The protected area and the new rules.

[mjp]

So - I need someone to help me understand a rule I cannot get my head around.

1/. There are now two (2) differently defined protected areas.
- ONE is in effect when the ball is being kicked in after a point. Section 17.3 of the rules defines this.
- The OTHER is in effect after a mark or free-kick - section 20.1.2 (b) defines this.

2/. Apparently the definitions of 20.1.2 (B) also apply to the area defined in 17.3 - hence they are both called 'The PROTECTED AREA'. It reads like this:

No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field
Umpire calls ‘Play On’ or the Player from the opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent. Any Player caught in the Protected Area must make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area.

-------------
Now - and I know I am prob the only one trying to get my head around this - this means that should a player chase after an opponent into the protected area during a kick in - which is now 24m deep RIGHT ACROSS THE OVAL (the square is 9m + the 'blue dot' signalling the protected area is a further 15m out! - a 50m penalty 'can' be the result. As in, if you are more than 2m behind, that is a protected zone violation and the ball will be moved from the 24m 'blue dot' - which is 'the mark' and advanced 50m straight down the middle of the field.

The umpires are telling me they will be taking a 'liberal' view of this rule...but that is something that sounds cool in Feb but feels a lot less fun in May when it is being officiated like crazy.

I was at a presentation about all this last night and I am pretty clear on the standard 'protected area' thing around the ground. I mean, it's completely stupid and the AFL have lost their minds, but, whatever - I get it. But this massive boundary line to boundary line protected zone that appears after every point that no-one is allowed into? I am really battling to understand how that works, how it is to be policed etc.

Has anyone got their head around it?

[Happy Days]

The AFL makes a bad rule; everyone hates it; the AFL changes the bad rule; Murdoch gets to run 4 months of headlines about no one doing anything in a cabinet members office

[Twodogs]

Hang on. Pretend I'm stupid and I'm having trouble understanding concept #2, the kick out zone thingy.

Does it mean that when a defender is kicking out that no attacking player will be allowed closer than an area that is pretty much half of the inside 50 metre zone? And if one does that the kicker will be bought 75 metres up the ground? Do I have that right? I can't do because that's insane.

Most grounds are around 170-180 metres long so that means the kicker will be inside the centre square. What about players from the defending team, will they be allowed in the 24 metre area? Or is that when their opponent can follow within 2 metres of them?

What problem are we solving with this rule change anyway?

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Hang on. Pretend I'm stupid and I'm having trouble understanding concept #2, the kick out zone thingy.

Does it mean that when a defender is kicking out that no attacking player will be allowed closer than an area that is pretty much half of the inside 50 metre zone? And if one does that the kicker will be bought 75 metres up the ground? Do I have that right? I can't do because that's insane.

Most grounds are around 170-180 metres long so that means the kicker will be inside the centre square. What about players from the defending team, will they be allowed in the 24 metre area? Or is that when their opponent can follow within 2 metres of them?

What problem are we solving with this rule change anyway?

Sounds to me, if I'm reading correctly (every chance I'm not), the AFL is declaring war on teams that try to keep the ball inside their own 50, by basically allowing free reign of defenders to run inside 50 to receive a kick in unopposed.
If true, its nuts, teams will adjust their press accordingly and focus on the next passage of play.

[bornadog]

Sounds to me, if I'm reading correctly (every chance I'm not), the AFL is declaring war on teams that try to keep the ball inside their own 50, by basically allowing free reign of defenders to run inside 50 to receive a kick in unopposed.
If true, its nuts, teams will adjust their press accordingly and focus on the next passage of play.

Which is what happens now due to the rule of just playing on from a kick in. I hated that rule when it was brought in as it is one of the fundamentals that Aussie rules was developed on. Now they are extending that with protection zones.

In 10 years time, this game is going to be unrecognisable.

[josie]

I actually feel sorry for the umpires having to interpret these rules. These contentious changes are, to quote Hairspray’s Motormouth Mabelle “a whole lot of ugly coming from a never ending parade of stupid”. There are already too many decisions that leave supporters scratching their heads & changing interpretations from week to week and sometimes game to game, usually after uproar that umpires have been too harsh. It’s Hocking and the AFL that are the blight yet the umps will cop it sweet. This will only add the pain.

[mjp]

Pretend I'm stupid and I'm having trouble understanding concept #2...


...ummm, if you line them up, I'll knock them down.

I have no problem 'pretending' this part! :-)



Does it mean that when a defender is kicking out that no attacking player will be allowed closer than an area that is pretty much half of the inside 50 metre zone? And if one does that the kicker will be bought 75 metres up the ground? Do I have that right? I can't do because that's insane.


The 'protected zone' goes from the 'blue dot' (15m out from the top of the 9m goal square) in an arc right across the ground. The arc ends 15m away from each point post. So...depending on the width of the ground it will be a flatter shape or a 'fatter' shape!

No PLAYER can go in there. If an attacker (players on the team who are kicking out) runs in there, he will be told to clear the protected area...but a mark will be paid if he runs in there and the ball is kicked to him. If a defender goes in there, well...that's where it gets tricky. Technically if he is more than 2m away from his opponent when he runs in there...well, that's 50m. And the ball will be placed 50m from the man on the mark (aka, the blue dot) which will be 74m from goal!

It gets worse. All over the field, the team in possession cannot block the man on the mark. But in the situation of kick-in after points, they ARE permitted to block the player on the blue dot. 'cos that wont be confusing.

[mjp]

Oh yeah - you want to know something else?

After the umpire says stand, you cannot 'leave' the mark until play-on is called. You cannot hand the mark over to someone else, you cannot do a thing. If you move laterally, forwards or backwards - if you do anything more than jump up and down on the spot - that is 50m.

I'm sure the players will get it but it is seriously messing with my brain....

[SquirrelGrip]

I actually feel sorry for the umpires having to interpret these rules. These contentious changes are, to quote Hairspray’s Motormouth Mabelle “a whole lot of ugly coming from a never ending parade of stupid”.

I believe that’s the first time Hairspray has been quoted on WOOF.

[Happy Days]

I found the protected area its the 5m around Karen Paxman any time she touches the ball.

[mjp]

I found the protected area its the 5m around Karen Paxman any time she touches the ball.

Funny thing - the AFLW aren't playing the new rule. Or if they are, the umpires are simply not officiating it.

I had to umpire a game yesterday and I must have said the word 'STAND' 300 times. It was a JOKE.

[Twodogs]

...ummm, if you line them up, I'll knock them down.

I have no problem 'pretending' this part! :-)



The 'protected zone' goes from the 'blue dot' (15m out from the top of the 9m goal square) in an arc right across the ground. The arc ends 15m away from each point post. So...depending on the width of the ground it will be a flatter shape or a 'fatter' shape!

