dworship

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.

You're guessing aren't you? It's more likely the recent changes are driven by potential practice matches.

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.

No and maybe go read some of the other things on this forum and you might have half a clue.

Really, get off this thread it's a TRAINING thread. Please start a thread of your own called WHINGERS you will have plenty of company. Oh and if your going to post something try and be factual. Your understanding of the rule is ...... pretty limited. There is a thread called Manning the Mark Rule Change. That's me being nice.

Picket wasn't the only Demonlander there this morning. Mrs DW , myself and a friend and avid Demons watcher (who doesn't post on here), also attended. I will get the most important news out of the way first. Our friend arrived just after 9am and Maxy was walking the boundary with Langdon . Max spoke to him saying we were there on the wrong day that there was no combined training today. They would be doing only short stints and it was a skills and weights session and that we should have come tomorrow. That being the case I think that indicates there will be some kind of practice match later in the week. Picket has covered most of what we saw brilliantly, I have only a couple of small additions. Rehab: Doing high knee lifts; Vanders. Trying get balls in wheelie bins; Hibbo, Hore (only by handball) & Tomlinson. PF mentioned Clayton walking the boundary with someone, I can confirm it was JJ. He has put on some serious muscle and the photo gallery from today doesn't do him justice. He looks like a larger Jack Viney. Having mentioned the "photo gallery" my mate and I don't believe a word of the "early start" blurb. We believe the Mids and Forwards groups came out after we left around 1130. We don't know why it was written up the way it was. The defensive group described by Picket also included Lockhart and Deakyn Smith. Regarding Deakyn, my friend has been impressed with what he has seen of him previously in match sim, so it appears there is now some serious competition for Lords role; Nev, Smith, Bowey and Lockhart. Finally a question for PF, you said "the new Stand the Mark rule which will really test all players given that the moment a mark or free kick is paid you cannot move at all". This isn't correct, the Umpire must command STAND and indicate this to a player and then they cannot move. My question is, did you hear anyone shouting this? I couldn't but I was at the other end of the ground during these drills. PS. Keep up the great work Picket it's been great reporting.

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.

Bad luck for him but a great opportunity for one of the new crop. Not perturbed by this at all. 30 this year but still contracted for 2022. May have to spend some time at Casey. Hope he does that with the good grace shown by Lewis.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Respect.

DD you and I agree on a lot of things and I echo much of the sentiments above but you lost me at the Liberals comment. If Michael O'Brien want's to win the next election his media people need to stop him looking smug and smiling when DA has a challenge on his hands. As Morrison found, better to keep quiet and let the other side shoot themselves in the foot.

I would back our current crop of coach's and performance staff to get the best out of him if he has the drive to make it happen. A lot of people think the HB signing was a bust and I get that, but I think it's overlooked that we got him back on the field and if it wasn't for some of his own mental issues he could of had a good future with the Club

The amount of discarded stuff I've resurrected over the years would astound you. I recently saved two wall heaters ($450ea when new), both are in excellent condition and manufactured in 2015. They were missing mounting brackets which cost me $40. They are now installed in a unit I own. The point is; discards can be fixed if you have the nous and the will.

You seem to have missed the point of the highlighted part. I haven't made a number of accusations, the other comments are linked to the Trumpism. You stated "I don't think having one new board member that hasn't been hand selected by the board would lead to instability unless they had something to hide." If you had of put a full stop in after "instability" I would have agreed with you but you chose to obfuscate and included the bolded. The implication is; "The Board has something to hide". It is classic Donald and politician speak designed to undermine support. I don't know if you're deliberately doing that or if you are someone who doesn't understand.

As far as player movement is concerned; 2 years ago a number of our players who hailed from down Geelong way were offered good money to return to the fold. The exception of course was Lilly Mithen, she rejected the offer and we also found a way to gainfully employ her in other ways. While on that subject; anyone on this site who refers to her as " The Mouth" again, will have to be prepared for a little backlash. Sorry I said a little, I meant a lot.

Wow, that is some serious Trumpism there. So are we trying to cover up serious matters like a poor culture towards ethnic minorities? Let's storm the MCG and make it known we are as big a group of redneck idiots. While I wasn't against the independent candidate I also thought the timing was wrong. A stable Board that are on the same page with some fresh faces is what I hoped for. Anyone who thinks that Brad Green doesn't have the best interests of the club at heart is a moron. Whether the Board makes the right decisions going forward will be a matter of debate however we have voted and now it is up to the PASSIONATE Red and Blue Board Members to deliver. If they don't we will get another opportunity to hold them accountable, but at the moment, as members, we must simply get behind them. GO DEES

4 pages in and finally someone who gets it. Thanks OD, for a minute there I thought I was going to have to say something derogatory about the average Demonlander ... again. Last time I did that I came under fire with a lot of people responding thinking my comments were directed at them. I really appreciate the way you raised this, unfortunately I'm not that subtle.

Unfortunately the pessimist will say it won't last long or they will find something else to be pessimistic about.

Told you this would be full of banter. I appreciate the reply, just because we don't agree on everything doesn't mean we can't have the conversation. Not that I expect many on here to understand this, but our system of democracy is based on debate and opinion. Unfortunately, that's not the best for a better world. I'm really appreciative of your reply as it doesn't necessarily indicate a closed mind.

I think this will be a great league to join in. I expect a lot of banter, not all of which will be fit for consumption on Demonland. Let me guess, you think The Donald wasn't derisive and you moonlight as Eddie Everywhere's speech writer.

Are you wearing an Alfoil hat or are you trying to make me angry?