New Rules

[ceehook2]

with the new rule if you are 2 mtrs back from the mark you are not required to Stand ?

 

[Tenacious]

with the new rule if you are 2 mtrs back from the mark you are not required to Stand ?

I’d assume that if the umpire says ”stand” then that’s what should be done incl if you’re 2m back

 

[Fighting Fury]

More goals = more ads?
Can someone please explain how scoring more goals make it a better game?

 

[TigerMasochist]

That was the one I noticed, a free for out on the full and the umpire inisting that the player on the mark stand on the boundary line.

So where does the player with the free get to stand in this situation. Somewhere in the crowd?
Player with the free is generally supposed to be positioned directly in line with the "centre " of the goals and the man on the mark, ( yes even from down in the back line or wing area ). Theory being that the player with the free is supposed to restart play directly over the mark, unless he decides to move sideways which is " instant " play on. If the player on the mark is standing on the boundary someone is not going to have much room to back up n take the correct position.

 

[Baloo]

They can choose any spot they want to stand as long as they are behind the mark. Fox Footy just went through it at half time and showed Baker blocking the corridor on the mark.

I can just see Hocking losing it at that vision. Baker put himself in a spot that slowed down the man with the ball, legitimately

 

[Tenacious]

What’s the verdict so far i.e. after one and a half of our games?
Any major issues one way or the other?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

What’s the verdict so far i.e. after one and a half of our games?
Any major issues one way or the other?

It's not terrible, yet, apart from the umpires calling "Stand!" repeatedly.

 

[Tenacious]

It's not terrible, yet, apart from the umpires calling "Stand!" repeatedly.

The power of positive thinking
Am guessing you reckon Dusty hasn’t been complete crap either.
And Grimes probably isn’t terrible; Short isn’t the worst player in history etc etc

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

The power of positive thinking
Am guessing you reckon Dusty hasn’t been complete crap either.
And Grimes probably isn’t terrible; Short isn’t the worst player in history etc etc

Are you having a crack?

The rule hasn’t been tested. Every chance they come out with a stricter interpretation in a fortnight.

 

[Tenacious]

Are you having a crack?

Of course

 

[Tenacious]

To me, the best thing it is doing is letting the player with the ball control the direction of the game. The man on the mark has lost the ability to be proactive so the ball holder has total control.

I like seeing the ball winner advantaged so I don't mind that. I'm not seeing many negatives, as I thought the players have adapted quickly. My dog can stand on command so I always thought AFL players would get there.

Agree totally

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Of course

Wasn’t sure. You were talking dribble.

 

[Baloo]

.My dog can stand on command so I always thought AFL players would get there.

Your dog can lick his own balls too.

Much like our season, this game is just the first hit so jury is still out on the rule

 

[Baloo]

No he can't, I chopped them off after he barked at an umpire.

See, I was going g to say *smile* but I thought I'd keep it more sports related

 

[Tenacious]

Wasn’t sure. You were talking dribble.

Ditto

 

[WesternTiger]

First game I’ve see with the new rule. Don’t see any issue...yet

 

[davidc0055]

I assume I'm the only person (outside of Hocking, etc) that has liked the idea of this rule from the get-go.

There are two ways to have possession of the ball and have someone on the mark. One is getting a free kick, and the other is taking a mark. In both cases, the guy deserves to have the ball. But, unfairly in my opinion, umpires in recent years have called "play on" as soon as that player has taken a single step to the side while letting the guy standing the mark move anywhere he wants (other than over the mark). If one player can't move sideways, why should the other? The player who deserves to have the ball is at a disadvantage.

The new rule allows the player with the ball a split-second advantage, and will be good for the game.

 

[hutstar]

There ya go TBR. Nothing to do with the coaches. It's all these meddling wankers in suits changing the rules every five minutes that have stuffed the game n made for the lowest scoring in history. All on dry perfect decks which should make rapid flowing play easy as.
Create interchange players. Create more n more players to interchange. Allow unlimited interchanges. Allow the runner to enter the ground every five seconds then spend half an hour on the ground to pass a message on to every player in the team and fill gaps on the ground while doing so. Create rules that don't allow the rucks to engage in a strength contest by forcing the umpires to separate the rucks to a satisfactory distance and also nominate who is going to jump for the tip off wasting enough time for a tribe of thirty to congregate around the contest. Create a thirty second shot clock for any player within sixty five metres of goal so they can either run the game time down or spend forever waiting for the cheat opportunity before short passing into the little hole that opened up after everyone fell asleep waiting for the shot.

Rule changes didn’t make the game a low scoring slugfest, professionalism did. I agree that some rule changes are questionable but everything you’ve cited has been a response to injuries in the professional era or coaching/player strategy in the professional era. If you want open, amateur footy there’s still plenty to be had, just not in the AFL.

 

[hutstar]

I assume I'm the only person (outside of Hocking, etc) that has liked the idea of this rule from the get-go.

There are two ways to have possession of the ball and have someone on the mark. One is getting a free kick, and the other is taking a mark. In both cases, the guy deserves to have the ball. But, unfairly in my opinion, umpires in recent years have called "play on" as soon as that player has taken a single step to the side while letting the guy standing the mark move anywhere he wants (other than over the mark). If one player can't move sideways, why should the other? The player who deserves to have the ball is at a disadvantage.

The new rule allows the player with the ball a split-second advantage, and will be good for the game.

I'm on record as liking it before this week and I still like it. I keep reading about how it's 'changing the game as it's been for 125 years'. Well, it's not. It's putting it back to the way it was until 15 years or so ago. I just watched the 1980 grand final (sue me, it's still good) and the player on the mark pretty much just stands there, every time. No lateral movement, no run-blocking. This rule (though undoubtedly a little anal for my liking) is per the intent of the game - to give the player with the kick a distinct advantage. A big issue with the game recently is that winning a free kick or taking a mark was almost a disadvantage, because it just held play up. In fact, clubs have made a habit of giving away free kicks because it's a much better result than letting a player just play on freely. I hoping this rule fixes it, and I think it will.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Opportunity for some lairising by the player with the ball. You can stand just outside the reach of the man on the mark and just **** with him.