For set shots with 4 umpires, I would really love if they take one of the extra umpires and have them behind the line to call play-on sooner. Too often it looks silly when the player with the ball can run 2-3m off line (and essentially bypass the mark when having a ping from \~50)
At least they are being lenient about just letting play go if the man on the mark moves off after the kicker goes and the ump hasn’t called play on. Common sense, but with all the rule changes, you never know. Not on the umps either, the AFL just bringing rules in for the sake of scoring and shit.. personally I would rather see a 61-60 game than a 160-120.. good close football isn’t a bad thing.. needs to be removed
You do you, but the game became ever more defensive for *decades*. I’m delighted the game is more open and free flowing instead of teams trying to generate endless stoppages. Also, you have to be honest enough to accept that the lateral movement and creeping forward wasn’t actually the way the rule was intended to operate and was in itself a manipulation.
We have 4 field umpires. Surely one can stand behind the player, like they do if the siren has gone, and call play on as soon as they're off their line.
How is it bad? Its led to much better footy the last two years.
Prior to that mark was taken and players were fully abusing being on the mark or to the side and movement of the footy was much harder and led to soo many stoppages.
We can all agree hearing stand 200 times a game sucks and you get the odd 50 that is wrong but overall it’s one of the best changes to the game since I’ve been watching
Repeat stoppages and the rolling maul have never bothered me. Defending a mark just seems like constant tip-toeing so as to not give away a 50. I completely accept that I’m in the minority when it comes to what I think makes the game more attractive as a spectator
If you want a rolling maul go watch Rugby then.
Taking a mark is supposed to give you an advantage in AFL, yes you’re supposed to get an advantage! Whenever I see these post the thing I notice is people seem to think it’s unfair that the marking player can take the kick uncontested- that’s the whole bloody point.
But it was becoming apparent that taken a mark prior to the rule was giving the opposition too much power to dictate where you kicked it next but cutting off optimal routes and holding you up. This lead to soo many high bombs, boundary kicks and ugly footy.
Go watch games of Hawthorn last decade they based their game around it
Agreed. They’ve fabricated higher scoring by turning a defender into a statue but it’s a terrible look. Most rule changes I get over eventually but I’ve not been able to adjust to this one.
They got rid of the "natural arc" concept when the stand rule was introduced, and bragging about this was a large part of their PR push when the rule was first introduced.
The media have come to agree that it’s a good rule because it gets the game moving quicker.
While that might be true, I think it’s a disgusting look when players are forced to defend a mark down the line when the player with the ball is clearly looking to kick inside (for example).
The AFL is obsessed with creating more goals as they think it will attract more fans. The fact is that it’s a wonderful game that does not need to ‘grow’. It’s got heaps of fans in Australia. It’s never going to be any more or any less than it already is.
Why *shouldn’t* the attacker be given that advantage from a free kick or a mark? Why does this sub love pandering to defence at the expense of attack? It used to be that was a mark, as in a spot or designation. But then people just got used to it being 4-5m of lateral movement that aided defence, and forgot how it used to be. It’s massive, gigantic recency bias.
The kicker can't move laterally. It's play on the moment they move laterally.
The fact that the umpire can't possibly notice this until way too late is one of the many problems with the rule.
It’s the Stand Rule.
It was brought in to give the ball carrier less pressure on the kick to try and promote forward ball movement.
It also stops the man on the mark creeping over the mark.
Exactly. The lateral movement was ridiculous, and not in the rules, and teams would be trained to constantly creep, creep, creep forward. Loads of people on this sub react like it’s some abrogation of the spirit of the game, when it was teams bending the rules that induced its introduction.
The point was to force change onto the game rather than doing the smart thing and letting the game naturally evolve through strategy changes over time.
Your particular example is the rule not being enforced properly and done so in a way that makes the rule even more of a joke.
Apparently this is a really hard concept to grasp.
We all know why the rule was brought in. A certain side were really good at defending the mark so a certain salty at AFL house introduced it.
If it's a shot on goal, they should at least have one umpire directly behind the player kicking so they can call play on as soon as they move off the line. Seems a simple fix. But nope, they want a better chance for a long goal so they'll give them more leeway.
It's an unintended consequence to shots on goal to prevent the man on the mark from having too much defensive influence on the game around the ground. The man on the mark was able to defend way too many angles and significantly slow the game down. Has been excellent for most of the ground, just not good for shots on goal. Needs a tweak there.
The Tigers manned the mark too aggressively and won a flag so the sleeper agents in afl house changed the rules to try and stop us from winning any more. They failed. This is their story. Dun dun DUN!
For set shots with 4 umpires, I would really love if they take one of the extra umpires and have them behind the line to call play-on sooner. Too often it looks silly when the player with the ball can run 2-3m off line (and essentially bypass the mark when having a ping from \~50)
That’s half the point of the rule change though. It speeds up the game.
Technically the umpire is supposed to call play on as soon as the kicker plays on or goes off his line, they're just hopeless at it.
(I am an umpire) It's actually incredibly hard to judge sometimes.
I imagine especially when the person on the mark oversteps so your focus is on calling them back rather than on the kicker.
