Shepherding the man on the mark

[low flying Robbo 979]

Something I want to see taught is when you are manning the mark, as soon as play on is called, sprint towards the kicker, even if it's just 1 or 2 steps then steady yourself if the guy tries to get around you. Hopefully this will result in more smothers or at least putting pressure on the kicker. Too many times play on is called and the man on the mark just stands there or slowly moves forward. Put some pressure on them!

[jnrmac 18,913]

1 hour ago, low flying Robbo said:

I've said all along that on angled shots for goal, the non-officiating boundary umpire needs to line up directly behind the kicker in the straight line to the goals. If the kicker edges around, play on is called. The field umpire can never see the edging off the straight line

That's a great idea. I think at the moment the boundary umpire runs to stand next to the point post....

[jnrmac 18,913]

1 hour ago, low flying Robbo said:

Something I want to see taught is when you are manning the mark, as soon as play on is called, sprint towards the kicker, even if it's just 1 or 2 steps then steady yourself if the guy tries to get around you. Hopefully this will result in more smothers or at least putting pressure on the kicker. Too many times play on is called and the man on the mark just stands there or slowly moves forward. Put some pressure on them!

The Hawks do this as well. And the number of times a ball is skied or kicked poorly because of the pressure is amazing. The kicker needs to sprint back far enough in the first place to a position where he can make a rational disposal decision without fear of being spoiled. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

The Hawks do this as well. And the number of times a ball is skied or kicked poorly because of the pressure is amazing. The kicker needs to sprint back far enough in the first place to a position where he can make a rational disposal decision without fear of being spoiled. 

I think I have mentioned this one or 1,000 times on Demonland before.

Having a kicked spoiled or touched after a mark or free kick is completely inexcusable.

[Redleg 37,448]

I think the shepherding player near the mark, should be scragged away by the player on the mark, even if that results in him getting a free. At worst the free will be in the same place as the original mark.

This will lead to an ugly game and will see the AFL stepping in and stopping the shepherding player being within say 5 metres of the player on the mark. 

You just have to be pro active to these types things and we rarely seem to be that sort of club. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

45 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think the shepherding player near the mark, should be scragged away by the player on the mark, even if that results in him getting a free. At worst the free will be in the same place as the original mark.

This will lead to an ugly game and will see the AFL stepping in and stopping the shepherding player being within say 5 metres of the player on the mark. 

You just have to be pro active to these types things and we rarely seem to be that sort of club. 

I like your thinking, though what would likely happen is that the player with the ball would take the advantage and play on. Same effect though in that (1) the game progresses as it would have and (2) the AFL will have to step in and amend the rule because the tackling by the man on the mark of his opponent will be a blight on the game, particularly if the player who is attacked retaliates. 

[low flying Robbo 979]

22 hours ago, jnrmac said:

That's a great idea. I think at the moment the boundary umpire runs to stand next to the point post....

I'm talking about the other boundary umpire down that boundary line

[jnrmac 18,913]

22 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I think I have mentioned this one or 1,000 times on Demonland before.

Having a kicked spoiled or touched after a mark or free kick is completely inexcusable.

So why does it keep happening??@@@#!!!!

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

7 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

So why does it keep happening??@@@#!!!!

Because we don't get back behind the mark far or quick enough.

[Moonshadow 16,099]

21 hours ago, Redleg said:

I think the shepherding player near the mark, should be scragged away by the player on the mark, even if that results in him getting a free. At worst the free will be in the same place as the original mark.

This will lead to an ugly game and will see the AFL stepping in and stopping the shepherding player being within say 5 metres of the player on the mark. 

You just have to be pro active to these types things and we rarely seem to be that sort of club. 

The ump will simply call 'advantage', and nothing is gained.

It will take either a concussion to the player on the mark, or for the practice to become such an ugly blight on the game (not far off) before the AFL do something. The AFL are always reactionary rather than visionary

Edited April 19, 2018 by Moonshadow

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

Ridiculous that coaches & teams exploiting shortcomings in the umpiring are now a standard part of the game.

I know it's been a "thing" in the past. Sheedy spent most of his career doing it. (Then there's Bartlett, Selwood, other skilled practitioners.)

But that was Sheedy. Apart from him it's been a pretty sporadic effort.

Now it's industrial scale. It seems every rule is subject to it. And the AFL don't seem to care or want to do anything about it.

The only one they've clamped down on is deliberate OOB (and its cousin, deliberate rushed behinds). Like that was a chronic problem.

With all the throwing, dropping, ducking, etc etc, they chose of all rules that one, wring their hands about others (throwing: "but what if we gave ONE free kick that was really a handball??? gosh!"), and doing absolutely nothing about a bunch of others.

