New Rules | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

New Rules

snags

Tiger Superstar
Oct 28, 2005
1,715
2,045
So with the new man on the mark rule, what happens when a player marks near goal on an angle and then, as they all do, pretends to walk straight out and improve his angle? The man on the mark can't move, no ones allowed within 5 mts of the mark from either team, so he can just improve the angle without fear of anyone challenging him and play on and kick from nearly in front. Don't like this rule change. I read where umpires will be encouraged to allow latitude to the player with the ball, so that means inconsistencies, got can of worms written all over it.
Stooopid stooopid rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

BillyJean17

Tiger Champion
Jul 27, 2009
4,116
2,240
melbourne
I really see teams not manning the mark, but stand a metre or 2 behind it.

also be interesting what the AFL says the interpretation should be for a "Buddy Arc". is the person on the mark meant to stand still while he runs to the side, meaning he can effectively kick from next to them?

clubs, and journos, should be pushing for a public Q&A session where all questions can be asked, so the AFL doesnt have to make changes on the run when all the gaps in their rule become apparent.
I don’t believe you can stand behind the mark , basically rooted to that spot until umpire calls play on, though I don’t tnink its helpful defensively there are other measures I expect we will employ and equally we will be able benefit on attack too
 

Disco

Tiger Champion
Dec 4, 2004
3,699
2,452
Melbourne
I think it has the potential for quicker ball movement.
Clubs with strong, superior, experienced defenses may cope better.
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
17,664
11,707
I don’t believe you can stand behind the mark , basically rooted to that spot until umpire calls play on, though I don’t tnink its helpful defensively there are other measures I expect we will employ and equally we will be able benefit on attack too
but if you are behind the mark you are not on the mark, and can therefor move sideways.

will it mean that when a player is having a shot for goal the man on the mark will only be able to jump straight up and down, rather than move side to side as they have done forever?
 

TigerMasochist

Walks softly carries a big stick.
Jul 13, 2003
25,571
11,449
but if you are behind the mark you are not on the mark, and can therefor move sideways.

will it mean that when a player is having a shot for goal the man on the mark will only be able to jump straight up and down, rather than move side to side as they have done forever?
Plenty of players currently start off behind the mark and then move directly forward to the mark as the ball player approaches in the hope of stuffing up the ball players kick attempt.
Player doesn't have to be directly on the mark, they're just not permitted to encroach over the mark.
With the new ruling it won't matter if the player is behind or on the mark. They will simply be deemed to be the player standing the mark and therefore not permitted to move sideways off the mark in an attempt to force the ball player to play directly down the line to a contested area. They're giving the ball player more options and angles to restart play.
No opposition player allowed to encroach near the ball player. Player standing the mark not permitted to move sideways or encroach over the mark. 50 metre penalty for any infringement.
Purely gives the ball players 360 degree options to do whatever they want to restart play with the opposition totally hamstrung until the ball player makes his choice or the maggot calls play on.
 

BillyJean17

Tiger Champion
Jul 27, 2009
4,116
2,240
melbourne
but if you are behind the mark you are not on the mark, and can therefor move sideways.

will it mean that when a player is having a shot for goal the man on the mark will only be able to jump straight up and down, rather than move side to side as they have done forever?
I understand there’s a 5-10m exclusion zone from that mark
 

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,525
17,880
Melbourne
So with the new man on the mark rule, what happens when a player marks near goal on an angle and then, as they all do, pretends to walk straight out and improve his angle? The man on the mark can't move, no ones allowed within 5 mts of the mark from either team, so he can just improve the angle without fear of anyone challenging him and play on and kick from nearly in front. Don't like this rule change. I read where umpires will be encouraged to allow latitude to the player with the ball, so that means inconsistencies, got can of worms written all over it.

Gee, are you claiming the AFL have implemented a rule change without thinking of all the consequences?

Perish the thought.

DS
 

No left foot

Tiger Rookie
Aug 30, 2020
155
508
The fact that none of us, a lot of whom have been attending footy for decades, have any idea what this new rule is going to look like....and we are assuming random 50m penalties all over the place, tells you how absolutely useless SHocking is at explaining new rules. His presser with Barrett to 'explain' the rule doesn't explain the rule. The wording on the AFL website -

2 / Player Standing The Mark
The defending Player will only be permitted minimal lateral movement on The Mark. If the defending player moves off The Mark in any direction prior to "Play On" being called, a 50-metre penalty will apply. The defensive team is unable to substitute the Player on The Mark.


...so the first sentence says the defending player CAN move laterally and SHocking says '1 metre of movement ...a step either side' will be permitted. But the second part of the rule says the player moving off the mark in any direction prior to play on being called, cops a 50?? So what is it? A step each side OK, or you cop a 50?

The latest version of the rule in The Age the other day stated NO lateral movement is permitted...so what is it?

