1 hour ago, Grimes Times said:

Only 1 week and 1 game in but a few people may have jumped the gun a bit early on this one.

It hasn't been the 50 metre penalty fest that I thought it would be, but I stand by my comments. My problem with the rule itself is that it adds yet more grey area into umpiring decisions. And to me, it's pretty stupid that you no longer have to kick over the man on the mark when kicking for goal - you can simply kick it around them. 

My major gripe wasn't necessarily with the rule itself, but that it was introduced without any trials in state leagues first. I also think that the pretext for the rule change, that more goals equals better football, is largely a myth.

Pretty much agree with the above post by Accepting Mediocrity. I don’t like the way the rules been implemented due to even more problems and inconsistencies from the umpires as a result. It was just unnecessary and doesn’t solve any problem. It was also rushed in without trial and clearly wasn’t thought out properly.

It’s frustrating the AFL keeps trying to manufacture higher scores so they can get more revenue from ad breaks at the expense of the games quality. More goals equals better footy is incorrect. The old Swans vs Eagles stoppage fest grand finals were better viewing than any grand final of the past 5-10 years. The intensity of repeat contests and finally breaking through was far more interesting to watch than aerial ping pong under little pressure. 

34 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

It hasn't been the 50 metre penalty fest that I thought it would be, but I stand by my comments. My problem with the rule itself is that it adds yet more grey area into umpiring decisions. And to me, it's pretty stupid that you no longer have to kick over the man on the mark when kicking for goal - you can simply kick it around them. 

My major gripe wasn't necessarily with the rule itself, but that it was introduced without any trials in state leagues first. I also think that the pretext for the rule change, that more goals equals better football, is largely a myth.

Thats not true. You still need to kick over the man on the mark or its play on. As per Tracs kick after the siren against Freo.

31 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

It hasn't been the 50 metre penalty fest that I thought it would be, but I stand by my comments. My problem with the rule itself is that it adds yet more grey area into umpiring decisions. And to me, it's pretty stupid that you no longer have to kick over the man on the mark when kicking for goal - you can simply kick it around them. 

My major gripe wasn't necessarily with the rule itself, but that it was introduced without any trials in state leagues first. I also think that the pretext for the rule change, that more goals equals better football, is largely a myth.

9 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Pretty much agree with the above post by Accepting Mediocrity. I don’t like the way the rules been implemented due to even more problems and inconsistencies from the umpires as a result. It was just unnecessary and doesn’t solve any problem. It was also rushed in without trial and clearly wasn’t thought out properly.

It’s frustrating the AFL keeps trying to manufacture higher scores so they can get more revenue from ad breaks at the expense of the games quality. More goals equals better footy is incorrect. The old Swans vs Eagles stoppage fest grand finals were better viewing than any grand final of the past 5-10 years. The intensity of repeat contests and finally breaking through was far more interesting to watch than aerial ping pong under little pressure. 

Agree.

More goals can in some instances be better to watch than fewer goals. But it is not uniform and there are plenty of examples of high scoring games being devoid of skill (e.g Melbourne v Essendon in 2019) or slower games being incredible (Sydney v West Coast GFs).

The less a side can defend, the less skill is required to defeat them. So whilst some argue we need to get rid of stoppages and increase scoring to show off more skill, I worry that over time we'll just turn the game into a mundane slingshot.

35 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

It hasn't been the 50 metre penalty fest that I thought it would be, but I stand by my comments. My problem with the rule itself is that it adds yet more grey area into umpiring decisions. And to me, it's pretty stupid that you no longer have to kick over the man on the mark when kicking for goal - you can simply kick it around them. 

My major gripe wasn't necessarily with the rule itself, but that it was introduced without any trials in state leagues first. I also think that the pretext for the rule change, that more goals equals better football, is largely a myth.

Thats also not true. The rules purpose is to try and free the flow of the football and creating movement of the ball up and back. A by product of that may be increased scoring or it may not.

Just now, Grimes Times said:

Thats also not true. The rules purpose is to try and free the flow of the football and creating movement of the ball up and back. A by product of that may be increased scoring or it may not.

No, it is true.

Listening to the radio this morning, all SEN was talking about was "last night was so good there were 19 goals in the first half alone!".