Not to mention the umps coaching the players. Watch any game. See how many times the umps are taking on the players responsibilities. "Get back one. Get back. Rory .... back one. Rory .... Rory ...."

Bloke goes over the mark, 50 metres. Bang. Problem solved in two rounds. (Two rounds so it's not a rule of the week that players can safely ignore the second week!)

Umpiring in the AFL is in a crisis and the AFL are too blind (possibly wilfully) to see it.

[monoccular 15,992]

On 19/04/2018 at 9:53 AM, Redleg said:

I think the shepherding player near the mark, should be scragged away by the player on the mark, even if that results in him getting a free. At worst the free will be in the same place as the original mark.

This will lead to an ugly game and will see the AFL stepping in and stopping the shepherding player being within say 5 metres of the player on the mark. 

You just have to be pro active to these types things and we rarely seem to be that sort of club. 

Sounds a good ploy. At least worth a try.  

But even as it stands, if the shepherding player is over 5 meters from the ball he should be penalized, as happens is some marking contests (again inconsistency umpired). 

Edited April 20, 2018 by monoccular

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,603]

On 4/16/2018 at 2:32 PM, DeeSpencer said:

5;40 of this video. Must start behind the mark until play on is called.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-09-12/is-blocking-the-mark-allowed

How astute is Nat Edwards.

IQ 100X Hayden Kennedy's.

[Kumamoto_Ken 1,531]

Tom Mitchell just got told he wasn't allowed to do it in the game vs North.

Rules vary on a week-to-week basis in the AFL.

[jnrmac 18,913]

4 hours ago, Kumamoto_Ken said:

Tom Mitchell just got told he wasn't allowed to do it in the game vs North.

Rules vary on a week-to-week basis in the AFL.

This inconsistency is unbelievably amateurish by the AFL and frustrating in the extreme.

[monoccular 15,992]

3 hours ago, wizardinoz said:

If Weed gets his chance l hope he plays well otherwise the experienced Rance will eat him alive.

Not suggesting that he is, at least yet, in Hogan’s class, but I do recall that in what I remember as Jesse’s first clash with Rance he took him apart in a rare Friday night appearance and win.

41 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

This inconsistency is unbelievably amateurish by the AFL and frustrating in the extreme.

It is being ru(i)n by someone whose best (I am told) was an amateur footballer.

Certainly Gill seems to retain too many amateur traits. 

[sue 8,402]

Shepherding on the mark is just plain UGLY.  And if it not banned will only get uglier as teams extend its use, especially when marks are taken 60-70 metres from goal. Pretty soon we'll be playing gridiron.

[Clintosaurus 6,394]

16 hours ago, Kumamoto_Ken said:

Tom Mitchell just got told he wasn't allowed to do it in the game vs North.

Rules vary on a week-to-week basis in the AFL.

Same thing happened in the Carlton/West Coast game. Guess Gil didn't want us beating Hawthorn - also North get the run of the umps every week. Hopefully he is OK with us winning tomorrow night.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Clintosaurus

[pitmaster 3,050]

Unbelievable what Hawthorn got away with last week. I heard Mitchell rebuked as well. Christ umpiring is third rate.

Incidentally, two big differences between our game and North's pantsing of Borethorn were the fine conditions and North's conventional forward structure. I did wonder whether we outsmarted ourselves playing Jesse so far upfield once Kent etc stopped finding the goals. Brown really showed up Frawley and Sicily was exposed for the panic merchant he is.

Edited April 22, 2018 by pitmaster

[beelzebub 22,225]

We're constantly outsmarting ourselves. So clever

[beelzebub 22,225]

Maybe as a statement..and a beacon for the 'wisemen' at afl house to ingest would be to instruct a Melbourne player on mark to push / shoulder away anyone for if its deemed ok for someone to be there , then theyre fair game. Also have another player shepherd the shephereder as it were... just highlight the farcical nature of it. That'll get tongues wagging and put it on the list of things to sort.

Fire to fire

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

BB, they'd probably fine us for bringing the game into disrepute

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

27 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

BB, they'd probably fine us for bringing the game into disrepute

I noticed Hawthorn played Frawley in the forward line against us in the second half. And were Hawthorn accused of tanking? Of course not.

 

 

[titan_uranus 22,210]

On 4/22/2018 at 4:18 PM, Kumamoto_Ken said:

Tom Mitchell just got told he wasn't allowed to do it in the game vs North.

Rules vary on a week-to-week basis in the AFL.

Really? 

What is going on?!

What the f**k is the rule?!

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

18 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

Really? 

What is going on?!

What the f**k is the rule?!

Are you the AFL umpires director?