45 degree kick

[Enrico_Misso]

That's the most ridiculous rule I have ever seen. How far back off the mark can the next player be? 5 metres? 10? Unless the guy is shooting for goal then the player on the mark should maybe stay back 5 metres so he can move in an arc if required.

This rule also means that you can't run up to the mark when the other team is shooting for goal thereby putting the guy off. What a crock of s***.

Perhaps they should also ban cheer-squads from waving distracting flags and crowds from booing.
The umps could hold up "quiet please" signs like in golf.

[SaintDippa]

Is this rule easily solved by just not manning the mark. Stand two meters behind where the mark is and then move sidewards?

[Enrico_Misso]

Is this rule easily solved by just not manning the mark. Stand two meters behind where the mark is and then move sidewards?

No - You are not allowed to stand behind the mark under the new rule.

So Barry Lawrence, instead of cleverly tricking Peter Hudson where the mark was enabling him to smother Hudson's record breaking 151st goal - rather he would now incur a 50m penalty and Hudson would be lining up from the goal square!

[Vortex]

Is this rule easily solved by just not manning the mark. Stand two meters behind where the mark is and then move sidewards?

No - You are not allowed to stand behind the mark under the new rule.

So Barry Lawrence, instead of cleverly tricking Peter Hudson where the mark was enabling him to smother Hudson's record breaking 151st goal - rather he would now incur a 50m penalty and Hudson would be lining up from the goal square!

You could probably come up with a hundred examples like that couldn't you.

[CURLY]

The rule is ridiculous. The umpire allows the player with the ball the chance to play on while the defender must not move surely as soon as a player plays on the umpire must allow th player to move off his mark.

[Enrico_Misso]

The rule is ridiculous. The umpire allows the player with the ball the chance to play on while the defender must not move surely as soon as a player plays on the umpire must allow th player to move off his mark.

In a world of perfect umpiring the rule would be fine and it would make it easier for the kicker to use the corridor rather than being corralled to the flanks, leading to more excitement and higher scoring.

But CURLY as I suspect you already know, umpires make mistakes and are inconsistent.

If the moment the kicker moved off the line the umpire called play on that would be fine as the man on the mark would have a good chance to stop him running through the line.
But if the umpire is positioned well he should be side on to the kicker ready to observe goal square infringements.
From there he simply can't tell if the kicker is deviating from the line until it is profound, and by the time he blows play on the kicker can easily run past the stationary man on the mark.

Some umps will be watching the kicker, others the man on the mark, or darting their eyes between both.
How big a deviation constitutes a play on?
How do you call that from side on?
How big a movement of the man on the mark constitutes a 50m penalty?
AND ...
How do you get all umpires to make consistent calls in the same timeframe?

This rule can ONLY lead to fan fury and frustration.
Games WILL be decided on fine line interpretations of this rule.

Another SHOCKING rule from S. Hocking.

The only certaint
It will inevitably lead to mistakes and inconsistencies.

[Enrico_Misso]

Is this rule easily solved by just not manning the mark. Stand two meters behind where the mark is and then move sidewards?

No - You are not allowed to stand behind the mark under the new rule.

So Barry Lawrence, instead of cleverly tricking Peter Hudson where the mark was enabling him to smother Hudson's record breaking 151st goal - rather he would now incur a 50m penalty and Hudson would be lining up from the goal square!

You could probably come up with a hundred examples like that couldn't you.

But not any from the dying moments of a grand final (that we only lost by 7 points), where by using the "smothering on the mark" trick we prevented the match winning goal and gave ourselves an outside chance of winning!

[CURLY]

The rule is ridiculous. The umpire allows the player with the ball the chance to play on while the defender must not move surely as soon as a player plays on the umpire must allow th player to move off his mark.

In a world of perfect umpiring the rule would be fine and it would make it easier for the kicker to use the corridor rather than being corralled to the flanks, leading to more excitement and higher scoring.

But CURLY as I suspect you already know, umpires make mistakes and are inconsistent.

