The latest confusion shows the "Man on the Mark" penalty interpretation is still not clear

#Goalsonly Absolutely - - we're not trying to be over officious; try to let the game flow and ignore the incidental stuff as best as able. I had that exact thing a couple of times on the weekend - - the timing was just right that it was okay to let go. Across the different age groups or U19s and seniors - you can umpire in quite different ways. It's pretty obvious when people are trying to milk things.

.....and that's no different to the shot at goal from deep in the pocket. That'll be fine. It's actually a good rule - in essence. Umpires - we're taught to retain 80% of our attention on the guy with the ball - and we're focussed on calling play on as soon as appropriate. It shouldn't take too long to settle down and the games already look more like 'footy' than they have for a few years!!!

I think the rule is BS, but to make it sort of work the umpire must call play on as soon as the player goes off his line.

You might have gussed I’m not a fan of this new rule....in fact it is a real game changer for me. I watched an incident on the weekend, not sure who it was. But the man stood on the mark, hands raised, still. The player kicking the ball ran a bit to his right & kicked the ball about 5 metres directly to the right of the man on the mark. The man on the mark didn’t move, kept his hands in the air & just watched the player kick the ball. That goes against everything I like about Aussie Rules. The player taking the kick was clearly given an advantage with no one allowed to put pressure on. Might be good for the flow but it’s a BS terrible look.

You don't always play to the umpires whistle. If there is understanding and discretion it's possible for the game to flow and little mistakes or anticipations by players can be let go for the good of the game. If the umpire is watching the man on the mark and doesn't see the player take off he may or may not stop play. If he sees the ball player go and the man on the mark follow he should refrain from whistling. The rules are there to serve the game and the players. They are not there to punish fair play. The game exists to enhance the individual. That's why the priority is spectacle over result. Sport is an avenue for human beings to express themselves and the elite have the best skills. The joy they emote when exhibiting these skills gives them x factor. The result is a token and the winners are to be cheered but the sport is a work out. The aggro in footy is born of the compulsion to win or even worse the fear of losing. This aggro kills off many sensitive young players and is the games biggest nuisance. The AFL continue to promote the AGGRO on one hand and pretend to care about the players welfare on their other hand. Celebrate the skills more and the AGGRO will fade.

Robot umpiring without any discretion make us all dumber.

Is that the rule? That means that player with the ball gets 2 free metres. Surely not. How can the umpire judge who is on the mark when no-one is on the mark? And as soon as the player marked the ball he started going backwards. He was punished for giving the Collingwood player extra room. Madness.

Yeah - I umpire locally and am flummoxed that the guy can't even set up 3 metres back and run/jump to the point of the mark.......for years that skill to put off the bloke who hadn't paid proper attention to where the mark was; it was a defensive skill/art. The sideways element - - 100%. Man on the mark is positioned on the mark and the guy kicking is lined up.......with the 'mark'. It's the "mark",......so that's now enshrined.

He got to about 2 metres behind it but that puts him inside that 5 metre 'protected zone' in which he needs to "stand" and not continue creeping. If he wants to creep like that he's gotta push right back outside of the 'zone'......and I assume there'll be no "stand" call which will mean he can't re-enter that zone until "play on" is called. Of course it's tricky near the boundary and the crowd.

You ALWAYS play to the umpires whistle......and likewise, such as a shot from beside the point post running out to screw the ball back; you can't enter the protected zone until the "Play on" call is made. The umpire is controlling those elements. That hasn't changed. The "stand" simplifies things.....and hopefully we'll see less instances of a team mate blocking the man on the mark. Anyway - - how good was the footy this weekend.......between this tweak and the reduction in interchange rotations (adding to the 6/6/6 starting positions) I reckon it was the best style of footy we've seen in years.

The problem is that Keath never actually stood the mark . He was always five metres behind it

I think if you make the rules simpler, & pay them immediately & not wait for a rolling maul, then the game will flow.

It is flawed but I actually don't mind this rule as I like what the AFL is trying g to achieve with it. I agree with Pendles, outlaw any movement left or right by the Man on the Mark until play on is called but allow him move backward. Simple fix I bieve.

So if we agree not to get too technical then I guess we are operating on an understanding or a code if you like. What is the priority? Flow of the game or minor technicalities? What would have been the consequences of letting that particular incident go? The rule is still the rule but the umpire has used his discretionary powers which is making us all smarter instead of dumber by blindly enforcing every little mistake.

I don’t disagree with what you say, but how technical does that make it for the umpire & the fans. Becomes unumpirable.

it was as clear as day but Keith probably thought he was in the big bash again, protected zone is alot more bs than the stand rule.

It's not a terrible rule as scragging to slow play down has been reduced but next time the umpire might let that particular one go. (If he can learn to not whistle which can be harder than learning to whistle in the first place). It was an imposition on the flow of the game. It was unnecessary and also gifted a goal to the undeserving pies; the same rule allowing the shot at goal to be taken some metres closer than normal due to the player on the mark being forced to remain still even after the kicker has deviated just enough to gain the advantage. It was a beautifully executed case of the player taking advantage of the rules weakness. The weakness is the split second between the deviation and the umpires call and the player on the mark hearing that and responding. Umpires should not penalize the man on the mark if he responds before the call when the kicker has initiated his deviation. But to correctly adjudicate the deviation the umpire must position himself on the straight line. For every degree his position is askew there is increased probability of missing the initial deviation. If not then shooting from fifty just became shooting from 47.5. Technically the free was there and you can always argue that every little thing should be payed but this result shows that on occasion you might just let play on. Gifted goals are frustrating and better kept to a minimum.