There seems to be a wee bit of concern about congestion in and around these parts and enough people seem to be worried enough to try and open up the bowels of the game, with the AFL leading the charge.
Ok, it seems ironical to deploy another article aimed at opening up the game into an already congested space of ideas, plans and wild-eyed schemes to do the same.
This one I think though, hits the congestion at the source and fits well with both the “spirit of the game” (whatever that is exactly) and a potentially moderate adjustment.
For a while it has struck me as odd that a player who has taken a mark can be grappled for a period after they have been awarded the mark and impeded from playing on.
Why this is allowed to occur? Surely it is a mindset thing and has been treated differently via umpire’s mandates over the years.
If we (a hypothetical we) want to clear congestion, why not promote every opportunity to play on as quickly as possible.
There are on average about 180 marks per game so far this year. If we turbocharged the possibilities to play on at the marking (and free kick too even, why not?), it would present much more opportunities to move the ball quickly out of an area and make the space around the contest harder to congest.
Sure they’ve done this with the side zones idea, but I’d argue they’ve targeted the wrong part of the equation.
The idea of the side zones has become a bit too much of an obscure-half-arsery to keep front of mind for all concerned (what with aforementioned creeping and groping from opposition players allowed to go unchecked).
To be fair though this rule was actually one of the more successful measures at freeing up the game in 2016, playing no small part in allowing a young Bulldogs side to speed move their way to an unexpected premiership.
But umpires don’t seem to get it now and a lot of players surely don’t (although to be fair it could be like a lot of rules its intent is lost over time).
To me there could be more advantage philosophically, given to taking a mark (and similarly to a free kick). It kind of keeps it more front of mind… “ahh, a mark’s a big deal, clear the space…”
The minimum of this is to ban any impeding of the player, in anyway, once they have taken the mark. This would include any attempts to stop the player who has taken the mark from handballing or kicking the ball. Just get out of the way.
But as I said, the no-impeding is the bare minimum. There is more that could be considered and here is where it gets funky and not for the stodgy.
A further step to pour on the advantage and speed up play is to require the opposing player on the mark to step back (or stop) a specified distance from where the mark/free kick was actually taken (I’m going to start calling this setback mark a set-mark in here from now on).
The set-mark distance could vary anywhere between 1m (minimal), to 2m-5m or even 10m from the mark itself. With this change all of a sudden the marker and their team can launch an all out attack, with feckless abandon, clear the space and savagely pierce any zone before it’s assembled.
If you were into it (and I’d suggest you try to imagine this weekend games when the man running up to the mark has to stop a metre or five away and not creep over the mark and pretend he doesn’t know where the actual mark is taken, also the marker doesn’t need to take time to back-peddle some kicking space), you could also have a (gasp) circular zone (1m, 2m or 5m, take your pick) around the mark, where the marking team (and his teammates) can play on unimpeded until they have cleared the zone.
But to assure you I haven’t gone completely mad, there’s a few modifiers to be thrown into the pot.
First the penalty. Initially at least, a 50m penalty is way too much. They could do a gradual increase starting with a 15m penalty to a 25m after a few weeks, depending on how things were going.
Another option is for players who accidentally breech the zone (gack), require that they not be allowed to be active in contesting the play until it has left the area (so they con follow their man, but not tackle them until the ball is kicked/handballed clear).
You’d also want to speed up the play, so if you went with the set-mark option, after a 5-10 second delay the umpire could allow the opposing player to come up to the original mark. But I’m not so sure about this, very optional.
“Wouldn’t this just have teams short-pass kick their way up the ground?” I hear you say.
That’s why they could increase the length of a markable kick to something like 20-30m (also helping to quash any Hawthornoia that this would be a gateway for them to 9m chip back to the top).
This would encourage longer kicking and really reward more contested marking too. Further enshrining the mark and a likely outcome of having more contested marking.