No PLAYER can go in there. If an attacker (players on the team who are kicking out) runs in there, he will be told to clear the protected area...but a mark will be paid if he runs in there and the ball is kicked to him. If a defender goes in there, well...that's where it gets tricky. Technically if he is more than 2m away from his opponent when he runs in there...well, that's 50m. And the ball will be placed 50m from the man on the mark (aka, the blue dot) which will be 74m from goal!

It gets worse. All over the field, the team in possession cannot block the man on the mark. But in the situation of kick-in after points, they ARE permitted to block the player on the blue dot. 'cos that wont be confusing.

OK sir, riddle me this. If I'm still not quite sure what's going on does that make me stupid? What if a teammate runs in, has the ball kicked to him and drops the mark? Is that a free kick to the closest forward in an area where he can presumably in a spot from where he can have a shot?

I'm scared sir.

[jeemak]

They should definitely put a 24 metre line on each ground and we can all explain to folks new to the game why the goal square is nine metres long, the protected area is fifteen metres out from there, the fifty metre arc is well - fifty metres and an infringement will result in the kicker being taken to seventy-four metres out from goal.

What definitely doesn't make sense is extending the goal square by one metre. You can't mess with tradition that is so integral to the fabric of the game such as the length of the goal square.

[Hotdog60]

Soon we'll have 10m lines on the ground like gridiron.

[boydogs]

But this massive boundary line to boundary line protected zone that appears after every point that no-one is allowed into? I am really battling to understand how that works, how it is to be policed etc.

Sounds like the offside rule, defenders lined up at the halfway line until an attacker runs forward

[Mofra]

Oh yeah - you want to know something else?

After the umpire says stand, you cannot 'leave' the mark until play-on is called. You cannot hand the mark over to someone else, you cannot do a thing. If you move laterally, forwards or backwards - if you do anything more than jump up and down on the spot - that is 50m.

I'm sure the players will get it but it is seriously messing with my brain....
Apparently teams are experimenting with not manning the mark at all in the entire forward half of the ground (when the defensive team have the ball in their back half), as the man on the mark is useless anyway as they cannot take a single step laterally.

Terry Wallace circa 2000 vs Essendon is in play here. The idea is to speed the play up but there are circumstances where the kicker will now be kicking to a 17 vs 18 man zone making it harder to spot up a free player.

This will completely change the way teams set-up. It will have massive team selection issues too - defenders who can defend but have a poor tank will be lost to the game (Aaron Francis types - and where does this leave Will Gould?)
We may see some sides ditch their second ruck altogether especially with the cap reducing from 90 to 75. Other teams will play their ruck a kick behind the play a la Wynd (and English for the last 2/3rds of last year) and have a KPF take ruck duties in the forward third of the ground. Galaxy Coleman time!

This is going to infuriate fans more than 50m penalties for encroaching on the protected area from the side. The game will change substantially this year, and adding 'grey zone' for umpires to officiate makes the impossible task of umpiring AFL just that little bit harder.

[bornadog]

Oh yeah - you want to know something else?

After the umpire says stand, you cannot 'leave' the mark until play-on is called. You cannot hand the mark over to someone else, you cannot do a thing. If you move laterally, forwards or backwards - if you do anything more than jump up and down on the spot - that is 50m.

I'm sure the players will get it but it is seriously messing with my brain....

Total and utter madness by the AFL.

If they introduce the rules they are experimenting with in the VFL, ie 3 players staying in their zone, I am out of here.

[soupman]

Total and utter madness by the AFL.

If they introduce the rules they are experimenting with in the VFL, ie 3 players staying in their zone, I am out of here.

No you won't be. None of us are leaving.

That's the annoying thing, they know that no matter what they do to "improve" the game the loyals will return. Much like how Channel 7 know their commentary team is woeful, but that the vast majority of supporters will tune in anyway cause there aren't any alternatives. So both those organizations will just keep changing stuff to attract the people on the fringes, knowing that they might as well give the guy who is only mildly interested in watching what he wants instead of the guy who turns up very week because the second guy is locked in.

At least on the Channel 7 front there are alternatives to listen too, even though it's a nightmare trying to sync them up.

[GVGjr]

Total and utter madness by the AFL.

If they introduce the rules they are experimenting with in the VFL, ie 3 players staying in their zone, I am out of here.

Agreed, this is not the way to improve scoring, it will be an error ridden game

[Twodogs]

No you won't be. None of us are leaving.

5 to 9 baby, 9 to 5. No-one here gets out alive.

[Twodogs]

Agreed, this is not the way to improve scoring, it will be an error ridden game

The stupid and frustrating thing is they outlawed third man up, last tactic that combatted congestion, sped the game up and let the good players get the ball with time and space to do something creative with it. Now we have the unedifying sight of 200 CM men putting their hands up like schoolkids and ruck contest after ruck contest.

Will they admit they made a mistake? On no. They'd rather the game died a slow strangulated death than do that.

[Happy Days]

No you won't be. None of us are leaving.

That's the annoying thing, they know that no matter what they do to "improve" the game the loyals will return. Much like how Channel 7 know their commentary team is woeful, but that the vast majority of supporters will tune in anyway cause there aren't any alternatives. So both those organizations will just keep changing stuff to attract the people on the fringes, knowing that they might as well give the guy who is only mildly interested in watching what he wants instead of the guy who turns up very week because the second guy is locked in.

At least on the Channel 7 front there are alternatives to listen too, even though it's a nightmare trying to sync them up.

Yep. The AFL is very aware that football is heroin and they will get mine and everyone else’s money no matter how little regard they pay to what the fans actually want. Its exactly why there’s a team on the Gold Coast and not in Tassie.

[bornadog]

AFL clubs ‘really struggling’ with new ‘stand’ rule that may blow 2021 wide open (https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2021-rule-change-new-man-on-the-mark-rule-stand-rule-players-struggling-umpiring-low-scoring-stats/news-story/fa63340f96d049b899ea27a73fb40960)
AFL clubs are “really struggling” to come to terms with the new man-on-the-mark rule for 2021, which could have a dramatic impact on scoring and open up matches.


The new rule will see umpires tell players manning the mark to “stand”, after which they aren’t allowed to move from their position, nor be replaced by a teammate.


AFL footy operations boss Steve Hocking has said he wants to see “greater flow” in matches. The rule should hurt the ability of defenders to force players to kick out wide, rather than through the corridor, and therefore enable faster ball movement.

Umpires have been attending training sessions throughout the pre-season to help players come to terms with the new rule, but Essendon great Matthew Lloyd believes it may have a dramatic impact.


