The protected area and the new rules.

[Before I Die]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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

[Topdog]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

[jeemak]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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

[Bornadog]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

For the life of me, why why why.

[comrade]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

*!*!*!*!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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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]

Re: The protected area and the new rules.

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?