People love goals. And don't forget, the TV stations love goals and that is fundamental (and understandably given broadcast revenue keeps the game alive).

But these rule changes are all about scoring: freeing up the flow to increase scoring opportunities, not just to free up the flow of the game.

It still seems ripe for inconsistent decisions.  I still don't know the rules.  Does anyone?  For example, when a player takes a mark in clear space, often no one runs to where the mark actually is. Instead they stand well back.  Sometimes the ump shouts 'stand' even though they are no where near the mark (which is unfair), sometimes they don't, so presumably they can move about including running up to the actual mark and then freezing?  But can they?  The umps seem to be calling 'stand' well before they get to the mark to prevent this, but that is giving the player with the ball a double advantage - extra yards plus the static opponent.  But will the ump show them where the mark is?  Not easy without turning every mark into being like what is done for a shot for goal.      If I've missed something, I'd appreciate it if any Demonlander can illumintate me on this.

I'm not opposed to the rule if it makes for more open games (though I don't see the need for goal-fests).  But until this is all clarified we will see some bad consequences.  When one of the AFL's favoured teams loses a match as a result Gil will invent a new rule. 

 

2 hours ago, Grimes Times said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Only 1 week and 1 game in but a few people may have jumped the gun a bit early on this one.

so far, i've been surprised at the big change it has had on the game. the game looks much better

couple of caveats though. 1) let's wait to see how coaches react to it over time and. whether they find ways to bring back more defence congestion. 2) still a few changes needed in how umpires are adjudicating it (more on that later)

fortunately we haven't seen too many technical 50m penalties

1 hour ago, Grimes Times said:

Thats not true. You still need to kick over the man on the mark or its play on. As per Tracs kick after the siren against Freo.

Sure, in the rare instance when the shot is after the siren. In most cases though, the split second between the goal kicker running off the line, the umpire calling play on, and the defender having time to react means that the defender is obsolete. From watching the games so far, forwards are taking marks on the 50, and kicking from about 52. It becomes even more pronounced when a forward takes a mark next to the behind post. They can basically kick it from the top of the goal square, which doesn't sit right with me.

46 minutes ago, Accepting Mediocrity said:

Sure, in the rare instance when the shot is after the siren. In most cases though, the split second between the goal kicker running off the line, the umpire calling play on, and the defender having time to react means that the defender is obsolete. From watching the games so far, forwards are taking marks on the 50, and kicking from about 52. It becomes even more pronounced when a forward takes a mark next to the behind post. They can basically kick it from the top of the goal square, which doesn't sit right with me.

Agree with this, but I don't think it matters. The defenders' job is to stop the opponent from getting the ball in the first place. If he's been unable to do that, I'm comfortable that the player with the ball has this advantage. As I've mentioned previously, I'm hoping this change will eliminate the zone defence and instead bring the game back to a man-on-man contest (or woman-on-woman if the same rule is introduced, as it should be, into AFLW.)

Another example where unclarity can cause an issue or the pressure to call play on has gone too far. Near the end of the match Jones took a mark on the 50m line from a poor kickout.  As he landed he moved sideways to regain his balance. No play on call (sensible). But he then walked straight back and the ump called play on.  Why didn't the ump line him up as he clearly could kick for goal?  When did he move off line if it hasn't been defined?

The first and most obvious tweak that’s desperately needed is to allow the man on the mark to move laterally on set shots at goal. Forwards not kicking over the mark is just downright embarrassing. If a forward gets 30 seconds then the defender should get to move side to side.
 

After that the umpires just need to be more alert to players not going back over the man on the mark. If they don’t make a legitimate effort to go back behind the mark it should be play on.

The thing I dislike is that the mark used to be a reward for slow play if needed, where quick play ons should’ve been encourage for their risk/reward. Good teams/players rarely stopped and went back behind the mark.

I wonder if the umps had purely decided to start paying 50’s every time the man on the mark deliberately went 3m over the mark if it would’ve had the same result. The umps spend all the time saying stand now that they used to use on moving the man on the mark back 3m. 

6 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

No, it is true.

Listening to the radio this morning, all SEN was talking about was "last night was so good there were 19 goals in the first half alone!".

People love goals. And don't forget, the TV stations love goals and that is fundamental (and understandably given broadcast revenue keeps the game alive).