“I’ve heard some teams are really struggling with (the new stand rule),” he told 3AW‘s Sportsday.


“The umpires have been at up to 310 training sessions amongst clubs, I heard (Swans coach) John Longmire say he hopes it’s not a 50-metre goal fest.

“A player at one club took one step, whistle goes and it’s a 50-metre penalty. I reckon the umpires are going to be ferocious on this rule early on.


“They say stand, you place once foot away (from the mark) and they were paying 50-metre penalties.”

However Brownlow medallist Gerard Healy believes the rule will be a success if it leads to higher scoring, even if there are more 50-metre penalties than expected at first.


Scoring has declined in recent seasons. The average team score of 2019 was just 80.4 points, the lowest since 1967. Between 2010-17, the average hovered between 86 and 93 points per team per week.


“What (Steve) Hocking would be asking for would be better ball movement,” Healy said.


“The game is a better game when it goes from backline to forward line without going sideways. There’s nothing wrong with slow play, but if all you’ve got is slow play then it’s a boring game.


“If it means a few players initially give away a few 50-metre penalties, who cares about that.


“They will adapt and the umpires will adapt. Ultimately what you’re doing, and I think this is the key to this 50-metre penalty, is you’re not allowing someone like Tom Hawkins to stand on the mark from behind the bloke with the ball, so that releases another player to go into defence.


“What you’re saying is what’s in defence stays in defence, if we get quicker ball movement which leads to more goals then that’s surely a win.”

[Hotdog60]

The game is controlled by wankers.
When the AFL commission first came into power it was to represent all the clubs. I believe the Commission need 75% of votes from the league to do anything significant. The league then gave up the power to the commission and now they are controlled by the commission at the request of media rights.
Bugger the game.
I may be wrong on some of these facts but one fact is true the wankers up the top have lost the plot.

[bornadog]

one fact is true the wankers up the top have lost the plot.

I have been saying that for years.

[Twodogs]

How is higher scoring automatically better football? Does it then follow that 200 points v 180 points is the greatest game in the history of the sport even if it's a manipulated result? If the game has no tackling or defensive pressure will that make it a more enjoyable spectacle?

What a load of horseshit. The AFL commission have completely lost the plot. To be fair they never really had a lot of sense but since Gillon McLachlan and in particular Steve Hocking came along it's gotten sillier than ever.

[Axe Man]

The game is controlled by wankers.
When the AFL commission first came into power it was to represent all the clubs. I believe the Commission need 75% of votes from the league to do anything significant. The league then gave up the power to the commission and now they are controlled by the commission at the request of media rights.
Bugger the game.
I may be wrong on some of these facts but one fact is true the wankers up the top have lost the plot.

Is this the chairman?
https://i.postimg.cc/cCdJDgBk/leowanker.jpg

[Grantysghost]

Check this out in Lions v Suns. Daniher arcs 5 to 10 metres and the poor old Suns player just has to watch.
https://streamable.com/iwx2kh

[jeemak]

Check this out in Lions v Suns. Daniher arcs 5 to 10 metres and the poor old Suns player just has to watch.
https://streamable.com/iwx2kh

But did you notice how much the ground opened up allowing free flowing play as a result?

You have to look at the bigger picture. After all, the purpose of the rule was to increase scoring and it looks to have done that so far.......

[Grantysghost]

But did you notice how much the ground opened up allowing free flowing play as a result?

You have to look at the bigger picture. After all, the purpose of the rule was to increase scoring and it looks to have done that so far.......

Daniher could've just keep running on past the guy on the mark, put that to Benny Hill music and we've got something entertaining and free flowing.

[Before I Die]

How is higher scoring automatically better football? Does it then follow that 200 points v 180 points is the greatest game in the history of the sport even if it's a manipulated result? If the game has no tackling or defensive pressure will that make it a more enjoyable spectacle?

What a load of horseshit. The AFL commission have completely lost the plot. To be fair they never really had a lot of sense but since Gillon McLachlan and in particular Steve Hocking came along it's gotten sillier than ever.

It's not about higher scoring, that's a furphy, it's about scoring more goals. Why? Because each goal equates to advertising income generated by the extended stoppage in play. When dollars are involved, nothing else has any relevance for the AFL. It's difficult to think of any significant change introduced by the AFL Commission that wasn't about revenue creation.

[jeemak]

Daniher could've just keep running on past the guy on the mark, put that to Benny Hill music and we've got something entertaining and free flowing.

I actually wanted to raise the exact instance as being a tactic to be deployed when players are slightly out of goal range - but didn't because it's clearly too absurd.........

Just start your run up three metres away from the man on the mark and by the time you've sprinted past him and the umpire has called play on you're already three metres in the clear because the man on the mark can't move without infringing.

[jeemak]

It's not about higher scoring, that's a furphy, it's about scoring more goals. Why? Because each goal equates to advertising income generated by the extended stoppage in play. When dollars are involved, nothing else has any relevance for the AFL. It's difficult to think of any significant change introduced by the AFL Commission that wasn't about revenue creation.

Yep. They don't care whether the goals are scored from fluid play or from fifty metre penalties. They just want more goals.

[Before I Die]

But did you notice how much the ground opened up allowing free flowing play as a result?

You have to look at the bigger picture. After all, the purpose of the rule was to increase scoring and it looks to have done that so far.......

I don't like the rule, but given that it now exists, they should modify it so that it doesn't apply when kicking for goal. It's not like this would be without precedent. There are already a different set of rules for players taking a direct shot at goal in that they are given more time before they have to take the kick. They even have an an official timer! Oh wait... I forgot, it's all about scoring more goals, so I guess that idea is not going to fly.

[Hotdog60]

They also allow Buddy to wander 5 metres off the mark because apparently the arc is his natural kicking style.

[Topdog]

Healy is an idiot but he actually said what the rule change should have been.


“They will adapt and the umpires will adapt. Ultimately what you’re doing, and I think this is the key to this 50-metre penalty, is you’re not allowing someone like Tom Hawkins to stand on the mark from behind the bloke with the ball, so that releases another player to go into defence.


“What you’re saying is what’s in defence stays in defence, if we get quicker ball movement which leads to more goals then that’s surely a win.”

So basically no changing the man on the mark, thats all that was needed. A simple change to the rule that allows for better flow and less flooding back.

I still dont think such a change was needed but there would have been much less complaining.

[bornadog]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Evg__tGVgAIxQ1v?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[jeemak]

Wowsers, talk about being taken out of context!

What he said (which I'm sure you know BAD) was that umpires can't watch both the player on the mark and the player with the ball at the same time, meaning that some leeway is going to be needed to be given to the player on the mark so the umpire can watch the player with the ball to call play on. If that doesn't happen then the fans will go wild.