The umpire is also now going to have to nominate who THEY thought the closest defensive player was to the mark and say You Trent, you have to stand the mark...what happens when the closest player turns and runs 20m up the field directly after the whistle has blown..is the umpire going to stop the game and call them back to stand the mark?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

DavidSSS

Tiger Legend
Dec 11, 2017
10,525
17,880
Melbourne
The fact that none of us, a lot of whom have been attending footy for decades, have any idea what this new rule is going to look like....and we are assuming random 50m penalties all over the place, tells you how absolutely useless SHocking is at explaining new rules. His presser with Barrett to 'explain' the rule doesn't explain the rule. The wording on the AFL website -

2 / Player Standing The Mark
The defending Player will only be permitted minimal lateral movement on The Mark. If the defending player moves off The Mark in any direction prior to "Play On" being called, a 50-metre penalty will apply. The defensive team is unable to substitute the Player on The Mark.


...so the first sentence says the defending player CAN move laterally and SHocking says '1 metre of movement ...a step either side' will be permitted. But the second part of the rule says the player moving off the mark in any direction prior to play on being called, cops a 50?? So what is it? A step each side OK, or you cop a 50?

The latest version of the rule in The Age the other day stated NO lateral movement is permitted...so what is it?

The umpire is also now going to have to nominate who THEY thought the closest defensive player was to the mark and say You Trent, you have to stand the mark...what happens when the closest player turns and runs 20m up the field directly after the whistle has blown..is the umpire going to stop the game and call them back to stand the mark?

What the hell is "minimal lateral movement"? A recipe for inconsistency if ever I saw one. Different umpires, players, coaches, fans, hangers on etc will all have their own interpretation of this. They need to get someone with more than half a brain to write their rules.

Your last paragraph is very interesting. Will players argue who should be on the mark? Even more interesting - if the umpires do stop the game to get the "correct" player to stand the mark then surely that is a clear tactic which will be used to slow down play and allow the defence to set up.

Ludicrous. Watch the train wreck that will be implementing this in the first game of the year and then we'll see all the usual crap of messing with the interpretation during the season, and even making changes mid-round. This is why they need to trial these stupid rule changes.

DS
 

Third Ring

Richmond is...
Oct 3, 2003
192
104
What the hell is "minimal lateral movement"? A recipe for inconsistency if ever I saw one. Different umpires, players, coaches, fans, hangers on etc will all have their own interpretation of this. They need to get someone with more than half a brain to write their rules.

Your last paragraph is very interesting. Will players argue who should be on the mark? Even more interesting - if the umpires do stop the game to get the "correct" player to stand the mark then surely that is a clear tactic which will be used to slow down play and allow the defence to set up.

Ludicrous. Watch the train wreck that will be implementing this in the first game of the year and then we'll see all the usual crap of messing with the interpretation during the season, and even making changes mid-round. This is why they need to trial these stupid rule changes.

DS
Effectively creates a dead player on the mark who has to stand and watch the play continue, actually that would be simpler to police - nearest opponent has to stop until the ball is disposed of.
 

eZyT

Tiger Legend
Jun 28, 2019
21,434
25,778
What the hell is "minimal lateral movement"?

about as standardised as 'minimum chips' id say.

This is going to be a debacle.

and 5 grand will keep appearing in Hocking and Scott's bank every week.
 

The Mole

Tiger Champion
Apr 1, 2003
2,883
3,053
Gee, are you claiming the AFL have implemented a rule change without thinking of all the consequences?

Perish the thought.

DS
Ahhh the old law of “unintended consequences”. Can’t wait to see what rule they have to change to stop something that happens from this new rule.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user

123cups

Tiger Champion
May 1, 2016
3,099
4,076
AFL are scared of the game becoming too professional defensively, so have been implementing rule changes every year to curb our capacity to defend.

Won’t stop us.

Chip mark gameplans within amateur defensive structures have been surpassed by NFL-like professionalism.

The 1-2 rule changes every year won’t be enough to return to that amateur Geelong style of game that the Geelong rule makers are nudging the game backwards to look like.

Long may their confusion continue. We’re still ahead of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,115
18,926
about as standardised as 'minimum chips' id say.

This is going to be a debacle.

and 5 grand will keep appearing in Hocking and Scott's bank every week.
Seriously doubt Hocking is on that little
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

shad

Tiger Champion
Apr 6, 2010
2,625
1,997
Castlemaine
I know it's a strong field, but I'm calling this as the dumbest rule change ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
23,483
11,633
I'm still amazed that someone even thought if this rule, let alone implemented it. Words cannot express how stupid this rule is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,115
18,926
You're saying he's on more than 250K per annum. I'm super jealous of the guy.:help
This statement is based on 2018 wages
The AFL's 12-person executive team took home more than $10.73 million in wages last year, including $3.56m in bonuses. The cash bonanza for the game's top brass equates to an average annual salary package of $894,000.
 

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
44,115
18,926
Before we get too hysterical, I think it's worth remembering that it's very hard to find an AFL rule change that has had a negative impact on the game.

Plenty of changes they have made have had no impact at all, some have been good changes, but it is hard to think of anything that has been a total bust.
hands in the back
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user