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

Disagree, as soon as you ban 3rd man up you have to specify who the 2 rucks actually are to stop a decoy situation. 

If Gawn (ruck), Jackson (FF), Grundy (ruck) and Roughead (FB) were all at a ball up deep in our forward line we could hover Gawn around, have him pull out at the last second and then send Jackson up against Grundy with every chance Roughead bumps in to Jackson as he's defending him, triggering a 3rd man up or block in the ruck scenario. Teams would rort it as much as possible.

The umps got really good last year of just identifying when both big men were at the stoppage and getting it going without delay. It just took about 3 years of umpires having conferences with the big boys first which wasn't needed. It's a necessary rule but can be streamlined as it was.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

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...

Sounds like the best possible working solution. Defenders will have to quickly decide whether to sag off or man the mark. In fact they may have to decide if they are even going to compete in a contests because once you're jostling with a forward if they out mark you I'd imagine you're pretty much the man on the mark then. 

The high defensive line is pretty much dead too. 

Teams will still push up to lock the ball in the forward 50 but they'll have at least 1 sweeper back and once the ball gets to half way they'll drop everyone a long way back.

Which will mean a lot of ping pong between the arcs and also a heap of lateral kicking around half back and the middle of the ground 

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Sounds like the best possible working solution. Defenders will have to quickly decide whether to sag off or man the mark. In fact they may have to decide if they are even going to compete in a contests because once you're jostling with a forward if they out mark you I'd imagine you're pretty much the man on the mark then. 

The high defensive line is pretty much dead too. 

Teams will still push up to lock the ball in the forward 50 but they'll have at least 1 sweeper back and once the ball gets to half way they'll drop everyone a long way back.

Which will mean a lot of ping pong between the arcs and also a heap of lateral kicking around half back and the middle of the ground 

Agreed.

This will be very interesting to watch over the first few weeks and I believe there will be a number of approaches tried by different Clubs. I've said elsewhere that the better drilled and disciplined teams may get a jump on the rest during this time. Eventually the copy cats will figure it out.

The other thing I've been thinking about is how this might give an advantage to players who can kick a long bomb accurately. Especially as a player may be able to charge forward if there is sagging off or not defending the mark more often. Others have spoken about taking the extra man back to clog up the 50 but I don't think that matters much if the ball sails over their head for a score.

12 hours ago, sue said:

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

What do you think they were smoking?

21 hours ago, jnrmac said:

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...

It is totally counterintuitive for a player to just have to stand and watch an opposition scoring opportunity without being able to run off to the contest.

Beggars belief that anyone could be stupid enough to consider this.  Well, I guess we have Gill and SHocking running the show, so anything is possible.

19 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Sounds like the best possible working solution. Defenders will have to quickly decide whether to sag off or man the mark. In fact they may have to decide if they are even going to compete in a contests because once you're jostling with a forward if they out mark you I'd imagine you're pretty much the man on the mark then. 

The high defensive line is pretty much dead too. 

Teams will still push up to lock the ball in the forward 50 but they'll have at least 1 sweeper back and once the ball gets to half way they'll drop everyone a long way back.

Which will mean a lot of ping pong between the arcs and also a heap of lateral kicking around half back and the middle of the ground 

Could become totally boring - unless the backwards kick, or even the straight lateral kick is not a mark, which is not a part of the plan (at least this version).

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by monoccular

Gil and Shocking have lost control of the adjudication of the game. They think the rules are something you can tinker with, to definitively control the "entertainment experience". It always gets away from them with unexpected consequences. They're killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

20 hours ago, sue said:

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

Take a capital S and a vertical line and put them together and that's your hint.

Looks like the defender has moved before the attacker just, but in this case I’d rather a quick play on call than a 50. We’ll see if our players are more disciplined 

44 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

Gil and Shocking have lost control of the adjudication of the game. They think the rules are something you can tinker with, to definitively control the "entertainment experience". It always gets away from them with unexpected consequences. They're killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

 

Aussie rules has always been an evolving game. And a lot of games are rubbish.

My biggest concern about it is they are introducing new rules rather than cracking down on the existing ones.

Paying more holding the man would do more to speed up and open up the game than any new rules. 

 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Looks like the defender has moved before the attacker just, but in this case I’d rather a quick play on call than a 50. We’ll see if our players are more disciplined 

This is a great example of one of the things I've been banging on about. It doesn't matter what came first, it only matters when the Umpire called "play on". So an Umpire has a clear and obvious judgement, no interpretation required and a clear observation to be made. Have I called play on? No. Has the defender moved forward, back or to a side? Yes = 50m penalty. As long as this is applied consistently and it should be because there is no need for interpretation; just the 2 questions. Then I think this might be a good change and is a counter to how defensively based the game has become. If the players cannot adapt then that's on them and the Coaching.

38 minutes ago, dworship said:

This is a great example of one of the things I've been banging on about. It doesn't matter what came first, it only matters when the Umpire called "play on". So an Umpire has a clear and obvious judgement, no interpretation required and a clear observation to be made. Have I called play on? No. Has the defender moved forward, back or to a side? Yes = 50m penalty. As long as this is applied consistently and it should be because there is no need for interpretation; just the 2 questions. Then I think this might be a good change and is a counter to how defensively based the game has become. If the players cannot adapt then that's on them and the Coaching.

Players will have to be disciplined and play to the whistle (or more accurately the play on signal), but it’s also going to take the umpires being very vigilant.

Obviously coaches have manipulated the man on the mark by moving them inwards (and for years forwards). But there was a natural understanding that as the attacker moves sideways the defender can too.

It seems particularly unfair to me that Buddy Franklin won’t ever have to kick over the mark again. He’ll always get to swing out before the defender moves to cover it. 