I expect better from SEN............... ;)

[jazzadogs]

Yep. They don't care whether the goals are scored from fluid play or from fifty metre penalties. They just want more goals.

Stupidly though I have been told that this rule is also being implemented in local football (Eastern FL), which does not lead to further advertising dollars but rather part time footballers being severely punished by inexperienced volunteer umpires. Should be fun!

[Axe Man]

Some context to Bevo's comments:


Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has called on the AFL to “bend” on its controversial new man on the mark rule to avoid fan outrage and umpiring inconsistency.

The rule change forces the player on the mark to remain standing in the one spot and not being allowed to move in any direction.

Fans became disgruntled last weekend when a 50m penalty was paid against Fremantle’s Brennan Cox for moving off the mark, handing West Coast’s Oscar Allen a goal from right in front.

AFL boss Gillon McLachlan this week called for patience on the new rule, but Beveridge on Wednesday morning said the new mandate asked too much of the umpires.

“Essentially the umpires need to rub their tummy and pat their head at the same time with this rule,” Beveridge said on SEN.

“It’s like a gun fight on the streets of Tombstone where it is whoever flinches first really.

“The thing is the umpire has to keep his eye on the player with the ball and the guy on the mark.

“It’s too hard to do that, so whoever moves first it’s either play on if the guy with the ball moves first or it’s a 50 metre penalty if the guy on the mark moves first.”

The 2016 premiership coach said he believed consistency would be an issue if a change was not made before Round 1.

“My feedback has been that it’s not about the ones they’ve paid, it’s the 15 to 20 of ones in the game they didn’t pay when they were there,” he said.

“Whether it’s play on or 50 metres, so you can’t actually umpire the rule to the letter that they’re trying to umpire it.

“So they’ll have to bend and let the guy on the mark move a little bit, otherwise it’s not going to work.

“If they don’t do that, the grandstands at the MCG are going to fall down when these 50-metre penalties are paid.”

Another interesting development:


Buddy’s arc gone in another rule shake-up
– Sam Landsberger

The “Buddy Franklin kicking arc” is dead.

As the football world goes into meltdown over footage of a 50m paid in an Essendon intra-club match, the Herald Sun can reveal there is a secret twist to the controversial new rule governing players standing on the mark.

AFL umpires have been instructed to call “play on” whenever a player deviates off his line after taking a mark or being awarded a free kick.

The kicker now has to be in a direct line with the attacking goals, no matter where on the ground the mark or free kick is paid.

This could spell problems for Franklin who has an exaggerated arc to the left when he has kicking at goal.

This stricter interpretation has been coached to umpires over the pre-season, but it has not yet been communicated publicly by the AFL. Clubs have been informed, but footy fans have not been.

Given that the player on the mark has effectively been “spared” — made inactive because he now has to remain stationary or give away 50m — the expectation is that the kicker must execute along the correct line.

Without that rule in place, the player in possession could simply evade the man on the mark by running around him.Signalling “play on” will bring the man on the mark back into action.

According to umpires, no longer will Franklin be allowed to wheel on to his left foot — in what has become one of football’s most symbolic sights — without “play on” being called.

The Herald Sun has contacted Sydney Swans for feedback.

Similarly, any AFL player who strays from that straight line in search of extra distance will also be called to play on.

Multiple umpiring sources have confirmed that if any player wanders off their direct line of kick – either through a natural arc or to get an advantage – play on will be called, so long as it is obvious to the umpire that has occurred.

Umpires are privately being told to be vigilant. The new rule has not gone down well with some, who fear they are on a hiding to nothing this season. They have voiced their feedback to AFL House.

The league bent its own rules to protect Franklin’s arc 10 years ago.

In 2011 umpires were told that players “who have a natural arc in their kicking action” would be allowed leeway before being called to play on.

But AFL umpires’ coach Hayden Kennedy reiterated at a recent training session that the rule had been tightened by rule makers, and they must now call play-on as soon as players go off their direct line.

The whistleblowers immediately raised Franklin as an example, and were told that he, too, has to kick over the player on the mark.

They are sceptical because it is yet another grey part of the game to police.

Any time a player backs off, and it is noticeable to the umpire that he has backed off more north-south, it will be called “play on”.

The player must be on the most direct line as possible approaching the kick as well.

AFL umpires say this new interpretation hasn’t been put to the test yet. They are awaiting an example at the upcoming trial games.

The new man on the mark rule was almost a non-event at the Western Bulldogs-Hawthorn match.

Onlookers said that Marcus Bontempelli gave away a 50m penalty late in the game, but simply forgot about the new rule and immediately put up his hand to apologise.


Link (https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/news/afl-2021-lance-franklins-natural-kicking-arc-could-cause-the-sydney-swans-star-trouble-as-afl-umpires-told-to-tighten-interpretation/news-story/b30283598b96a94d966e59c373b45b9e)

[bornadog]

For the life of me, why why why.

[comrade]

Stupidly though I have been told that this rule is also being implemented in local football (Eastern FL), which does not lead to further advertising dollars but rather part time footballers being severely punished by inexperienced volunteer umpires. Should be fun!

I feel sorry for the umpires who will be absolutely copping it from all angles.

[Topdog]

*!*!*!*!ing shambles, even the umpires hate it.


Umpires are privately being told to be vigilant. The new rule has not gone down well with some, who fear they are on a hiding to nothing this season. They have voiced their feedback to AFL House.

[Rocket Science]

Another interesting development:

Buddy’s arc gone in another rule shake-up
– Sam Landsberger

The “Buddy Franklin kicking arc” is dead.

Looks like Suckers pulled the pin at the right time then too.

Short of the Dogs making more noise my primary motivation for the coming season will be rage-watching.

[Happy Days]

So banning the best goalkicker of the last 20 years and possibly most fun to watch player ever from doing his trade mark goal kicking routine is going to make the game more entertaining how exactly?

[comrade]

Bevo is right, how can you watch the player on the mark for a step to the side AND watch the player with the ball to call play on if required?

[Topdog]

Bevo is right, how can you watch the player on the mark for a step to the side AND watch the player with the ball to call play on if required?

also have to check if the player is being legitimate in their attempt on a shot at goal

[Bulldog Joe]

Bevo is right, how can you watch the player on the mark for a step to the side AND watch the player with the ball to call play on if required?

There are 3 umpires.

Surely 1 watches the player on the mark and another watches the player with the ball. The player on the mark and the ump watching him both know he needs to be stationary until the other ump calls play on.

It really shouldn't be difficult.

[Axe Man]

There are 3 umpires.

