Harry O'Brien

[Pates 9,675]

Much has been said about the crap and at times plain bizarre umpiring from Saturdays game, but i wanted to draw attention to a particular rule the not just one umpire but ALL the umpires seemed to completely and utterly ignore (and i side story to this that is actually pretty funny!). The rule i'm talk about is where a player is shepparded by an opposing player while that players teammate is about to play on or kick it after a mark. This was never more apparent than when about a minute or so before Ricky kicked that brilliant solo effort goal Collingwood were allowed to run the ball about freely thanks to that illegal sheppard. O'Brien continued to do this all day deliberately standing between the player on the mark and his teammates direction of play, never ONCE being called up for it.

This poor example of umpiring actually lead to me getting one of the biggest saliva sprays i've ever had at the footy from a justifiably [censored] off Dees fan tearing into the umpires! All jokes aside, this is not a Melbourne fan just having a whine, the commentators on Fox Sports were on it all day. So FFS AFL, make sure your dumb ass maggots in yellow know the friggen rules before you put them out on the park.

[Redleg 41,946]

Much has been said about the crap and at times plain bizarre umpiring from Saturdays game, but i wanted to draw attention to a particular rule the not just one umpire but ALL the umpires seemed to completely and utterly ignore (and i side story to this that is actually pretty funny!). The rule i'm talk about is where a player is shepparded by an opposing player while that players teammate is about to play on or kick it after a mark. This was never more apparent than when about a minute or so before Ricky kicked that brilliant solo effort goal Collingwood were allowed to run the ball about freely thanks to that illegal sheppard. O'Brien continued to do this all day deliberately standing between the player on the mark and his teammates direction of play, never ONCE being called up for it.

This poor example of umpiring actually lead to me getting one of the biggest saliva sprays i've ever had at the footy from a justifiably [censored] off Dees fan tearing into the umpires! All jokes aside, this is not a Melbourne fan just having a whine, the commentators on Fox Sports were on it all day. So FFS AFL, make sure your dumb ass maggots in yellow know the friggen rules before you put them out on the park.

The Umpires adviser Jeff geischen has admitted that the shepherds were illegal and free kicks should have been paid. Given that it happened several times and with a few right next to the goals, including one next to the point post in the last quarter, it has influenced the result of the game dramatically. When added to a few other obvious frees not paid to us it didn't help. Interestingly as the siren went Shaw deliberately handballed out of bounds next to the point post. Would the umpire have paid it if the siren went a second earlier, bet not.

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

A couple of things:

1/ We got sucked into doing it at least once and one of the games this arvo had players doing it.

2/ I don't see how it is a good tactic. It means we have a free player and I'm not sure that is worth the effort for 15 meters of run. I would have thought Harry would have been more useful doing either a dummy run or at least dragging his own player away from the hot spot.

3/ Why not wait for the finals? The umps will now be onto it so the tactic was wasted against a bottom team when it might have made the difference against (say) Geelong in a prelim.

Just my 2 bob.

[Blind_turn 43]

I noticed the same thing on Saturday so I looked up the rule:

16.1.2 Protected Area

The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres

either side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5-metre

radius behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in

diagram 2 appearing on page 60. No Player shall enter and

remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls

“Play On” or the Player is accompanying or following within

5 metres of his or her opponent.

While I can't seem to copy and paste the diagram here when you look at it it makes it clear that in fact Harry O'Brien was not breaking any rules. The protected area does not cover any area immediately behind the player standing on the mark.

So it is a legitimate tactic that Collingwood (and especially Harry O) employed on Saturday.

Lets hope our boys start doing the same.

On a related matter, Collingwood seemed to employ a similar set play on occasions where when they got a mark (especially just outside the fifty metre arc they seemed to line up maybe three players just outside the "5 metre" protected zone to sheppard the player with the ball when he played on.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

The Umpires adviser Jeff geischen has admitted that the shepherds were illegal and free kicks should have been paid. Given that it happened several times and with a few right next to the goals, including one next to the point post in the last quarter, it has influenced the result of the game dramatically. When added to a few other obvious frees not paid to us it didn't help. Interestingly as the siren went Shaw deliberately handballed out of bounds next to the point post. Would the umpire have paid it if the siren went a second earlier, bet not.

What is the rule?

It was very obvious, but I didn't actually notice an occasion when it worked to their advantage. Maybe I missed something? I don't remember seeing it before.

Like someone said, the quid pro quo is we had a loose man up the ground.

[e25 5]

What is the rule?

It was very obvious, but I didn't actually notice an occasion when it worked to their advantage. Maybe I missed something? I don't remember seeing it before.

Like someone said, the quid pro quo is we had a loose man up the ground.

In the end, that tactic was fair inconsequential.

Harry seemed to be wasting his time as it didn't gain his side any significant advantage and couldve helped us create a turnover by having his man free further afield.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,103]

I noticed the same thing on Saturday so I looked up the rule:

16.1.2 Protected Area

The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres

either side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5-metre

radius behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in

diagram 2 appearing on page 60. No Player shall enter and

remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls

“Play On” or the Player is accompanying or following within

5 metres of his or her opponent.

