New Rules

[jb03]

'Stand' free paid again in WC/Freo game. Audible groan throughout AFL community. It's the stupidest new rule ever devised. Kill it now.

Yep. I am not sure what that player did - seemed to step backwards. I suppose iconic images of 20 players on the mark when a player is taking a shot after the siren will be another thing gone.

Hocking has been as bad for the game as anyone that I can recall. And sycophantic media don't dare to criticise.

 

[jb03]

I guess it comes back to me to provide balance so here goes.

I don't think that WC example is the intention of the rule or was adjudicated with a feel for the game, but I'll guarantee if that happened on the final siren with the man on the mark's team 5 points up, the coach would say to him why the *smile* would you start walking away the second after the umpire set you on the mark when you've been drilled and drilled to stand still?

If he had started walking forward none of us would have an issue with 50, so the players just have to apply the same thinking to each direction now. In that instance of a set shot with the umpire setting the mark, it is literally the easiest task an AFL player will ever have to do on the ground.

That's contrarian non-nonsensical garbage.

 

[zippadeee]

Hocking wants to reduce tackling in the game.
He reckons it shouldn't be a feature of the game.
He needs to go before our kids don't see football anymore.

 

[TigerMasochist]

I guess it comes back to me to provide balance so here goes.

I don't think that WC example is the intention of the rule or was adjudicated with a feel for the game, but I'll guarantee if that happened on the final siren with the man on the mark's team 5 points up, the coach would say to him why the *smile* would you start walking away the second after the umpire set you on the mark when you've been drilled and drilled to stand still?

If he had started walking forward none of us would have an issue with 50, so the players just have to apply the same thinking to each direction now. In that instance of a set shot with the umpire setting the mark, it is literally the easiest task an AFL player will ever have to do on the ground.

So the Frockers player hasn't gone over the mark, he hasn't gone sideways across the mark. He's retreated back from the mark n waggled his leg as if he's perhaps cramping or copped a bit of a knock in play n for this it's a fifty metre penalty n cheap goal to Wet Coke. Yet in other games players are permitted to jump up and down n flap their arms while attending the mark. While also on other occasions the ball carrier is permitted to deviate off the mark without being called to play on, even though the player correctly " standing " the mark is screaming for the umpire to adjudicate the game to the rules.
Simply more farcical *smile* from the experts in shiny suits at H.Q. that makes the game even more difficult than it needs to be.

 

[Tenacious]

What about our game the other day?
I don't recall anything particularly outrageous in relation to standing on the mark

 

[Baloo]

I guess it comes back to me to provide balance so here goes.

I don't think that WC example is the intention of the rule or was adjudicated with a feel for the game, but I'll guarantee if that happened on the final siren with the man on the mark's team 5 points up, the coach would say to him why the *smile* would you start walking away the second after the umpire set you on the mark when you've been drilled and drilled to stand still?

If he had started walking forward none of us would have an issue with 50, so the players just have to apply the same thinking to each direction now. In that instance of a set shot with the umpire setting the mark, it is literally the easiest task an AFL player will ever have to do on the ground.

You think you're providing balance, but there wouldn't be many who think that.

This is exactly what everyone, bar the contrarians, have been worried about. We understand the rule. We understand what it's meant to achieve. But we also know how a technical rule like this will be umpired. What we saw today is exactly what we knew would happen.

*smile* hell TBR, you must take everyone else as numpties who don't understand the arguments Hocking uses to implement rules. We understand them fine, but we can also forsee when a rule is bad. And this is it.

 

[shad]

You're completely missing the point of everything I've been saying.

I've never said if the rule was good, bad or indifferent. I have no opinion on that yet because I've barely seen it in action.

What I said was the reaction to it was completely over the top and almost hysterical. The outrage over a rule before anyone had even seen it in a game is insane and the ridiculous nonsense about the reasoning and motives behind it is bat-*smile* crazy.

And by the way, after a series of inter and intra-club games we have two incidents of 50 metre penalties picked up out of all of the hundreds of times players stood the marks in those games. Both of them were clearly harsh but correct and I'll guarantee they weren't even close to being in the most incorrect decisions given in those games.

In our 2 games there has not even been a ripple of an issue with the rule. Looking at the Melbourne game everyone adapted without an issue. And for this time of year the game was pretty free flowing and high scoring.

Based on what we've seen I'm very comfortable that I was correct in saying that the vast majority of reactions to the rule were completely over the top.

