Shepherding the man on the mark

[george_on_the_outer 6,940]

Sheedy and Clarkson have been experts at exploiting the rules. 

Why?....because the umpires are incompetent more times than not, and fail to enforce the rules as in the rule book. 

1.Who cares if you get "pulled up" for shepherding on the mark a couple of times, when you get away with it most of the time. And the only penalty is getting to take the kick again.

2. Who cares when you run over the mark when a player is coming in to kick ( another Hawthorn tactic), because it is rarely if ever called.

3.Who cares if players run into the centre square before the ball is bounced....because it is rarely called.

And yet all of these situations were used time and time again yesterday. 

But as Demon 1858 said above : WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT AS WELL?

[Mach5 4,482]

11 hours ago, jnrmac said:

It is totally legal to stand next to the man on the mark according to the rules. However umpires have the teammate stand back generally until play on is called.

Its an abomination and should be banned. Either that or a team should be able to bump the guy to the ground despite him being more than 5m from the ball.

 

Simple solution for mine:

Similar to the 50m penalty for an opponent coming too close to the man with the ball, play-on should be called as soon as an opponent comes within 5m (or 10m?) of the man on the mark.

Dont wait until he is alongside, as it will give an unfair advantage. That way no one comes close to the man with the ball, making it easier for umpires to manage, and the blame lies with teammates.

[spirit of norm smith 12,830]

5 hours ago, jnrmac said:

He's been doing it for at least 4 years. Its not new....

It’s been about for 10 years. Hawks do it more and better than anyone.  Not a surprise.  It’s ugly but showed up our lack of intelligence. 

[Lord Travis 10,136]

It’s a bad look for the game, but it’s within the interpretation of the rules so we need to adapt to it. The Hawks and other teams have used it to good effect against us. Blocking the man on the mark means the kicker gains an extra 10 or so metres before bombing it long. Our defense is weak at defending quick long balls in when there aren’t midfielders there to assist with killing the contest. Good coaches know that, and so they use the rule to their advantage.

We need to learn to adapt. If an opposition player is sheparding the man on the mark, it means we have an extra player elsewhere. Make use of that. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Lord Travis

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

I believe the interpretation is you have to be 1 metre behind the player on the mark until the umpire calls play on. They have to come from behind the mark, they can't be adjacent to it. It was poorly officiated yesterday (shock horror), but it does allow another player to either be free or up as the second marker so to speak and be involved.

In the dry it doesn't really achieve much. In the wet it buys extra territory so it's well worth doing.

Of course our players are poorly trained both at doing it and at how to defend it. It's basically a basketball screen and you can either fight over or under it or hand off to a second player to chase the kicker whist you pick up the blocker.

The Hawks do the little things so well. 

At one stage Bugg gave away an off ball free for holding or blocking, not sure which, I didn't see a replay of what he had done. But it made me laugh because any time a high ball was coming in to the Hawthorn forward line they were blocking for each other non stop.

[DeeZone 7,643]

An Ugly tactic that the AFL have let seep into the Game, Come on Gil get your act together and get rid of these insidious types of Rule Changes, the Ump's are struggling enough to try and maintain the Standards that we all grew up with. AFL need to step up..................GGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRR..........!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FireInTheBennelly 4,022]

The more ugly look for me is the tackled player dropping the ball and then winning a free kick for the lingering tackle. It's got to be either incorrect disposal or play on if no prior. You can't penalise a defender for doing what he's been doing since Auskick. He has no idea the ball's come loose. See Isaac Smiths goal.

[buck_nekkid 5,457]

It is only relevant if the person taking the mark is slowing things down.  In a receive and go gameplan, it is superfluous.  However the advantage is a few extra metres off the line might be gained.  On the flip side, it takes a player out of the next contest, or what follows.

if opposition teams are doing it, it means that we have slowed them down and are forcing them to kick to contests.  

