The protected area and the new rules.

[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.