All of a sudden players like Jeremy Howe, Liam Ryan, Charlie Curnow would be even more valuable assets to their teams than they already are. Recruiters would give a higher priority to players who can speccy or clunk it. We can dream anyways.
There’s probably more bits and pieces that could be added to it and it could be bolstered by quicker ball-ups and throw-ins to boot.
So what do you think?
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Think it's time for a follow up article.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Yep keep it flowing. I reckon you've nail-headed it with your first point. Having the ability to get the ball moving from a mark is a massive part of it,so avoiding umpires holding the play up having to faff about with getting all the conditions just so is what we don't want. At the moment I now can't help seeing players who've taken a mark but delayed from getting it away to a teammate who's free in space and then finding by the time they've wheeled back the teammate and space are swamped by opposition players. As for the goal kicking scenario. At the minimal side of the changes it wouldn't impact it greatly, a one or two metres set-mark should affect it all that much either. I have been trying to imagine what it might look like and you would have more goals kicked with a bigger zone. It does make it harder defensively, but for every goal kicked it goes back to the centre (and you get the zone of the centre square to go into operation).
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Certainly, the minimalist approach to this could be brought in this season, just by enforcing the fact that the player on the mark needs to leave the player who took the mark well alone. Add the step back rule next year, pre-season (or AFLW), with a provision to b able to extend it further. Adjusting to the idea could be a struggle initially, so having smaller penalties to start with could help the adjustment period and build from there. It should become second nature if stuck with over a number of seasons. You would definitely see teams trying to game it. On the weekend we got the reminder of how much the Hawks play the mark, creeping up as par for the course and their exaggerated arm waving and jumping up and down working mostly as a distraction from this. That and their dinky 9-12 metre kicking. Both the set-mark and 20-metre-kick requirement would add some extra buffer from this at least.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Gotcha, punt the pun heading. Didn't think it would turn anyone off reading it completely, but I don't mind a bit of silliness on that score. I don't think it needs to be that complicated. The key elements could be summarised as: 1. Don't touch the marking player once a mark has been taken. 2. Don't attempt to interfere with the ball leaving the area. 3. If you're going to stand on the mark step back or stop X metres (steps) away.
Downsey
Guest
Figured it was congestion-discussion fatigue. If it's a contested mark, do you envisage the marker can get on with moving the ball without having to wait for the opposition player to get outside of the protected zone (they automatically become 'inactive')? I'm just imagining player antics trying to slow the game down as the umpire has to re-position them properly outside of the zone before the ball can be moved on. I think the hang up for me is still the wriggle room kicking for goal, but as I'm not a stats person I don't know how often that type of goal angle would come up in a match as to make much difference to the 'look' of the game.
dontknowmuchaboutfootball
Guest
It's definitely a victim of the Friday evening (or Saturday morning) dump. I'm on board with the spirit of the proposal. And to me, it's got nothing to do with congestion. I find it bizarre that the right (so to speak) of the opposition player to stand the mark is favoured over the right earned by the player who took the mark to then freely dispose of the ball. In terms of tweaking rules to accommodate it, I would say keep the protected zone and simply oblige the opposition player to disentangle themselves and/or clear the mark by moving 1m back. Some qualification about "making reasonable effort" to do so would inevitably have to come into play. But there's no reason to believe that such judgements would require mind-reading on the part of umpires. It would just mean identifying some specific proxies. Also a big fan of 1) increasing the kick distance to 20m; and 2) reducing the 50m penalty to 30m.