But these rule changes are all about scoring: freeing up the flow to increase scoring opportunities, not just to free up the flow of the game.

You're right t_u

The broadcasters pour in the Billions and without that revenue the game wouldn't survive.  Especially last year where the bulk of the revenue came via the broadcast rights

So they get to have a very big say, like it or lump it.  Personally, I don't have a problem with the broadcast partners having their 2 cents worth

As you indicated, more goals means more advertising space and more revenue for the broadcasters

And we footy fans need the broadcasters to make good profits.  Big time sport lives in a commercial world.  No question

But the by-product of a lot more scoring almost certainly means way less congestion coupled with a faster, more open style of footy - the way footy was played in the 70's, 80's, 90's and right up until about 5 years ago

So are we just going back to how footy was played for over 4 decades?  Looks like it to me

With rapid-fire attacks we'll see the backmen under a lot more pressure without the luxury of their teammates flooding back on a constant basis.  Something I also don't have a problem with.

My wish is not necessarily more scoring though ... one of my favourite games from the past was the 1990 Elimination final where we beat Hawthorn ... 10.13 to 8.16

It’s not just about more goals, it’s about opening the game up as since 2007 too many players have followed the ball around creating rugby like congestion and taking away from what made the game unique.

As I’ve said many times, this rule is fantastic and the best thing the AFL have done for decades.

Wrong thread.

Edited March 27, 20214 yr by Clint Bizkit

.

Edited March 27, 20214 yr by Clint Bizkit

[censored] rule just handed Saints a goal. Get rid of the rule and let defenders defend instead of standing around like witches shags for [censored] sake!

I have been endlessly moaning about details of the new rule being unstated by the AFL.  But OK, I finally have some clarification of one aspect, but only by 'overhearing' a direction by an umpire in last night's match.

A player had a mark and the ump told the man apporaching from forward of the mark that he could run forward but not closer than 5m to the mark.  So presumably this is a rule?  Where has the AFL actually stated this, eg on the website?

Of course I now wonder what the rule is if you approach from  4m forward of the mark.  Perhaps if you are anywhere within 5 m you have to stand if the ump choses to say stand?    We now have umps making more decisions requiring reliable estimates of distances with a massive penalty if their estimate differs form a players.

Whether you like the new rule or not, please, please someone point me to the full written details of it.

 

Umpires are ruining the effectiveness of this rule by calling play-on too quickly around the ground.

I don't think this rule has even been exploited fully yet.

On Saturday Fritsch took a mark about 45m out and was standing at the end of his set shot routine from about 65m. Rivers called for it running past but when Fritsch handballed it to him, the ump called play on so the man on the mark was able to run towards Rivers who had to kick it from about 55m. Wasn't really the smartest play to call for it so far out.

To exploit this, once the ump has called "stand" the player taking the kick should be as close as possible to the mark and have players running past. This way Rivers should have been able to clear the man on the mark and kick from 40m.

Previously the man on the mark would have seen this and shifted sideways to cut off the run through. It may even cause a 50m penalty if the man on the mark goes too soon

On 3/27/2021 at 8:02 PM, Lord Travis said:

[censored] rule just handed Saints a goal. Get rid of the rule and let defenders defend instead of standing around like witches shags for [censored] sake!

Under this rule, defenders have to defend by stopping the player getting the ball in the first place.

On the small sample size to date - and before the coaches have had time to work out alternative defensive strategies - I like what this rule has done.

I have to admit that I thought the new manning the mark rule and reduced rotations would do bugger all to reduce congestion, but watching the game this season reminds me a bit of how the game was played in the nineties.  Just hope the coaches don't find a way to ruin the game again.

On 2/18/2021 at 10:35 AM, jnrmac said:

The AFL are idiots.

This is not a criticism, I'm just curious if you still feel the same about the new rule

What did you think of the Stand Rule and do you agree with Kane that it should be scrapped?

 

It needs tweaking. The problem I saw is that the umps are looking for the player to get on the mark which can disadvantage the player with the ball. It means that defenders can ‘put the hands up’ and run right next to the player with the ball to get to the mark.

I would tweak I to say that players can only get on the mark from the front - the defensive side - and any players coming from the side or behind to get on the mark (unless right on them) it’s a 50.

Players should play on more often but I think the above impacts their ability to do that.