Looks like another rule the suits at AFL HQ have nailed.

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Players will have to be disciplined and play to the whistle (or more accurately the play on signal), but it’s also going to take the umpires being very vigilant.

Obviously coaches have manipulated the man on the mark by moving them inwards (and for years forwards). But there was a natural understanding that as the attacker moves sideways the defender can too.

It seems particularly unfair to me that Buddy Franklin won’t ever have to kick over the mark again. He’ll always get to swing out before the defender moves to cover it. 

Sorry but he hasn't been forced to kick over the mark for years. I've said elsewhere that the defensive players who regularly crib and anticipate the movement are the ones who are likely to suffer the most in this rule change because they will give away 50m. Will there be unseen consequences of this rule change; quite possibly. The change has been made, we wont know till several weeks into the season whether it's a positive or a negative. It will be fun to watch and there will be a lot of fans who will be "up in arms" but aren't there always? I'm still amused by the number of fans who still shout out "that's dropping the BALL" when that rule hasn't existed for years.

I reckon there will be players with the ball who will run straight towards the guy on the mark and then with a few metres to go they'll dart out to one side. They'll be passed the guy on the mark before the ump has even had a chance to call play on

19 minutes ago, dworship said:

Sorry but he hasn't been forced to kick over the mark for years. I've said elsewhere that the defensive players who regularly crib and anticipate the movement are the ones who are likely to suffer the most in this rule change because they will give away 50m. Will there be unseen consequences of this rule change; quite possibly. The change has been made, we wont know till several weeks into the season whether it's a positive or a negative. It will be fun to watch and there will be a lot of fans who will be "up in arms" but aren't there always? I'm still amused by the number of fans who still shout out "that's dropping the BALL" when that rule hasn't existed for years.

He's always kicked to the left of the mark, but the man on the mark has always had the chance to at least smother it if it's low. This change means he won't even have to physically kick over the man on the mark. Players capable of jutting out late - see Petracca - can start their kicks lower and/or closer to goal.

This rule stops players blocking the corridor. We're yet to know if the umps will still allow players to run 3m over the mark and then reluctantly take 1-2 small steps back when asked. That's the Hawthorn/Sydney tactic for the last decade. Ask for forgiveness not permission.

The shambolic nature will be good if we use it win. Bad if it costs us. Hopefully for once our coaches and players are prepared.

2 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

He's always kicked to the left of the mark, but the man on the mark has always had the chance to at least smother it if it's low. This change means he won't even have to physically kick over the man on the mark. Players capable of jutting out late - see Petracca - can start their kicks lower and/or closer to goal.

This rule stops players blocking the corridor. We're yet to know if the umps will still allow players to run 3m over the mark and then reluctantly take 1-2 small steps back when asked. That's the Hawthorn/Sydney tactic for the last decade. Ask for forgiveness not permission.

The shambolic nature will be good if we use it win. Bad if it costs us. Hopefully for once our coaches and players are prepared.

The Hawthorn/Sydney tactic you mentioned is the stuff I hope it stops or at least deters. The other one is the delay of game stuff that is never enforced. The hanging on while the player with the ball tries to go back behind the mark (watchout if the Umpire has already called "Stand") and the other time waster where the defender wanders around the mark pointing at the ground.

I, like you, hope we are ahead of this but I also think this will suit our normal style of play when we have the ball.

4 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

If that’s how games are going to look now, then we’ll all have to find a new sport to follow. AFL wants higher scoring, they’ll get higher scoring... from abundance of shots at goal from 50 metre penalties! ****house!

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by Lord Travis

This rule seems very unnecessary to me - I can see games won and lost simply by someone standing the mark moving laterally by one step - maybe even just getting balanced 

50m penalty for what has no real bearing on the ability of the player to effectively dispose of the ball just seems crazy 

 

11 hours ago, low flying Robbo said:

I reckon there will be players with the ball who will run straight towards the guy on the mark and then with a few metres to go they'll dart out to one side. They'll be passed the guy on the mark before the ump has even had a chance to call play on

Exactly, it's very easy to 'sell some candy' to a guy that can't move!

Can even pretend you kick on an arc and just not actually come back in line with the mark and just run off. I doubt the umpires will pull the player back seeing as everything is to try and keep the game moving. 

That vision was just a player that forgot the rule. They moved sideways on the mark like they used to, but it's illegal now.

If they truly thought that the player had played on then they would have run forward at the kicker rather than sideways behind the mark. 

There will be issues where players simply forget like this, because they are not used to the same rule. This footage doesn't mean that the rule works/doesn't work, just that some players are going to forget ... especially whilst it's being introduced. 

The "stand" instruction should also apply to the player in possession. They may only move in a straight line toward the man on the mark,  once they move off line call play on. 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by ManDee
Off

8 minutes ago, ManDee said:

The "stand" instruction should also apply to the player in possession. They may only move in a straight line toward the man on the mark,  once they move of line call play on. 

+1

25 minutes ago, ManDee said:

The "stand" instruction should also apply to the player in possession. They may only move in a straight line toward the man on the mark,  once they move off line call play on. 

This is far more logical. 

Has this altered the rule at all about a player from the team that has the ball to kick being able to come in and shepherd the man on the mark? Should make it play on because in theory there’s no need for it now. 

I also agree that if they are going to be harder on the man on the mark then there should be a tighter interpretation on the player going in a straight line towards the man on the mark. No more “Buddy arc”. 

4 hours ago, ManDee said:

The "stand" instruction should also apply to the player in possession. They may only move in a straight line toward the man on the mark,  once they move off line call play on. 

Umm, maybe I'm missing something, regardless of the "stand" command what you said is the current rule and has been so for many years.