The other option is to have the man running by to take the ball, get a few metres, and deliver at speed.  This is just as effective, and doesn’t look petty to the viewer.

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

23 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I believe the interpretation is you have to be 1 metre behind the player on the mark until the umpire calls play on. They have to come from behind the mark, they can't be adjacent to it.

We may never know what the "interpretation" is (rules need "interpreting"? must be badly written then) as it will change from week to week and game to game.

The nearest thing we have ... and we can only use it as a loose guide, like the AFL do ... is the actual rule. Nothing in the rules about where to stand behind the man on the mark. You can stand 2cm behind if you want.

If you stand next to him, you are in the protected zone. Rule says NO player may be in the protected zone. But what is the penalty if that player is on the same team as the guy with the ball? Rule is silent.

Poorly written, poorly "interpreted", poorly adjudicated, poorly everything. Could be a description of the AFL rules & umpiring! Oh hang on ... it is.

 

29 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

At one stage Bugg gave away an off ball free for holding or blocking, not sure which, I didn't see a replay of what he had done. But it made me laugh because any time a high ball was coming in to the Hawthorn forward line they were blocking for each other non stop.

Bugg deserves some kind of award. The Razor Ray Hanging Judge Sympathy Award for being the only bloke this season (past and future) to be penalised for that.

[Clintosaurus 6,394]

57 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

At one stage Bugg gave away an off ball free for holding or blocking, not sure which, I didn't see a replay of what he had done. But it made me laugh because any time a high ball was coming in to the Hawthorn forward line they were blocking for each other non stop.

There was a bit of #freekickhawthorn going on yesterday.

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

34 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

We may never know what the "interpretation" is (rules need "interpreting"? must be badly written then) as it will change from week to week and game to game.

The nearest thing we have ... and we can only use it as a loose guide, like the AFL do ... is the actual rule. Nothing in the rules about where to stand behind the man on the mark. You can stand 2cm behind if you want.

If you stand next to him, you are in the protected zone. Rule says NO player may be in the protected zone. But what is the penalty if that player is on the same team as the guy with the ball? Rule is silent.

Poorly written, poorly "interpreted", poorly adjudicated, poorly everything. Could be a description of the AFL rules & umpiring! Oh hang on ... it is.

 

Bugg deserves some kind of award. The Razor Ray Hanging Judge Sympathy Award for being the only bloke this season (past and future) to be penalised for that.

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

[DeeSpencer 23,051]

52 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

The more ugly look for me is the tackled player dropping the ball and then winning a free kick for the lingering tackle. It's got to be either incorrect disposal or play on if no prior. You can't penalise a defender for doing what he's been doing since Auskick. He has no idea the ball's come loose. See Isaac Smiths goal.

Yep. Hawthorn were much better than us especially in the forward line of just dropping it on first contact and either drawing a free of scrapping on the next contest.

We were penalised for attempting to handball.

Holding the man should only be paid for players who don't ever have the ball. If you've possessed it and haven't kicked or handballed then you're fair game I think. Pay a sling tackle if it's a dangerous tackle that results.

How  many times was Tom Mitchell tackling Jones or Oliver before they even got the ball yesterday. Astounding.

[jnrmac 18,913]

5 minutes ago, 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

In that video the Umpire says you are allowed to 'screen' or put "a passive block" on a player. As soon as he makes contact with the man on the mark though it is a free kick to the man on the mark,

This is being badly umpired (surprise) but should in any case be rubbed out of the game.

[Moonshadow 16,099]

35 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

There was a bit of #freekickhawthorn going on yesterday.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Moonshadow

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,381]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I believe the interpretation is you have to be 1 metre behind the player on the mark until the umpire calls play on. They have to come from behind the mark, they can't be adjacent to it. It was poorly officiated yesterday (shock horror), but it does allow another player to either be free or up as the second marker so to speak and be involved.

In the dry it doesn't really achieve much. In the wet it buys extra territory so it's well worth doing.