If the moment the kicker moved off the line the umpire called play on that would be fine as the man on the mark would have a good chance to stop him running through the line.
But if the umpire is positioned well he should be side on to the kicker ready to observe goal square infringements.
From there he simply can't tell if the kicker is deviating from the line until it is profound, and by the time he blows play on the kicker can easily run past the stationary man on the mark.

Some umps will be watching the kicker, others the man on the mark, or darting their eyes between both.
How big a deviation constitutes a play on?
How do you call that from side on?
How big a movement of the man on the mark constitutes a 50m penalty?
AND ...
How do you get all umpires to make consistent calls in the same timeframe?

This rule can ONLY lead to fan fury and frustration.
Games WILL be decided on fine line interpretations of this rule.

Another SHOCKING rule from S. Hocking.

The only certaint
It will inevitably lead to mistakes and inconsistencies.

Umpires need to accept that they themselves make mistakes. If it is clear the player has played on than the umpire no matter if he has had time to call it should allow the player to move to defend.

[Vortex]

The rule is ridiculous. The umpire allows the player with the ball the chance to play on while the defender must not move surely as soon as a player plays on the umpire must allow th player to move off his mark.

In a world of perfect umpiring the rule would be fine and it would make it easier for the kicker to use the corridor rather than being corralled to the flanks, leading to more excitement and higher scoring.

But CURLY as I suspect you already know, umpires make mistakes and are inconsistent.

If the moment the kicker moved off the line the umpire called play on that would be fine as the man on the mark would have a good chance to stop him running through the line.
But if the umpire is positioned well he should be side on to the kicker ready to observe goal square infringements.
From there he simply can't tell if the kicker is deviating from the line until it is profound, and by the time he blows play on the kicker can easily run past the stationary man on the mark.

Some umps will be watching the kicker, others the man on the mark, or darting their eyes between both.
How big a deviation constitutes a play on?
How do you call that from side on?
How big a movement of the man on the mark constitutes a 50m penalty?
AND ...
How do you get all umpires to make consistent calls in the same timeframe?

This rule can ONLY lead to fan fury and frustration.
Games WILL be decided on fine line interpretations of this rule.

Another SHOCKING rule from S. Hocking.

The only certaint
It will inevitably lead to mistakes and inconsistencies.

Umpires need to accept that they themselves make mistakes. If it is clear the player has played on than the umpire no matter if he has had time to call it should allow the player to move to defend.

Totally agree Curly with most of what you and Enrico say however it seems we are dealing with two separate issues, on one hand it seems there is agreement by footy punters that a change should be made to improve attacking syles of play and the potential to score, and on the other hand is this current rule capable of achieving that objective especially if it isn't umpired correctly. I tend to think these two issues are separate to each other.

I didn't catch the paccy match against North, how did the new rule effect the game?

[Sanctorum]

If the rule creates a more attacking style of game with more scoring or scoring potential then isn't that a good thing.

The new rule didn't appear to bother the players yesterday, and if, as someone else pointed out, this forces a more free-flowing, attacking and high scoring game then it will be good.

Let's face it, the pace of the modern game is now so much faster than back in the last century, and having players moving in on a player about to take a kick from a free or mark just adds to the problem of congestion and scrambly play.

As with all new rules, umpires and players will soon sort this out and coaches will not be happy if players infringe - especially if it costs goals.

The AFL should be commended for taking steps to develop a more open and free-flowing game.

[Vortex]

If the rule creates a more attacking style of game with more scoring or scoring potential then isn't that a good thing.

The new rule didn't appear to bother the players yesterday, and if, as someone else pointed out, this forces a more free-flowing, attacking and high scoring game then it will be good.

Let's face it, the pace of the modern game is now so much faster than back in the last century, and having players moving in on a player about to take a kick from a free or mark just adds to the problem of congestion and scrambly play.

As with all new rules, umpires and players will soon sort this out and coaches will not be happy if players infringe - especially if it costs goals.

The AFL should be commended for taking steps to develop a more open and free-flowing game.

Couldn't agree more Sanctorum.