That's fine. My opinion is that it should be a big deal to change the rules of our game. It should be well thought out with clearly stated goals, trialed extensively and then assessed on whether it achieves the stated goal and if there are any unintended consequences. Then implemented at the top level. Hence it should be a pretty rare event. These guys are changing multiple rules every "smile"ing year. And it seems to me that they are doing it on a whim. I think it's unprofessional and insulting to us fans.

 

[shad]

This has been a common theme in this thread but I'm not sure how people see that being achieved?

If it is via the seconds then I'm afraid it is a complete waste of time. There is no comparison between VFL and AFL football and almost every rule change is about the speed and endurance of the players and that is the area where it most differs. In most games half the guys on the ground are amateurs who train a couple of times a week after work.

That's not opinion, that's purely from gps data that shows us indisputably that players run less distance, at less speed and at less overall intensity in VFL games than AFL games. We put more work through guys in the VFL after the game to keep them at AFL standards. There's very little value in trialing a rule in a competition that doesn't have the characteristics you are targeting with the rule. After all a bogus trial is as useful as no trial at all.

The only real option to get decent data would be to trial new rules in 'dead' games the season before, or to convince clubs out of the finals to play extras and I can't imagine anyone embracing that as a concept.

i think they used to do it in the pre-season games. Anyway I would argue that if you can't trial it don't do it. What is the point of introducing a new rule when you have no real idea of what it will do. It's folly.

 

[shad]

What do other sports around the world do? I've only ever seen cricket and golf change rules and they just did it but not the same thing.

What does rugby or soccer or gridiron etc do? I guess it depends a bit on the comparison to the feeder competitions though.

I don't follow too many sports so I couldn't say. I don't imagine there are too many sports as old and big as AFL that change multiple rules every year though. And very few of these rule changes seem to achieve anything except confusing and frustrating the fans.

 

[DavidSSS]

There are a few points here.

To say that you cannot anticipate the impact of a rule change until it is implemented in AFL games is frankly ludicrous. If that is the case then just sack the expert panel because they serve no purpose. Of course the impacts of rule changes can be anticipated, nowhere near perfectly, but the impact can be anticipated.

The sheer number of rule changes year after year after year is really absurd. The way the AFL change multiple rules every year is a joke, it makes Australian Rules look like some recently invented game still trying to iron out the kinks, not the oldest codified football in the world. I'll also add that the morons at the AFL seem intent on trying to fix something which is not broken, Australian Rules Football remains the most exciting, fast moving code of football anywhere.

As for the decision in the West Coast/Freo game, well, what can I say? Looked ludicrous, apparently not in the so-called "spirit" of the game, but, entirely consistent with the rule they have created. Although the laws of Australian Football 2021 are not out yet there was a graphic on the AFL site back in November, as follows:

Now, let's just ignore the clear contradiction there - are you allowed minimal lateral movement or can you not move off the mark in any direction? Could they learn to write a rule properly? Yeah, probably not, their form is bad on that one.

But, on to the specific incident - the player moved off the mark - 50m. The AFL will probably claim the ruling was incorrect, but it fits with what they published.

And some wonder why we're able to anticipate such garbage outcomes. We all must be geniuses because this is precisely what was anticipated, precisely what we expected, precisely what the rule states according to the AFL themselves and precisely the sort of ridiculous outcome we were worried about.

DS

 

[ToraToraTora]

Define minimal FFS. More freaking INTERPRETATIONS changing game by game, Q by Q, umpire by umpire. Every single footy head with eyeballs and a brain cell knows this is gonna be a farce.

 

[Redford]

AFL ticks off controversial 50-metre penalty

The AFL ticked off a controversial 50-metre penalty handed out against Fremantle’s Brennan Cox on Saturday and is broadly happy with the way the new man on the mark rule is playing out.

www.theage.com.au

Don't reckon he's gonna be an AA selector for much longer......

 

[Brodders17]

This has been a common theme in this thread but I'm not sure how people see that being achieved?

If it is via the seconds then I'm afraid it is a complete waste of time. There is no comparison between VFL and AFL football and almost every rule change is about the speed and endurance of the players and that is the area where it most differs. In most games half the guys on the ground are amateurs who train a couple of times a week after work.

That's not opinion, that's purely from gps data that shows us indisputably that players run less distance, at less speed and at less overall intensity in VFL games than AFL games. We put more work through guys in the VFL after the game to keep them at AFL standards. There's very little value in trialing a rule in a competition that doesn't have the characteristics you are targeting with the rule. After all a bogus trial is as useful as no trial at all.

The only real option to get decent data would be to trial new rules in 'dead' games the season before, or to convince clubs out of the finals to play extras and I can't imagine anyone embracing that as a concept.