Of course our players are poorly trained both at doing it and at how to defend it. It's basically a basketball screen and you can either fight over or under it or hand off to a second player to chase the kicker whist you pick up the blocker.

The Hawks do the little things so well. 

At one stage Bugg gave away an off ball free for holding or blocking, not sure which, I didn't see a replay of what he had done. But it made me laugh because any time a high ball was coming in to the Hawthorn forward line they were blocking for each other non stop.

This is an example of team maturity that only comes about once other core skills and fitness levels have been achieved. I'm also convinced Hawthorn has more than a Plan A and can switch between those plans quickly as the need arises. On the other hand, we're still learning our Plan A and are nowhere near being ready to worry about doing the little things well. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,968]

23 minutes ago, 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

Good find.

It happens that none of that is in the rules. Only in Kennedy's head.

Kennedy said that he can't stand next to the man on the mark, as that would be two men on the mark. Rule only says one player from the opposing team can stand the mark.

Says nothing about what happens if someone from the ball holders team also stands on the mark. (Although they would be in the protected zone, but rule is absent on that one too.)

Even if we go by what Kennedy says as local by-laws peculiar to the AFL, we still didn't see them being enforced correctly.

Dogs breakfast. Rules & "interpretations."

[Tony Tea 2,784]

Collingwood did it heaps in 2010. Herry Lamumba was their main man-on-the-mark shepherder. I'm pretty sure that's the only reason we recruited him.

[Tony Tea 2,784]

4 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

But as Demon 1858 said above : WHY AREN'T WE DOING IT AS WELL?

Because as soon as WE do it, a free will be paid. Same for throwing the ball. Everyone does it, but as soon as we do it, a free will be paid.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Tony Tea

[Demonland 64,361]

Geelong were doing it to us in Round 1. We would have learned from that. 

[Deemania since 56 6,119]

6 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

It drove me mental all game. As said above, it was holding not shepherding and should have been a free kick every time. That wouldn't fit in with #freekickhawthorn though. Free kick count was 27-24 their way but it felt more like 30-15. Razor and co certainly gave them a ride back into the game and it gave them all the momentum they needed to do what happened.

I would hate the think that this was true from Razor and Coy; but I certainly believe it is the umpires' 'secret' attempt at equalisation and have seen this occurring in many forms for many years. Football has become - against the wishes of the general public - a very dirty game of official deceit.

 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I like when Mitchell got a free kick for holding Jones' jumper off the ball.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

 

Page 31 and 32:

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Laws_of_Australian_Football.pdf

They need to extend the protected area to 5 metres behind the man on the mark too.

[Demonland 64,361]

19 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

 

Page 31 and 32:

http://www.aflcommunityclub.com.au/fileadmin/user_upload/Coach_AFL/2017_Laws_of_Australian_Football.pdf

They need to extend the protected area to 5 metres behind the man on the mark too.

There should be the same semi circle behind the man on the mark. 

[Mach5 4,482]

13 minutes ago, Demonland said:

There should be the same semi circle behind the man on the mark. 

 

As I said, it would make the umpire's job easier.

Penalise anyone going into that area, and it removes the issue of "sneaky" teammates curling around the bloke with the ball, dragging an opponent into the area, tempting an umpire to make a mistake.
Clarity for all, less iffy frees... I can't see a downside.

[Moonshadow 16,099]

AFL make the rules up according to whichever knee is jerking the most.

It should be pretty simple, and would make the game look better: no shepherding the man on the mark. None of this 5m or 10m zone stuff. Umps aren't real estate agents. But, of course,  if they do change the rule you can bet your house it will not be easy for the umps to ardjudicate. Bit like the 3rd man up nomination rubbish. And no nomination means no one from that team may jump. How farcical was the Jack Rievoldt ball up? Just rule that 2 go up and any third player has the free played against them. Ump throws it up around ground, bounce only in the centre.

Simples. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Moonshadow