Surely 1 watches the player on the mark and another watches the player with the ball. The player on the mark and the ump watching him both know he needs to be stationary until the other ump calls play on.

It really shouldn't be difficult.

I think you are significantly underestimating the challenge for the umpires here. It's not like the player is taking a mark, ambling back and having a good long think about where he is going to kick it every time. On most occasions these are very fast moving situations as the player with the ball seeks to move it on quickly. It's already a very difficult game to umpire and this rule is asking a hell of a lot from the umps.

[comrade]

There are 3 umpires.

Surely 1 watches the player on the mark and another watches the player with the ball. The player on the mark and the ump watching him both know he needs to be stationary until the other ump calls play on.

It really shouldn't be difficult.

Fine for a set shot, not so much in open play.

[Eastdog]

The AFL keep changing the rules all the time partly because it is our local game that isn’t played worldwide. Imagine the uproar if they we’re doing this for Soccer or any other sport.

[Axe Man]

The AFL keep changing the rules all the time partly because it is our local game that isn’t played worldwide. Imagine the uproar if they we’re doing this for Soccer or any other sport.

"Low scoring games are really killing the game of soccer, we really should double the width of the goals" - Steven Hocking in his next role with the A League.

[comrade]

"Low scoring games are really killing the game of soccer, we really should double the width of the goals" - Steven Hocking in his next role with the A League.

I've never seen a national sporting organisation so insecure about the quality of their product.

[Eastdog]

"Low scoring games are really killing the game of soccer, we really should double the width of the goals" - Steven Hocking in his next role with the A League.

You can have very exciting 0-0 draws as well with lots of chances.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

I've never seen a national sporting organisation so insecure about the quality of their product.

Not that I don't disagree we make too many rule changes.. but its not just us, the NFL do as well, they are constantly at it.

[Topdog]

Which umpire is looking at the tagger who is holding off the ball?

[Grantysghost]

"Low scoring games are really killing the game of soccer, we really should double the width of the goals" - Steven Hocking in his next role with the A League.

Yes I don't get this high scoring means good sport idea.
Great defending can be a pleasure to watch. Does everything have to be 20/20 nowadays.

[Bulldog Joe]

Fine for a set shot, not so much in open play.

You still only need 1 umpire of the 3 to be responsible for the player on the mark until the other calls play on.

Since the umpires have areas that they control, they just need a system to allocate the different responsibilities. Obviously they won't be perfect whatever they do, but that is the nature of umpiring anyway.

[bornadog]

You still only need 1 umpire of the 3 to be responsible for the player on the mark until the other calls play on.

Since the umpires have areas that they control, they just need a system to allocate the different responsibilities. Obviously they won't be perfect whatever they do, but that is the nature of umpiring anyway.

It will be a shambles. Just wait when a GF is decided by a stupid free because the player on the mark sneazed and put his head back

[Hotdog60]

Don't worry if the Dogs exploit the new rules and win another premiership with a season of the highest goal percentage the AFL will dump the rule and go back to the old ways.

[Before I Die]

What happens with the Stevie Johnson checkside technique? They only recently modified the rules to allow players to start off the line and move perpendicular to the goals without being called play on as long as they didn’t cross the line of the man on the mark. They could even do this after the siren without being called play on. Is this now play on?

Banning it would cost goals so I’m predicting the AFL will find a way to finagle their way into making an exception.

[jeemak]

What happens with the Stevie Johnson checkside technique? They only recently modified the rules to allow players to start off the line and move perpendicular to the goals without being called play on as long as they didn’t cross the line of the man on the mark. They could even do this after the siren without being called play on. Is this now play on?

Banning it would cost goals so I’m predicting the AFL will find a way to finagle their way into making an exception.

So wouldn't Buddy just say he's doing that? Start off his line and finish on it? Can you do it from anywhere on the ground?

[Before I Die]

So wouldn't Buddy just say he's doing that? Start off his line and finish on it? Can you do it from anywhere on the ground?

This is what is going to bring things unstuck. Shades of grey upon shades of grey. I'll be surprised if there are no checkside shots on goals from marks or free kicks during the AAMI practice matches, so the answer may be soon apparent.

I still believe the underlying principle is more goals to generate more ads to generate more revenue, so every time the AFL is required to make a clarification/tweak, it will choose the option that creates more goals.

I'm predicting by mid season that the Lance Franklin 'natural arc' gets the green light and the Stevie Johnson checkside technique gets the green light. You read it here first.

[SquirrelGrip]

"Low scoring games are really killing the game of soccer, we really should double the width of the goals" - Steven Hocking in his next role with the A League.

Nah, get rid of off-side.

[comrade]

The new rule is leading to huge metres gained numbers for certain players. Short almost had 1km in metres last night. JJ should be licking his lips, Bailey Williams too.

[comrade]

Duplicate

[GVGjr]

Granted it's a small sample size but have some of the rules opened the game up?

[comrade]

I don’t like the protected area inside 50 for kick outs. Reckon it’s going to cause havoc for our high defensive press and we’ll leak lots of goals because of it.

[Grantysghost]

I don’t like the protected area inside 50 for kick outs. Reckon it’s going to cause havoc for our high defensive press and we’ll leak lots of goals because of it.

Yes it was evident especially in the first half that Melbourne were using that to their advantage.

Nearly every kick out made it to the wing, and they got out the back a couple of times.

Not sure the rule makes a lot of sense, and really puts a premium on goals v behinds now as locking it in much more difficult. That sounds odd but in terms of now not being able to miss and get the second bite of the cherry with forward pressure.

Rewards mediocrity in a way. Just take the point and get it immediately in your half.

[1eyedog]

Total and utter madness by the AFL.

If they introduce the rules they are experimenting with in the VFL, ie 3 players staying in their zone, I am out of here.

I already am. Tbh this is the last straw for me.

[1eyedog]

I already am. Tbh this is the last straw for me.

I mean I have a membership but I'm not going to any games this year.

[comrade]

I mean I have a membership but I'm not going to any games this year.

I'm heading that way too. I'll give it a few rounds to see how the rules wash out under proper game intensity, but it's feeling like we're moving to AFLX type goal scoring fests by any means necessary and I don't like it.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I’ve been basically one foot out since 2018 such is my level of interest in the game now. Didn’t watch a single game of footy in 2019. 2020 I watched some dogs games due to covid. This year who knows. I’ll tune into some dogs games but outside of our club I have no interest in watching the game anymore. Zoning rules would have me switch off permanently, no question.

[Bulldog Joe]

I am looking forward to going to games again, despite the rule changes.

Players adapt and I am a passionate sports fan and the Dogs are my team whenever they play anywhere!

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I am looking forward to going to games again, despite the rule changes.