Ironically most footy pundits agree that something needs to be done about the overly defensive style of play that often sees 36 players around the ball and low scoring potential. Who doesn't love shots on goal especially when the contest is tight. Too often a team defends a winning score with ugly tactics that can make the final stages of a game too predictable and resembling the constant rolling rucks of union.

But the moment the AFL attempts to do something about it there is this default position of rejecting the change and bashing of the AFL which I will admit I'm guilty of myself on occasion, however in this case I'm willing to roll with the attempt to try and improve this aspect of our game because the consequence of not doing anything could further erode the viewing spectacle and pleasure of the game itself thus turning fans away from the game.

[The_Dud]

It's just along the same trend as the rest of global sport to try build their audiences ($$$) by appealing to the casuals, who are turned on by big numbers and 5 minute highlight packages.

Whether it's cricket more and more favouring the bat over ball, or NFL overly protecting quarterbacks and wide receivers, artificially driving up scores is the end goal.

And there will inevitably be those who lap it up.

Do you know what else gets in the way of 'attacking' footy? Tackling, having to bounce the ball every 15 steps, throw ins... Many laughed at AFLX for being ridiculous, but maybe it won't look so ridiculous in 10-15 years.

In the end the coaches will work their way around it as usual, and another knee-jerk rule change will be made by those justifying their jobs.

But before that get ready for a bunch of inconsistently awarded 50m penalties, angry fans, and AFL media having something to talk about!

[skeptic]

If the rule creates a more attacking style of game with more scoring or scoring potential then isn't that a good thing.

The new rule didn't appear to bother the players yesterday, and if, as someone else pointed out, this forces a more free-flowing, attacking and high scoring game then it will be good.

Let's face it, the pace of the modern game is now so much faster than back in the last century, and having players moving in on a player about to take a kick from a free or mark just adds to the problem of congestion and scrambly play.

As with all new rules, umpires and players will soon sort this out and coaches will not be happy if players infringe - especially if it costs goals.

The AFL should be commended for taking steps to develop a more open and free-flowing game.

I don’t disagree with any of that I just hate going to games and watching the umpires paying free kicks all day that greatly influences the outcome.

Would loathe the outcome of 50m penalties becoming more of a regular part of the game then even now where some umpires award them for content barely after a marking contest and some don’t whilst a player is trying break free of the MOTM and they won’t let go

Am all for free flowing but I can’t stand over officiation

[The_Dud]

If the rule creates a more attacking style of game with more scoring or scoring potential then isn't that a good thing.

The new rule didn't appear to bother the players yesterday, and if, as someone else pointed out, this forces a more free-flowing, attacking and high scoring game then it will be good.

Let's face it, the pace of the modern game is now so much faster than back in the last century, and having players moving in on a player about to take a kick from a free or mark just adds to the problem of congestion and scrambly play.

As with all new rules, umpires and players will soon sort this out and coaches will not be happy if players infringe - especially if it costs goals.

The AFL should be commended for taking steps to develop a more open and free-flowing game.

I don’t disagree with any of that I just hate going to games and watching the umpires paying free kicks all day that greatly influences the outcome.

Would loathe the outcome of 50m penalties becoming more of a regular part of the game then even now where some umpires award them for content barely after a marking contest and some don’t whilst a player is trying break free of the MOTM and they won’t let go

Am all for free flowing but I can’t stand over officiation

Yep, just giving the umpires more rules to try officiate, which will lead to more free kicks being paid and inevitably more mistakes and inconsistencies.

We should be trying to promote less involvement on the game by umps, not more.

[Vortex]

If the rule creates a more attacking style of game with more scoring or scoring potential then isn't that a good thing.

The new rule didn't appear to bother the players yesterday, and if, as someone else pointed out, this forces a more free-flowing, attacking and high scoring game then it will be good.

Let's face it, the pace of the modern game is now so much faster than back in the last century, and having players moving in on a player about to take a kick from a free or mark just adds to the problem of congestion and scrambly play.

As with all new rules, umpires and players will soon sort this out and coaches will not be happy if players infringe - especially if it costs goals.

