Harry O'Brien

[CarnTheDees 52]

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.

No.

Behind the man on the mark (i.e. behind his back) is not considered the 'protected area'. There is no radius around the man on the mark, the protection only extends either side of the mark and then forward (as the man on the mark is looking) to the player with the ball. As the current rules are written there is nothing illegal about standing directly behind the man on the mark then shepherding him once play-on has been called.

[45HG 1,559]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm just watching the replay (Oh God!).

I've noticed in the 3rd term Macdonald and Warnock both tried doing the same thing. I wonder if someone spoke to the umpires at half time and were told that it's fine.

Don't see much benefit in the tactic however.

[Guest 45 double agent]

yeah it sux doesnt it.

[Chook 15,023]

Sorry to bring this up again, but I'm just watching the replay (Oh God!).

I've noticed in the 3rd term Macdonald and Warnock both tried doing the same thing. I wonder if someone spoke to the umpires at half time and were told that it's fine.

Don't see much benefit in the tactic however.

I think it might be a good tactic in the following circumstance:

Behind is kicked. Whoever is closest quickly grabs the ball and kicks it in to Aaron Davey in the back pocket. Man shepherds the way O'Brien does, allowing Davey to run his full measure and spot up someone on the wing who turns and kicks to a leading forward. The extra 15 metres a quick guy like Davey could get might make the difference between a fast, smooth entry into the forward line and us breaking down on the wing.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,670]

I think it might be a good tactic in the following circumstance:

Behind is kicked. Whoever is closest quickly grabs the ball and kicks it in to Aaron Davey in the back pocket. Man shepherds the way O'Brien does, allowing Davey to run his full measure and spot up someone on the wing who turns and kicks to a leading forward. The extra 15 metres a quick guy like Davey could get might make the difference between a fast, smooth entry into the forward line and us breaking down on the wing.

It would only work once and the opposition would click.

[Chook 15,023]

It would only work once and the opposition would click.

but you could do that at any time Davey marks the ball, just as O'Brien did on the week-end. I'm not saying that it's a game-changing tactic, but it could give us an easy goal (if only once), and anything that does that is worth considering.

[The Fergburger 0]

Hi guys, i haven't posted in a while but there is one thing that is bothering me at the moment about Harry O'brian. As good a player he is, HE IS CONTINUOUSLY BLOCKING THE MAN ON THE MARK (FROM THE OPPOSITE TEAM) FROM ATTEMPTING TO RUN AT THE GUY WHO HAS THE BALL. The Foxsports commentators last week highlighted the fact that it is unacceptable act, yet O'brian continues to do what he wants. I'm watching the STK vs COLL game on tv tonight and he continues to do as he pleases. On one occasion he got penalised by the umpires but 10 minutes later he did it again!!.

[Chook 15,023]

Forget about that. Despite winning a massive amount of the ball, almost every single one of his kicks tonight has been long to the forward-line, whereupon it is marked by a St. Kilda player and swept effortlessly back where it came from. If he lowers his eyes a bit, his possessions might be a little more effective.

[The Fergburger 0]

Forget about that. Despite winning a massive amount of the ball, almost every single one of his kicks tonight has been long to the forward-line, whereupon it is marked by a St. Kilda player and swept effortlessly back where it came from. If he lowers his eyes a bit, his possessions might be a little more effective.

I understand where you are coming from i'm but stressing the fact that O'brian is consistantly taking the man on the mark out of the play, allowing the collingwood player with the ball to play on and run free. it is not acceptable and should be looked at.

[Arthur Dent 2]

Watching the game tonight and he just did it again and got pinged. Midway through third quarter

[Chook 15,023]

I understand where you are coming from i'm but stressing the fact that O'brian is consistantly taking the man on the mark out of the play, allowing the collingwood player with the ball to play on and run free. it is not acceptable and should be looked at.

I agree with that. I said on the other O'Brien thread that we should do the same for Davey when he marks the ball, at least unrtil the rule is changed. For the record, the rule as understand it is that as long as you stand behind the player on the mark and at least 5 metres from the player who's taken the mark, anyone can be as close as they like. And once the umpire has called play-on, then normal rules regarding shepherding apply.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I agree with that. I said on the other O'Brien thread that we should do the same for Davey when he marks the ball, at least unrtil the rule is changed. For the record, the rule as understand it is that as long as you stand behind the player on the mark and at least 5 metres from the player who's taken the mark, anyone can be as close as they like. And once the umpire has called play-on, then normal rules regarding shepherding apply.

If the AFL and the umpires had any sense they will police the tactic out. I would be careful replicating that trick.

[sue 9,191]

I agree with that. I said on the other O'Brien thread that we should do the same for Davey when he marks the ball, at least unrtil the rule is changed. For the record, the rule as understand it is that as long as you stand behind the player on the mark and at least 5 metres from the player who's taken the mark, anyone can be as close as they like. And once the umpire has called play-on, then normal rules regarding shepherding apply.

If he has to be 5 metres away until play on is called the player with the ball could walk on his line to within 5m to the man on the mark. Then the ump has to call O'Brien away. Interesting messes could ensure, not sure to whose advantage.

But what about 'shepherding' like this when someone is coming in to kick a goal from an acute angle? Player kicking the ball goes just off line sufficient for the ump to call play on, the shepherding player then flattens the man on the mark and the player kicking the ball just runs straight through to an open goal. A bit of similar blocking of the other players surrounding the kicker might help. You'd have to practice this, but perhaps it could be made almost foolproof. If the opposition puts a line of players between the kicker and the goals to counter this, then there may be loose players for the kicker to kick to instead.

Yuk. I hope they make the whole thing illegal.

[Chook 15,023]

Yuk. I hope they make the whole thing illegal.

Me too, but until they do, Melbourne really need to make sure they know the rule and how to take advantage of it. In professional sport, exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, fair game and a good sign that a team has done this is when the rule gets changed because of it, similar to the Joel Bowden kick-in incident two years ago. When I was ten years old I would say to my grandpa "why don't teams that a few goals ahead just waste time like this until they win?" He never payed attention to me because I was just a "silly little kid," but lo and behold, it happened. It took about eight years for the AFL to catch up to my incredible tactical nous, but eventually it did.