Players adapt and I am a passionate sports fan and the Dogs are my team whenever they play anywhere!

I am similar Bulldog Joe. I love my sports and follow multiple leagues and the one thing that gets me passionately involved is having a team to get behind. I could never be one of those casual observer people who follow the game rather than a team.

The passion I have for the dogs remains. For the sport, less and less with each passing year. I am still interested in our progress but admittedly it's getting harder to watch games given a wide variety of factors. I haven't attended a game since 2018 so maybe this is what's missing for me.

[jeemak]

I checked out for a season in 2018 to see whether I preferred just watching from home and then went overseas until the end of 2019. Was unsure how much I'd enjoy going back, but it was just great watching live.

The players are so quick and skillful. Watching about six rows back on the wing you get an appreciation for how nuts the intensity is. Will be definitely going a bit more this year, silly rules aside.

[Axe Man]

I checked out for a season in 2018 to see whether I preferred just watching from home and then went overseas until the end of 2019. Was unsure how much I'd enjoy going back, but it was just great watching live.

The players are so quick and skillful. Watching about six rows back on the wing you get an appreciation for how nuts the intensity is. Will be definitely going a bit more this year, silly rules aside.

Nothing beats going to the footy for me, regardless of any meddling by the AFL. I much prefer it to watching on TV and find I get far less frustrated at the game than I do at home. Although opposition supporters can get annoying, such as the Melbourne supporters near me yesterday constantly whining about the umpiring - in a practice match!

Sat in the fifth row yesterday and whilst it was good to see the game from a different perspective to usual, I look forward to getting back up higher where I can see the play unfolding much more clearly.

[Grantysghost]

Nothing beats going to the footy for me, regardless of any meddling by the AFL. I much prefer it to watching on TV and find I get far less frustrated at the game than I do at home. Although opposition supporters can get annoying, such as the Melbourne supporters near me yesterday constantly whining about the umpiring - in a practice match!

Sat in the fifth row yesterday and whilst it was good to see the game from a different perspective to usual, I look forward to getting back up higher where I can see the play unfolding much more clearly.

My god they were whingers. Gawn was inciting them... He couldn't compute "PLAY WB AND LOSE RUCK CONTEST".

[bornadog]

Nothing beats going to the footy for me, regardless of any meddling by the AFL. I much prefer it to watching on TV and find I get far less frustrated at the game than I do at home. Although opposition supporters can get annoying, such as the Melbourne supporters near me yesterday constantly whining about the umpiring - in a practice match!

Sat in the fifth row yesterday and whilst it was good to see the game from a different perspective to usual, I look forward to getting back up higher where I can see the play unfolding much more clearly.


Agree, live footy is the best. I get frustrated watching on TV, especially listening to the commentators. They don't tell you what is going on, eg who is off the ground, what is happening behind play etc, you don't get a full perspective of the game.

I love my seats on level 2, great view.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Level two at Marvel is just the best view you can get in sports. You can’t get a better combo of being close to the action but high enough to see the play unfold. You feel on top of the players.

[GVGjr]

Level two at Marvel is just the best view you can get in sports. You can’t get a better combo of being close to the action but high enough to see the play unfold. You feel on top of the players.

I need to write something on the old Whitten Oval Can Bar. I still think nothing was better than that

[jeemak]

I need to write something on the old Whitten Oval Can Bar. I still think nothing was better than that

That's a big call from a non-drinker!

[jeemak]

Level two at Marvel is just the best view you can get in sports. You can’t get a better combo of being close to the action but high enough to see the play unfold. You feel on top of the players.

I used to get Medallion Club tickets for work and they were centre wing. You can hear the players and you're at the perfect level to see the play unfold.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I used to get Medallion Club tickets for work and they were centre wing. You can hear the players and you're at the perfect level to see the play unfold.

Yeah that’s the only time I got to level 2 as well. You can hear the collisions and all the communicating from the players yet at the same time you never have to watch the scoreboard when the ball is up the other end like you sometimes need to do when at ground level.

[bornadog]

I used to get Medallion Club tickets for work and they were centre wing. You can hear the players and you're at the perfect level to see the play unfold.

Those were the days :D

[Grantysghost]

Level two at Marvel is just the best view you can get in sports. You can’t get a better combo of being close to the action but high enough to see the play unfold. You feel on top of the players.

I would agree pre AAMI Park. That is an outstanding venue to watch sports.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

I would agree pre AAMI Park. That is an outstanding venue to watch sports.

Ahh yes I did forget AAMI.

That said, it’s much harder to get a great view for AFL than most other sports given the size of the ground and the rapid switches in play.

[soupman]

Ahh yes I did forget AAMI.

That said, it’s much harder to get a great view for AFL than most other sports given the size of the ground and the rapid switches in play.

True.

Many years ago (2011 I think, we lost to Collingwood in a final at the MCG and Brad Johnson got laughed at for being old). Anyway they offered free tickets to Aami Park to see Heart vs North Queensland Fury if you had AFL tickets so I went along to that beforehand. The contrast in sie of the two stadiums was incredible especially when you move from one to the other back to back. I reckon Aami could fit inside of the MCG without touching any of the non ground level stands.

It's also super noticeable when you change ends at Aami. Takes about 4 minutes. Doing half a lap of the MCG or Docklands takes an eternity.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

True.

Many years ago (2011 I think, we lost to Collingwood in a final at the MCG and Brad Johnson got laughed at for being old). Anyway they offered free tickets to Aami Park to see Heart vs North Queensland Fury if you had AFL tickets so I went along to that beforehand. The contrast in sie of the two stadiums was incredible especially when you move from one to the other back to back. I reckon Aami could fit inside of the MCG without touching any of the non ground level stands.

It's also super noticeable when you change ends at Aami. Takes about 4 minutes. Doing half a lap of the MCG or Docklands takes an eternity.

I remember going to a Melbourne victory final at Etihad that was for whatever reason played a day after an AFL match. The line markings from the AFL game were still well evident. The entire soccer playing area seemed like it fit within the 50m arches and the centre square. It was slightly bigger of course but you really got a sense for how much bigger an AFL ground is to most sports

[jeemak]

Funnily I'm not hearing how magnificent the new rules are for scoring.............or that fatigued players score more goals.

Wonder why? It could possibly be because it's all bullshit.

[bornadog]

Funnily I'm not hearing how magnificent the new rules are for scoring.............or that fatigued players score more goals.

Wonder why? It could possibly be because it's all bullshit.

Yes it is BS. Mark my words

[jeemak]

Yes it is BS. Mark my words

You mark my words!

[Sedat]

Funnily I'm not hearing how magnificent the new rules are for scoring.............or that fatigued players score more goals.

