Jump to content

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor   

  • Podcast: Jason Taylor   

Manning the Mark Rule Change



Recommended Posts

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   

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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 !the robot dancing GIF

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

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

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'.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 🤣

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

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Mazer Rackham
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Love 1
  • Angry 1
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...