So the commentators, and Hocking, saying it works based off increased scoring in practice matches are either lying, or dont understand that practice matches are played differently? not sure which would be worse.

How long until the increase the break between goals to allow the full back who is caught on the mark while the opposition have a shot to get off the ground after he has kicked it, then allow his replacement to get to the goal square.

if the player on the mark needs medical treatment will they be allowed to swap? or if he has cramp?
If the player on the mark jumps and doesnt land in the same spot before play on is called is that 50mts?
is the Buddy arc now play on, after the AFL has previously said it is not?

maybe the AFL has answered these questions to the clubs but it would help reduce the 'outrage' if they could let us mug fans know. it might also give confidence that they have thought the change through.

 

[Brodders17]

I don't really know the answers to any of that other than I think they already came out and said no more arcs with the new rule. You are allowed to start off the line and come back to it now though so players might do that.

I would have thought the first two would follow the existing rules. An injured player can be replaced, the same as for a set shot now and if you jump off the spot it's 50, the same as if you jump forward of the mark now. You don't need to be on the ground to give away 50 for being over the mark.

i dont think anyone does know the answers, including those who come up with the new rules. there is nothing surer than the rule will be adjusted at some point, probably mid season.

So you can start off the line- are you then allowed to change your mind and kick across the ground rather than over the mark? or a few years after allowing the arc now say it is play on as soon as you move off a straight line?

the previous rule said you could not jump forward. easy enough. now it is says you must land in the same spot. not as easy.

would the injured player need permission to swap on the mark? Will the umpire need to call time on to have that discussion?

might be best if they make the man on the mark stand to the side of the kicker like they do in netball when there is a foul.

 

[Baloo]

it might also give confidence that they have thought the change through.

Yeah, like they did with AFLX. Changing the pre-season comp to AFLX was obviously well thought out. If only the general population were as switched on and forward thinking as the AFL.

You know, I reckon if you put Hocking in charge of Golf and let him do what he wants, he would have invented Holey Moley before the TV networks.

 

[DavidSSS]

I'm just saying it is a great game and they should stop the constant mucking around with the rules.

They change the rules way too often and rarely reconsider rule changes when they have unintended consequences.

It is difficult to see how they are going to see the impact of rule changes when there are multiple changes happening at one time, and the rule changes are constant.

Plus, the very incident in the practice match the other day is precisely the sort of farce which everyone was worried about, and it is totally consistent with the rule change.

Add in the contradictory wording of the new rule and what am I to conclude? That this was a considered amendment to the rules, or a knee jerk reaction to some perceived problem?

What is also contradictory is the AFL constantly messing with a game that is not losing fans/members and that has very healthy attendances, so healthy that it can fill very large stadia even in the regular season.

DS

 

[Tenacious]

........

Plus, the very incident in the practice match the other day is precisely the sort of farce which everyone was worried about, and it is totally consistent with the rule change.

Add in the contradictory wording of the new rule and what am I to conclude? That this was a considered amendment to the rules, or a knee jerk reaction to some perceived problem?

.......

DS

That video was absolutely cringeworthy and a complete clanger - totally agree. There must be a degree of leniency here for the umpires.

But most weeks during every single footy season we can see equally cringeworthy adjudications of pretty straightforward rules incl marking the ball, kicking the legal distance, high tackles, handballs etc etc etc

What did you think of the enforcement of the rule in our game last Friday? (FWIW - I thought it went well - and if it allows the player with the ball more freedom to kick at 45 degrees either side I actually reckon it will be a positive for the game. Especially if there are minimal clangers)

 

[Redford]

What about the rules they introduce without telling anyone ? e.g. the Duckwood rule where a player is allowed to drop their knees in a tackle, throw their head back and solicit a free kick in an otherwise legitimate tackle. Or the Right Angle rule where a player kicks to space a mile away from the boundary line but because of the fact we use an oblong ball, it takes a right angle bounce and goes out of bounds from 30m away but that also warrants a free ? I don't believe either were in existence 10 years ago.

AFL = making it up as we go.

 

[Tigers of Old]

One of the things I hate is the AFL never wind back on rules that didn't work, they just add on more.

It's just a huge dump that keeps getting bigger.

 

[HR]

6 50 metre penalties from 2000 stop plays over the 9 scratchies.

Still a *smile* rule and highlighting the fact that we already have rules for the action. Player moves off the line it should be play on. They couldn't even get this right so how are the going to now that they have to look more closely at the player on the mark.
Never saw much of a problem with the man on the mark except for when he gets a shepherd from behind. That still pisses me off.