Wonder why? It could possibly be because it's all bullshit.
There is probably no bigger critic of City Hall than me, but from a very small sample size the aesthetic of the game has improved significantly on the rucking maul/stoppage heavy dross of recent years. The game last night was entertaining to watch despite the low score.

I am less worried about lower scoring than I am about repeatedly seeing upwards of 100 tackles per team and endless stoppages in a heavily crowded area.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

There is probably no bigger critic of City Hall than me, but from a very small sample size the aesthetic of the game has improved significantly on the rucking maul/stoppage heavy dross of recent years. The game last night was entertaining to watch despite the low score.

I am less worried about lower scoring than I am about repeatedly seeing upwards of 100 tackles per team and endless stoppages in a heavily crowded area.

I think there is some merit to the standing the mark rule but I'm not sure about the interchange cap.

I'm with you in that I don't care too much about high scoring and that endless stoppages are the real concern. However I didn't like the spectacle in the latter stages of each quarter last night. Particularly that last quarter. It was painful and dull to watch. Given the first half of quarters were entertaining, I'd put that down to player fatigue. Round 1 symptoms or interchange cap symptoms? Both? I'm not sure.

[Sedat]

I think there is some merit to the standing the mark rule but I'm not sure about the interchange cap.

I'm with you in that I don't care too much about high scoring and that endless stoppages are the real concern. However I didn't like the spectacle in the latter stages of each quarter last night. Particularly that last quarter. It was painful and dull to watch. Given the first half of quarters were entertaining, I'd put that down to player fatigue. Round 1 symptoms or interchange cap symptoms? Both? I'm not sure.
Yeah, bit of both. Players looked shot late in the match, but in last night's example we definitely (and rightly) shut down the game in the last 5 minutes to preserve our 3 goal lead.

The game on Thursday night was very exciting late in each qtr. Richmond really drove home the benefits of their game plan as the space opened up late in each qtr against a younger and less talented opponent. Teams who run endlessly up and down the arcs to flood back (eg: Collingwood) will not benefit from these new rules at all as the game wears on.

[GVGjr]

There is probably no bigger critic of City Hall than me, but from a very small sample size the aesthetic of the game has improved significantly on the rucking maul/stoppage heavy dross of recent years. The game last night was entertaining to watch despite the low score.

I am less worried about lower scoring than I am about repeatedly seeing upwards of 100 tackles per team and endless stoppages in a heavily crowded area.

Fully agree, the ball is moving quickly and there is less congestion. Now of course the coaches might start getting the players to flood back more but at the moment it seems to be doing what it was designed for

[Bulldog Joe]

I actually liked what I saw last night and not just because we won.

I think there were 2 50s paid and only 1 was due to the stand rule (Keath). It was correctly applied. The other 50 was simply Duryea outsmarting Josh Thomas to have him chasing when more than 3 metres adrift.

There was definitely less maul in the game but we also showed that you can still defend.

Yes the players got tired, but we have an endurance sport, so surely testing that endurance is part of the contest.

[GVGjr]

I actually liked what I saw last night and not just because we won.

I think there were 2 50s paid and only 1 was due to the stand rule (Keath). It was correctly applied. The other 50 was simply Duryea outsmarting Josh Thomas to have him chasing when more than 3 metres adrift.

There was definitely less maul in the game but we also showed that you can still defend.

Yes the players got tired, but we have an endurance sport, so surely testing that endurance is part of the contest.

It's a physical contact sport with a lot of running, I don't get the angst of why people are against wanting players to get fatigued.
From memory we had 25 interchanges available to us entering the last quarter meaning every player could come off for a break if needed.

[Sedat]

It's a physical contact sport with a lot of running, I don't get the angst of why people are against wanting players to get fatigued.
From memory we had 25 interchanges available to us entering the last quarter meaning every player could come off for a break if needed.
Any game where you can have Dustin Martin stationed inside F50 for an entire final qtr one-on-one is a watchable spectacle.

[Hotdog60]

On Dusty Martin, from those guys that have played a lot of Footy would it be easy enough when tackling Martin to look for his wrist because 9 times out of 10 he goes the fend off and from what I see players are reaching for the body. Grabbing his wrist and holding on would be more effective in tackling then going the body. Just interested in how best to stop him being damaging apart from doing a Matthews on Bruns type scenario.

[Happy Days]

It was awesome. How good was that 50 for Keath moving back on to the mark? That’ll be in highlights packages for years.

[Topdog]

Which rule means less mauls?

[bornadog]

Which rule means less mauls?

Prior opportunity, boundary umpire just throwing in instead of waiting for rucks, ball up, no waiting for rucks and nominating, third man up to punch ball clear.

All these changes have not helped the situation.

[EasternWest]

On Dusty Martin, from those guys that have played a lot of Footy would it be easy enough when tackling Martin to look for his wrist because 9 times out of 10 he goes the fend off and from what I see players are reaching for the body. Grabbing his wrist and holding on would be more effective in tackling then going the body. Just interested in how best to stop him being damaging apart from doing a Matthews on Bruns type scenario.

Get Bevo on the phone. Can't believe this has never occurred to anyone :):):).

[bulldogsthru&thru]

On Dusty Martin, from those guys that have played a lot of Footy would it be easy enough when tackling Martin to look for his wrist because 9 times out of 10 he goes the fend off and from what I see players are reaching for the body. Grabbing his wrist and holding on would be more effective in tackling then going the body. Just interested in how best to stop him being damaging apart from doing a Matthews on Bruns type scenario.

I see what you're saying but it would be very difficult to grab him by the wrists. In any case he still gets his kick off but yeah it might be less damaging. It's just a lower probability of actually being able to grab a hold of his wrists rather than that massive torso.

[jeemak]

Grabbing him by the wrist would work on occasion but is actually the lower percentage play, with the wrist being hard to grab as it's coming towards and going away from you front on. Most tackles where the wrist is grabbed occur from behind the ball carrier.

[jeemak]

Which rule means less mauls?


Prior opportunity, boundary umpire just throwing in instead of waiting for rucks, ball up, no waiting for rucks and nominating, third man up to punch ball clear.

All these changes have not helped the situation.

I think what Sedat is suggesting is that less mauls occur as players fatigue, which is probably true. However what I think will happen is we'll have less mauls and teams implementing more zoning with slower movement and transition and a stalemate between the arcs. Teams are still going to be good at locking the ball in at contests, though not as good and without players sufficiently rested they won't be bursting away from packs to break the game open often enough to counter the stagnation.

The standing mark rule is pretty ordinary and unfair if players aren't forced to go behind their mark or start on the line behind their mark......which the AFL won't enforce on purpose they're not looking for fairness.

