Fingers crossed the Levi injury is only minor.

Levi is fine been playing match simulation full body contact

Like that time we beat the Swans by 100pt in pre-season and we went on to finish last and they won the flag?

Not sure where to put this - but a significant rule change! (after the ad - my apologies for including a bombers clip...)
I can see 25 50m penalties in the opening games...

https://www.theroar.com.au/afl/video/bombers-intra-club-shows-just-how-tough-the-new-man-on-the-mark-laws-are-1114949/

The headline states 'how tough it is?

FMD, the player has to stand still on the mark. These players are full time footballers working on their craft 6 days per week. If the players cant grasp it, the coaches should be sacked. I heard Ratts whinging about it a couple of weeks ago. My message? Do your @#$%&! job Ratts. It's not hard. Get grown men to stand still on the mark. That's the full extent of it

Goals should not be allowed from discretionary 50m penalties from these new introduced rules is my position. Reminds me of the problems newly introduced species have had in Australia, like Toads and rabbits. The answer to those problems was never " just deal with it".

The headline states 'how tough it is?

FMD, the player has to stand still on the mark. These players are full time footballers working on their craft 6 days per week. If the players cant grasp it, the coaches should be sacked. I heard Ratts whinging about it a couple of weeks ago. My message? Do your @#$%&! job Ratts. It's not hard. Get grown men to stand still on the mark. That's the full extent of it

I can't agree Bondi. It's not a discretionary 50. It's a simple rule. Stand still until the umpire calls play on. 6 Year olds should be able to do it yet the coaches would have us believe it's difficult for full time footballers.
You break the rules, you pay the price. It's not that hard IMHO.

I agree with the way you pitched it and I understand the rule. But you haven't followed my point. You've quoted my conclusion, not the reasoning behind it.

I'm just reflecting on the makey uppey nature of the AFL, and the annual changes they make have led to the problems of a rugby like game. This is another band aid or "trial". Hocking says so....today, in the HS. It doesn't stop the rugby look on the game. Isn't that the biggest issue? More Rugby mauls cause more collissions that causes more injury.

Furthermore from the footage provided, I commented that it proves the rule will only be as good as the umpire's call. The AFL are just making umpiring even harder than it already is. If an umpire doesn't call "play on" when a player with the ball moves off his line, then calls a free (because umpire was too slow to call "play on"....this is a discretionary 50m penalty given by the umpire to "saver face". If an umpire calls it back, then good on him....but they rarely do that.
to
Rules are easy to follow. It doesn't make them right.
Its not just a player problem. Its an umpiring problem too.
I bet we see umpires get this wrong, let alone the players.

I share your frustration with the AFL "make uppy" strategy Bondi but IMHO, this could be a great rule. And it will stop mauls because it will reduce kicks to contests and slow plays which are a precursor to stoppages. It will enable more change of direction, faster movement of the ball, it will stretch zones which creates more room for forwards and the faster movement prevents teams getting players back to clog up space. IMHO, those ingredients will create higher scoring and scope for the dominant forwards to shine.

Simplest way to open the game up is reduce the number of players on the field.