Cat
Roar Guru
I admit I missed it initially. I'll also admit I did ignore it after that because of the headline. Had the sound of a Ben Pobji 'humor' article and those I avoid like the plague. Sounds all a bit too complicated and if it sounds too complicated I can't imagine the umpire getting it consistent. I will agree though that we need to increase marking distance to 20m – it might result in the umpires actually requiring a ball to travel 15m before its paid. The more players have to spread to be able to take a mark the less they can congest. May even be able to increase it to 25m, today's players are fitter than ever and should have no trouble with that distance. I imagine several decades ago when grounds were mud pits and a single sodden ball was used all game the distance had to be shorter because kicks just didn't travel as far, especially in the amateur/semi-pro days.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
I think this got buried on the Roar Saturday wastelands, where lots of people are more fired up about what's actually happening on the footy field rather than more esoteric stuff like potential rule change options and are out and about doing stuff too. I think people might be a bit weary of congestion stuff after last week too. I had it sitting there as a draft for weeks and weeks and couldn't get any time to devote to it, but dashed what I could off for Thursday night on the half hope it might get in on Friday morning. Would've been better waiting until tonight or tomorrow to send it in possibly. Or maybe it just doesn't float anyone's boat.
Downsey
Roar Pro
It's an interesting option. I'm surprised others don't have thoughts on it too.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
One worry I would have with this modification Downsey, is that it might result in more and heavier one-sided games with older and more skilled sides getting greater hand, but I think that's the same concern with any anti-congestion mod. It would be balanced out by younger frames not having to try and execute as much tackling. It was noticeable how quickly the Hawks played one from a lot of those uncontested marks today, which is in line with these changes and would likewise be possible from the contested marks as well. There's probably some logic that it would give the more well-earned contested marking the same advantage the "cheaper" uncontested mark gets (which would probably happen at more incisive spots with contested marks too). As for the marks close to goal, yes that would be an advantage. One of the things that I thought would be an upside from an attacking point of view is that there are a lot more attractive space in the attacking fifty to try and mark in, which means defences would have to have a wider area to be most conscious of. It'd almost stretch the goal square from point post to point post. The downside would mean fewer skill-testing-angles from set shots, but you'd still get that in open play.
Downsey
Roar Pro
Trying to imagine it during the Freo game, DC. Not seeing it make such a difference for this game where most marks taken are uncontested, and rest are brought down into congestion. Also, makes me wonder what happens if it's a mark in front of goal. Does it give the player kicking for goal a bit more wriggle room when they play on to get a better angle if it's a tight one?
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Thanks for reading Downsey (sorry for not replying sooner, but yesterday was possibly the worst day for me to have this go up) and taking time to reply. You put up some good thoughts there. I don't mind the combative shenanigans, but you can just see a player is often held up from a great opportunity to get the ball moving by being grabbed, blocked, or backing away to get space to kick it. So you just figure do we give a bigger piece of the advantage pie to the player taking a mark, allowing the ball is able to leave the area quicker and give greater incentive for marking at the same time? The non-active concept is only to emphasise not interfering with the travel of the ball while they are in the protected area. They are free to high tail it out of there, if they like. It's a bit akin to standing the mark anyways, just across a broader area. So unlike now, if they don't interfere with the ball, they can leave the area without occurring a penalty. If they do interfere with the ball's journey, then the area is extended for that player another X number of metres.
Downsey
Roar Pro
Missed a trick to start the comments thread off with some punnage too.
Downsey
Roar Pro
The grappling is tolerated because it's all part of the tomfoolery of trying to irritate your opposition without being penalised for it. I get a bit of a laugh out of the dodgy tactics the players employ during these moments. Anyway, if I had a choice between zones after every score and/or stoppage (centre bounce doesn't seem that big a deal to me) or a 2-metre set-mark circular zone, I'd much rather the second option. However, a 30m penalty for infringement seems more reasonable than 'icing out' a player. Having a non-active player seems a step too far - not because I don't think that'll help with congestion but because it'd just 'look' too different from the game I've always known. I've always thought the distance of a markable ball should be longer anyway (I'd go 20m) because the umpires so often call it much shorter than it should be. My completely inexpert feedback. I'll leave the more knowledgeable punters to argue the finer details. I'm of the mindset that the AFL should just take a breath when it comes to congestion and either see how the game adjusts or think it through a bit longer. So this type of suggestion would give them more food for thought before rushing into something. Noice one, DC.