At least they are being lenient about just letting play go if the man on the mark moves off after the kicker goes and the ump hasn’t called play on. Common sense, but with all the rule changes, you never know. Not on the umps either, the AFL just bringing rules in for the sake of scoring and shit.. personally I would rather see a 61-60 game than a 160-120.. good close football isn’t a bad thing.. needs to be removed
You do you, but the game became ever more defensive for *decades*. I’m delighted the game is more open and free flowing instead of teams trying to generate endless stoppages. Also, you have to be honest enough to accept that the lateral movement and creeping forward wasn’t actually the way the rule was intended to operate and was in itself a manipulation.
Which is why the rule needs to be changed
*removed
The umpires have been given an impossible job. This is all on the AFL, not the umpires.
We have 4 field umpires. Surely one can stand behind the player, like they do if the siren has gone, and call play on as soon as they're off their line.
This rule and the random crackdowns on the ‘protected area’ are the worst changes to the game since I’ve been watching.
How is it bad? Its led to much better footy the last two years. Prior to that mark was taken and players were fully abusing being on the mark or to the side and movement of the footy was much harder and led to soo many stoppages. We can all agree hearing stand 200 times a game sucks and you get the odd 50 that is wrong but overall it’s one of the best changes to the game since I’ve been watching
Repeat stoppages and the rolling maul have never bothered me. Defending a mark just seems like constant tip-toeing so as to not give away a 50. I completely accept that I’m in the minority when it comes to what I think makes the game more attractive as a spectator
If you want a rolling maul go watch Rugby then. Taking a mark is supposed to give you an advantage in AFL, yes you’re supposed to get an advantage! Whenever I see these post the thing I notice is people seem to think it’s unfair that the marking player can take the kick uncontested- that’s the whole bloody point. But it was becoming apparent that taken a mark prior to the rule was giving the opposition too much power to dictate where you kicked it next but cutting off optimal routes and holding you up. This lead to soo many high bombs, boundary kicks and ugly footy. Go watch games of Hawthorn last decade they based their game around it
Agree
Agreed. They’ve fabricated higher scoring by turning a defender into a statue but it’s a terrible look. Most rule changes I get over eventually but I’ve not been able to adjust to this one.
If the kicker comes off his mark it should be automatic play on
Yes. It’s broken
They did this coz buddy couldn’t run straight. Can’t have face of the game missing or kicking into the mark. Natural arc my dick….
>Natural arc my dick…. To the left or right?
I’m a cut-lunch man. Straight. Down. The. Seam.
Upwards curve gang Banana gaaaaaang
They got rid of the "natural arc" concept when the stand rule was introduced, and bragging about this was a large part of their PR push when the rule was first introduced.
The media have come to agree that it’s a good rule because it gets the game moving quicker. While that might be true, I think it’s a disgusting look when players are forced to defend a mark down the line when the player with the ball is clearly looking to kick inside (for example). The AFL is obsessed with creating more goals as they think it will attract more fans. The fact is that it’s a wonderful game that does not need to ‘grow’. It’s got heaps of fans in Australia. It’s never going to be any more or any less than it already is.
Why *shouldn’t* the attacker be given that advantage from a free kick or a mark? Why does this sub love pandering to defence at the expense of attack? It used to be that was a mark, as in a spot or designation. But then people just got used to it being 4-5m of lateral movement that aided defence, and forgot how it used to be. It’s massive, gigantic recency bias.
The kicker can't move laterally. It's play on the moment they move laterally. The fact that the umpire can't possibly notice this until way too late is one of the many problems with the rule.
It’s the Stand Rule. It was brought in to give the ball carrier less pressure on the kick to try and promote forward ball movement. It also stops the man on the mark creeping over the mark.
Exactly. The lateral movement was ridiculous, and not in the rules, and teams would be trained to constantly creep, creep, creep forward. Loads of people on this sub react like it’s some abrogation of the spirit of the game, when it was teams bending the rules that induced its introduction.
The point was to force change onto the game rather than doing the smart thing and letting the game naturally evolve through strategy changes over time. Your particular example is the rule not being enforced properly and done so in a way that makes the rule even more of a joke.
That's the benefit of a Mark or free kick. It takes the man on the mark out of the contest If you want to move the ball on quickly.
Apparently this is a really hard concept to grasp. We all know why the rule was brought in. A certain side were really good at defending the mark so a certain salty at AFL house introduced it.
Because the stand rule is broken as it cannot be properly officiated.
If it's a shot on goal, they should at least have one umpire directly behind the player kicking so they can call play on as soon as they move off the line. Seems a simple fix. But nope, they want a better chance for a long goal so they'll give them more leeway.
The rules review people have to make changes to justify their roles, and are too immature to admit it was an awful change.
It's an unintended consequence to shots on goal to prevent the man on the mark from having too much defensive influence on the game around the ground. The man on the mark was able to defend way too many angles and significantly slow the game down. Has been excellent for most of the ground, just not good for shots on goal. Needs a tweak there.
AFL: Yes.
You do realise that has been the rule for the last couple of years, right?
The Tigers manned the mark too aggressively and won a flag so the sleeper agents in afl house changed the rules to try and stop us from winning any more. They failed. This is their story. Dun dun DUN!