While I can't seem to copy and paste the diagram here when you look at it it makes it clear that in fact Harry O'Brien was not breaking any rules. The protected area does not cover any area immediately behind the player standing on the mark.

So it is a legitimate tactic that Collingwood (and especially Harry O) employed on Saturday.

It's only legitimate if he's standing behind the player on the mark. He was clearly standing beside the man, and as such violating the 5m protected zone.

[grazman 7,506]

So it is a legitimate tactic that Collingwood (and especially Harry O) employed on Saturday.

Depends on the interpretation of protected area.... if a Melbourne player had followed Harry O and stood as second marker would the umpire have cleared the area? I bet they would have. Also how do you shepherd a bloke when standing behind him without actually grabbing him and giving away the free - you can't actually make contact with the man on the mark until "play on' is called. This appears to be a new tactic as the same thing was done by a Hawthorn player the previous week. The most logical response is that the umpires should interpret the 'protected area to include the mark and keep every player at least five meters away.

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

3/ Why not wait for the finals? The umps will now be onto it so the tactic was wasted against a bottom team when it might have made the difference against (say) Geelong in a prelim.

Well it turned out pretty effective in a game which they won by a solitary point. Had the umpires been awake to it when it was blatant early in the game it should have resulted in a free kick to Melbourne on the forward line.

They tried it, got away with it and the rest is now history.

[rusty_corner 0]

Was watching the 5th Quarter on Saturday Night and they were talking about the same thing.

Apparently Geishen mentioned it last year and said they would only pay free kicks if the man standing the mark was taken out.

Apparently your allowed to block, just not bump!

They also mentioned that the tactic didn't really help

[Yokozuna 1,004]

I had to advocate rule changes, cos I know the umpires have enough on their plates which they already routinely get wrong, however this rule needs to be cleared up or changed.

If you can stand behind someone, why not get someone to do that when you are having a shot from a sharp angle, and just block the man as soon as you play on! When that happens the umpries are at pains to tell players to get back 5 metres when having a set shot!

I think it is unfair if you can do it around the ground, but not near the goals. Just make it simple and say 5 metres around the mark is a no go zone.

[Cards13 9,117]

The MFC players should have tried to take advantage of the situation and tried to milk a free kick from it.

[Redleg 41,946]

I noticed the same thing on Saturday so I looked up the rule:

16.1.2 Protected Area

The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres

either side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5-metre

radius behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in

diagram 2 appearing on page 60. No Player shall enter and

remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls

“Play On” or the Player is accompanying or following within

5 metres of his or her opponent.

While I can't seem to copy and paste the diagram here when you look at it it makes it clear that in fact Harry O'Brien was not breaking any rules. The protected area does not cover any area immediately behind the player standing on the mark.

So it is a legitimate tactic that Collingwood (and especially Harry O) employed on Saturday.

Lets hope our boys start doing the same.

On a related matter, Collingwood seemed to employ a similar set play on occasions where when they got a mark (especially just outside the fifty metre arc they seemed to line up maybe three players just outside the "5 metre" protected zone to sheppard the player with the ball when he played on.

I have just contacted an AFL umpire mate who told me that you can stand behind the player on the mark not next to him or in the 5 metre arc as defined in the rule. It is not a free kick to the other side. However he said "play on" should not be allowed while this is happening and the mark should be reset and from now on it will. Any heavy blocking to the man on the mark can be reportable. It now appears that the umpires will insist that the team mate be at least 5 metres behind the man on the mark before "play on" will be called. Hope this assists with understanding the rule.

[Nasher 33,617]

I have just contacted an AFL umpire mate who told me that you can stand behind the player on the mark not next to him or in the 5 metre arc as defined in the rule. It is not a free kick to the other side. However he said "play on" should not be allowed while this is happening and the mark should be reset and from now on it will. Any heavy blocking to the man on the mark can be reportable. It now appears that the umpires will insist that the team mate be at least 5 metres behind the man on the mark before "play on" will be called. Hope this assists with understanding the rule.

Thanks Redleg.

It was an interesting exploitation of an unclear rule -- smart play by O'Brien IMO. I'd love to know how he came up with the idea, as nobody's ever done that before to my knowledge. It takes a fairly thorough understanding of the rules -- does he spend his evenings leafing through the rule book?

[Pates 9,675]

I have just contacted an AFL umpire mate who told me that you can stand behind the player on the mark not next to him or in the 5 metre arc as defined in the rule. It is not a free kick to the other side. However he said "play on" should not be allowed while this is happening and the mark should be reset and from now on it will. Any heavy blocking to the man on the mark can be reportable. It now appears that the umpires will insist that the team mate be at least 5 metres behind the man on the mark before "play on" will be called. Hope this assists with understanding the rule.

Thanks it does, strange to hear common sense coming from an umpire!

[titan_uranus 25,176]

Inanunder explained it.