[bornadog]

I think what Sedat is suggesting is that less mauls occur as players fatigue, which is probably true. However what I think will happen is we'll have less mauls and teams implementing more zoning with slower movement and transition and a stalemate between the arcs. Teams are still going to be good at locking the ball in at contests, though not as good and without players sufficiently rested they won't be bursting away from packs to break the game open often enough to counter the stagnation.

The standing mark rule is pretty ordinary and unfair if players aren't forced to go behind their mark or start on the line behind their mark......which the AFL won't enforce on purpose they're not looking for fairness.

Yes, sorry I was instantly thinking of congestion.

[jazzadogs]

I'm not sure that I like the strategy of going back off the mark, especially deep in the backline (e.g. we would give up the short kick on kickout, then hold back off the mark). I guess the pros are that the man-on-mark can be on the move, disrupt the field of vision to block the 45degree kicks and as soon as the umpire calls play on can charge in...but the con is that the kicker almost always gets an extra 5m to run and load up for a longer kick.

It also opens us up to issues like the Keath 50 - he never actually got to the 'mark' and was trying to drop off out of the zone. He thought he was out of the zone and therefore could move, but the umpire decided he was in and called stand - at that point he had to stop.

[Topdog]

What happens when the player doesn't hear the umpire say stand?
The 50m at the end is an insanely harsh punishment for taking 1 step backwards

[bulldogsthru&thru]

What happens when the player doesn't hear the umpire say stand?
The 50m at the end is an insanely harsh punishment for taking 1 step backwards

Yep its still a 50. Keath told the umpire last night that he couldn't hear him. The umpire said he has to look at him. I mean seriously, players can't look for the umpire. They're too occupied with the game.

[bornadog]

What happens when the player doesn't hear the umpire say stand?
The 50m at the end is an insanely harsh punishment for taking 1 step backwards

Surely you can step backwards but not sideways?

This is just stupid - one of the stupidest things the AFL has come up with. For 150 years a player could jump up and down, go sideways etc as long they didn't cross the mark. Now this BS idea which just changes how footy will be played. Coaches are already working on flooding back and leaving the man on the mark, and no doubt other strategies.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Surely you can step backwards but not sideways?

This is just stupid - one of the stupidest things the AFL has come up with. For 150 years a player could jump up and down, go sideways etc as long they didn't cross the mark. Now this BS idea which just changes how footy will be played. Coaches are already working on flooding back and leaving the man on the mark, and no doubt other strategies.

No you must stand still.

I think the likely outcome is what we saw quite a bit of last night. Players will hang 5m back from the mark so that they can roam more freely. At least in the defensive half of the ground.

[jeemak]

No you must stand still.

I think the likely outcome is what we saw quite a bit of last night. Players will hang 5m back from the mark so that they can roam more freely. At least in the defensive half of the ground.

Yeah any of this need to look at the umpire BS is silly, just stand still until play on is called. Keath stuffed up and was pinged as he should have been.

[bornadog]

Yeah any of this need to look at the umpire BS is silly, just stand still until play on is called. Keath stuffed up and was pinged as he should have been.

There was one incident in our forward pocket where the umpire was so busy telling our player where to stand etc, he forgot to watch the play and the Pies player ran back towards goal to switch play. The player had played on and he was still talking to our player.

[GVGjr]

What happens when the player doesn't hear the umpire say stand?
The 50m at the end is an insanely harsh punishment for taking 1 step backwards

It's a very tough penalty and one that needs to be modified to allow some movement.
On a very small sample size it appears to have worked in getting the game moving. I've watched 3 games of footy and a decent chunk of another so far this round which is something I haven't done in years and I've enjoyed the games.

The intent of what they're trying to achieve seems to be OK but the rule does need some tweaking. It will be interesting to see if the coaches work a away around it by throwing extra players back.

[The bulldog tragician]

What will happen in a situation like the Harry Taylor after the siren shot for goal a couple of years ago when our entire team stood the mark? Is it ok for others to be waving their arms around crazily just behind the bloke who ‘stands’ - they’re not in the protected zone?

A lot of the rule changes presuppose what fans want and are often catering for the theatregoer not the true fan of the game. A low scoring match can be enthralling or deadly dull. A high scoring match isn’t necessarily great to watch. We can appreciate all the elements to a game, the defending and desperation, the tactics and battles, and aren’t there just to endlessly see the goal umpire wave the flags.

That said, if there is a rule change to be made, the situation where the tackled guy just falls to the ground knowing several team mates will join the scrum and a ball up be called is something I dislike. I’ve seen a suggestion that the second person in is penalised, don’t know if that would work.

[comrade]

It seems insane that we've had 2 significant changes to the game AFTER the draft/trade period (and in the case of the sub after the pre-season). Teams build lists to suit the game, so if you've gone for a slower, more methodical game plan and brought in players over the years to implement it (like Geelong for example), the new man on the mark rule throws those plans into disarray.

[Bulldog Joe]

It seems insane that we've had 2 significant changes to the game AFTER the draft/trade period (and in the case of the sub after the pre-season). Teams build lists to suit the game, so if you've gone for a slower, more methodical game plan and brought in players over the years to implement it (like Geelong for example), the new man on the mark rule throws those plans into disarray.


Happy to see an anti Geelong rule introduced, especially by someone originating in Geelong

[Axe Man]

I watched the stand rule enforced in a local reserves practice match yesterday. It's hard enough for AFL players to stand still after practicing for months, almost impossible for a local player to stop themselves from mirroring their opponent with the ball when on the mark.

[comrade]

I watched the stand rule enforced in a local reserves practice match yesterday. It's hard enough for AFL players to stand still after practicing for months, almost impossible for a local player to stop themselves from mirroring their opponent with the ball when on the mark.

How many 50m penalties?

[Axe Man]

How many 50m penalties?

I only noticed one that was definitely the stand rule, but I wasn't watching intently. Sensibly the umpires didn't seem to be adjudicating it to the letter of the law but I can see some wild inconstancies coming this season.

[jeemak]

I watched the stand rule enforced in a local reserves practice match yesterday. It's hard enough for AFL players to stand still after practicing for months, almost impossible for a local player to stop themselves from mirroring their opponent with the ball when on the mark.

Why are they enforcing it in the ressies of a local comp?

[Axe Man]

Why are they enforcing it in the ressies of a local comp?

I assume the umpires are obliged to follow the AFL rule changes, other than for things like the sub and interchange caps.

I have heard umpire numbers are down (and they are always a problem). Rules like this can't help.

[Topdog]

I have heard umpire numbers are down (and they are always a problem). Rules like this can't help.

Very hard to explain the reason for a free kick when you dont agree with the rule.