The AFL should be commended for taking steps to develop a more open and free-flowing game.

I don’t disagree with any of that I just hate going to games and watching the umpires paying free kicks all day that greatly influences the outcome.

Would loathe the outcome of 50m penalties becoming more of a regular part of the game then even now where some umpires award them for content barely after a marking contest and some don’t whilst a player is trying break free of the MOTM and they won’t let go

Am all for free flowing but I can’t stand over officiation

Skeptic you know it will be one of those new rules where there will be the obligatory controversy in the first few rounds while the umps are on task to enforce the rule, and the media will oblige to fuel the outrage for any controversial call. And from there it will be a case of the new rule has either provided the desired outcome and the punters are happy or it doesn't produce the desired outcome and the rule is modified and/or the interpretation of the rule is fumbled with until we are distracted by the next rule change.

[Jacks Back]

Do you know what else gets in the way of 'attacking' footy? Tackling, having to bounce the ball every 15 steps, throw ins... Many laughed at AFLX for being ridiculous, but maybe it won't look so ridiculous in 10-15 years.

I was watching an old game on youtube from 1973 and do you know what the boundary umpire did when he picked up the ball - Threw it straight back in. How about that!

[Joffa Burns]

If the rule creates a more attacking style of game with more scoring or scoring potential then isn't that a good thing.

The new rule didn't appear to bother the players yesterday, and if, as someone else pointed out, this forces a more free-flowing, attacking and high scoring game then it will be good.

Let's face it, the pace of the modern game is now so much faster than back in the last century, and having players moving in on a player about to take a kick from a free or mark just adds to the problem of congestion and scrambly play.

As with all new rules, umpires and players will soon sort this out and coaches will not be happy if players infringe - especially if it costs goals.

The AFL should be commended for taking steps to develop a more open and free-flowing game.

I don’t disagree with any of that I just hate going to games and watching the umpires paying free kicks all day that greatly influences the outcome.

Would loathe the outcome of 50m penalties becoming more of a regular part of the game then even now where some umpires award them for content barely after a marking contest and some don’t whilst a player is trying break free of the MOTM and they won’t let go

Am all for free flowing but I can’t stand over officiation

Yep, just giving the umpires more rules to try officiate, which will lead to more free kicks being paid and inevitably more mistakes and inconsistencies.

We should be trying to promote less involvement on the game by umps, not more.

Agree, the other issue for me is penalty fitting the crime.

If a player marks in the centre square and is crunched late he gets a 50 metre penalty and a shot from 25 out straight in front. The penalty befits the crime.

With this rule if a player marks in the centre square and the player manning the mark steps two steps to the left the same penalty is applied as the first scenario, regardless of whether the player with the ball was impeded or not. The penalty is not in line with the crime.

Agree this rule will lead to more frees, more umpiring mistakes and additional supporter frustration.
Watching the live stream I saw at least 5 or 6 occasions in the Saints V North games where these infringements were not paid.

I will go out on a limb and suggest the rule will be scrapped before 2022 season commences, if not sooner.

[Joffa Burns]

Do you know what else gets in the way of 'attacking' footy? Tackling, having to bounce the ball every 15 steps, throw ins... Many laughed at AFLX for being ridiculous, but maybe it won't look so ridiculous in 10-15 years.

I was watching an old game on youtube from 1973 and do you know what the boundary umpire did when he picked up the ball - Threw it straight back in. How about that!

This is a good point Jack.

Look at the nominate your ruck rule at throw ins and ball ups.

How much time is wasted while the umpire nominates the rucks which allows the teams to set up defensively.
The rule is good but officiating it slows the game down.

Why not have the umpire run in pick the ball up and throw it up straight away.
If one team has two men up they get a free against them, if both have two up its play on.

The game moves faster and the teams will regulate themselves.

I agree with a lot of the rule changes however think the over complicated way they are introduced and adjudicated is the issue.

[The_Dud]

Well it sounds like the AFL is already thinking about loosening the rule a bit, adding more grey area / interpretation to the game, which is exactly what it needs...