed to finish on that one day in September on the MCG in mild spring weather; not deep into October at the Gabba amid warnings of tropical storms and h

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features 1

    DEMONLAND 2020 A TO Z by George on the Outer

    A- Alice Springs. Happy hunting ground.     B- Backline. Finally found the non-leaking version.   C- Cairns & Covid. How a season was ruined.    D- Demonland. Mental Health facility run by the inmates.   E- The grade you get when you don’t make F- F- Finals. What are they? G- Goals. Lack of them. Need a forward who can kick them….lots! H- Hub. Where players got to live with people you can’t stand. I- Injuries. Miracle cure provided by Dr. Burgess.  

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Special Features

    WASH, RINSE, SPIN, REPEAT! by George On The Outer

    Although the Demons got over the line in their must win final round game against the hapless Bombers, they ensured it was Groundhog Day for their supporters who well remember what happened three years ago (although, this time they at least enjoyed the success of victory). Melbourne had its customary start dominating play and having plenty of chances in front of goal, only to find itself down on the scoreboard at the first change. Inaccurate kicking, particularly from set shots would have pu

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports

    THE LUCK OF THE DRAW by Whispering Jack

    The long awaited clash between Melbourne and Essendon is almost upon us. Thirty-seven rounds of AFL football have passed by since the two clubs met on a balmy early April night last year in a game that produced a high scoring shootout at the MCG with the Bombers prevailing by 18 points. It was their only meeting for 2019 and happened at a time when the pandemic was something on the far distant horizon. Several months later when the 2019 season ended, the AFL issued the first of its fixtures

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    THERE’S STILL A HEARTBEAT by George on the Outer

    When bottom side Adelaide scrapped together a win over the Giants last week, a tiny glimmer of hope opened up for the Demons’ finals chances. The patient was in intensive care but not quite finished — there was a faint pulse, a heart beating ever so slightly but was it enough when two more wins and other results were needed to fall their way? The first step was the resuscitation of a team that had lost its last two matches against sides then sitting fifteenth and sixteenth on the ladder. On

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports 1

    THE FINAL HUMILIATION by The Oracle

    On Sunday, the Melbourne Football Club that won three consecutive games by in excess of 50 points last month returns to the Gabba, the scene of the last of those victories which was a 56 point drubbing of Collingwood. The Demons got off to a good start and won every quarter with a ruthless and powerful brand of football. They kicked 16 goals that day, their accuracy in front of goal a tribute to the skills the put on display throughout the afternoon and evening. In the four matches playe

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Previews

    GIVEN THE OLD HEAVE HO’ by George on the Outer

    Fremantle gave Melbourne the old heave ho’ from playing finals in 2020, in conditions that the Demons yet again failed to handle.   With the whole season on the line and the need to win to stay in contention for finals, what the fans saw was much the same as they have been witnessing so many times before — a complete debacle and capitulation against a side that sat 15th on the ladder before the game.     Promises made after the loss to the 16th placed Sydney Swans were rendered h

    Demonland
    Demonland |
    Match Reports


×
×
  • Create New...