O'Brien did nothing illegal. He only approached the player once the umpire had called play on, before which he stood behind the player which is legal.

If he'd been laying massive hip and shoulders then things would be different, but since he was only getting in their way, rather than taking them out, he played by the rules.

[praha 11,253]

They kept showing it several times on TV, but I was watching it on a TV with no sound at a pub so I couldn't hear if the commentators were saying it was a good tactic or illegal.

[Redleg 41,946]

Thanks Redleg.

It was an interesting exploitation of an unclear rule -- smart play by O'Brien IMO. I'd love to know how he came up with the idea, as nobody's ever done that before to my knowledge. It takes a fairly thorough understanding of the rules -- does he spend his evenings leafing through the rule book?

He may very well. Saw him on one of the sunday footy shows and boy was he impressive. He is an articulate, serious and impressive individual. Must admit I got a bit of a shock hearing him speak. He said that he carries around a notebook for any drawing, thought, poem or idea that he might have so he can read it later on and develop it. He looked like real leadership material to me. Very modest as well.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,103]

He may very well. Saw him on one of the sunday footy shows and boy was he impressive. He is an articulate, serious and impressive individual. Must admit I got a bit of a shock hearing him speak. He said that he carries around a notebook for any drawing, thought, poem or idea that he might have so he can read it later on and develop it. He looked like real leadership material to me. Very modest as well.

Have a look at his website sometime.

http://harrysworld.com.au/

He's also up on Twitter. As you said, articulate and intelligent. I know it's not that rare in footballers, but it's easy to fall for the stereotype of brainless thugs who only know how to play ball. Then you remember things like Stef Martin studying law. Brendan Gale is also a lawyer. James Hird Married one...

[Akum 2,660]

He may very well. Saw him on one of the sunday footy shows and boy was he impressive. He is an articulate, serious and impressive individual. Must admit I got a bit of a shock hearing him speak. He said that he carries around a notebook for any drawing, thought, poem or idea that he might have so he can read it later on and develop it. He looked like real leadership material to me. Very modest as well.

He's just as impressive in person. Does a lot of stuff for the African community in Melbourne, including the first African festival of music in Footscray about a month ago, where I met him; the festival went much better than expected & may become an annual event. Anyway, I think it woulld be more likely that a member of the coaching staff worked it out and Harry was the only one with the presence of mind to put it into practice. But I reckon he's the sort of guy that would have to be absolutely convinced that it's legit before he'd do it.

Would make a fantastic Demon - I'll work on it! Far too good a bloke for the Pies! And he said some great things about our performance on 774 straight after the match.

[John Dee 445]

I noticed the same thing on Saturday so I looked up the rule:

16.1.2 Protected Area

The Protected Area is a corridor which extends from 5 metres

either side of the mark to 5 metres either side of, and a 5-metre

radius behind, the Player with the football, as illustrated in

diagram 2 appearing on page 60. No Player shall enter and

remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls

Play On or the Player is accompanying or following within

5 metres of his or her opponent.

If O'Brien was not standing in the protected area, then he was in front of the mark. In this case he is covered by the rule against shepherding the man on the mark. Either way, it was illegal.

[Redleg 41,946]

Have a look at his website sometime.

http://harrysworld.com.au/

He's also up on Twitter. As you said, articulate and intelligent. I know it's not that rare in footballers, but it's easy to fall for the stereotype of brainless thugs who only know how to play ball. Then you remember things like Stef Martin studying law. Brendan Gale is also a lawyer. James Hird Married one...

Thanks Ralph.

[titan_uranus 25,176]

If O'Brien was not standing in the protected area, then he was in front of the mark. In this case he is covered by the rule against shepherding the man on the mark. Either way, it was illegal.

If the umpire calls play on I don't think the man on the mark has any protection at all.

AFAIK he was waiting until the umpire blew the whistle before approaching the man on the mark, and he didn't lay a bump, which is illegal, but just blocked his run.

[Yokozuna 1,004]

There was one instance near our behind post when he did it to JB. They have shown it on the replay and he clearly stood right next to JB and then the other player played on, the umpire did not call play on until after he had shepherded his teammate. Other than that he was always half a metre behind.

I think it is pretty stupid that there is a 5m protected area everywhere except for where a player cant see, right behind himself. I know they can pay a free if there is excessive force, but if Obrien just stands there he gets away with the block.

I am not one for more rule changes, as the umpires struggle enough as it is, but I am waiting for the time when a player shepherds the mark as someone plays on from an angle when going for goal. I dont think that is fair, but it is within the rules so we should use it.

[Big Kev 375]

Thanks Redleg.

It was an interesting exploitation of an unclear rule -- smart play by O'Brien IMO. I'd love to know how he came up with the idea, as nobody's ever done that before to my knowledge. It takes a fairly thorough understanding of the rules -- does he spend his evenings leafing through the rule book?

We tried it several times to allow Jeff Farmer to run around the man on the mark, but it was never allowed and the ball was called back and the player told to move out of the area. Just hasn't be tried for a while and had been forgotten about.