Blocking off the ball

[drdrake 3,146]

This is something we don't do enough and something the Pies do a lot. Yesterday the blocking in marking contests and off the ball was well outside the rules of the game. The Pies continually blocked our players and took them out from making a contest. It is the only thing Maxwell does, finds a player of the footy and taking him out of the contest.

Yesterday it just kept happening and we just kept running into the block, to me if you are going to get blocked just push the blocker as hard as you can into the making contest, it will be a mark anyway but you may as well try to hurt someone, give the free kick but hopefully it causes the ball movement to be slow.

[Biffen 12,939]

This is exactly what I dont get about Brian Royal.

Why cant we position around packs?

Crumb?

Block?

Bump?

Intercept lost hitouts?

Get some cheap forward 50 entries?

Having criticised his "strategies"

I'll give everyone till the end of season to Judge their efforts .Including Brian ,Cale ,Col ,Dunn ,Bate ,Davey ,Green.

[McQueen 17,864]

This is exactly what I dont get about Brian Royal.

Why cant we position around packs?

Crumb?

Block?

Bump?

Intercept lost hitouts?

Get some cheap forward 50 entries?

Having criticised his "strategies"

I'll give everyone till the end of season to Judge their efforts .Including Brian ,Cale ,Col ,Dunn ,Bate ,Davey ,Green.

Royal gets instruction from Neeld. If he is unable to implement the strategy then Neeld will judge him.

Collingwoods blocking at stoppages was probably devised by Neeld.

The problem is with execution and is the sole responsibility of the players.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Royal gets instruction from Neeld. If he is unable to implement the strategy then Neeld will judge him.

Collingwoods blocking at stoppages was probably devised by Neeld.

The problem is with execution and is the sole responsibility of the players.

It's not so much the blocking around the stoppages, that's legal and we will learn to do that, it's the blocking in the forward line whe the opposition prevent our players from making it to the contest, that's not legal. They did it so many times yesterday and it allows their marking forward free acces to the ball and an easy mark. If it's now legal then let's do it if not they should stop Collingwood from doing it.

I've seen it paid as a free several times this year but not yesterday.

[McQueen 17,864]

It's not so much the blocking around the stoppages, that's legal and we will learn to do that, it's the blocking in the forward line whe the opposition prevent our players from making it to the contest, that's not legal. They did it so many times yesterday and it allows their marking forward free acces to the ball and an easy mark. If it's now legal then let's do it if not they should stop Collingwood from doing it.

I've seen it paid as a free several times this year but not yesterday.

True. I was sidetracked by the inclusion of Royal into the thread.

Another inconsistency from the umps.

[dpositive 1,662]

That blocking plus any blocking at any time .

I think it used to be called shepherding and it is a seemingly marginal call on what is legal and what is illegal

Certyainly the umpires seem to allow Collingwood more leeway but it ,may be because it is a natural and instinctive part of their game.

It may be called intensity

I saw so many times Melbourne players give the ball to another and allow the pies pursuer free passage to put pressure on the player with ball. A Collingwood player gives shepherds off and allows a cleaner and more effective disposal

That second effort is as important as the first.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,622]

It's not so much the blocking around the stoppages, that's legal and we will learn to do that, it's the blocking in the forward line whe the opposition prevent our players from making it to the contest, that's not legal. They did it so many times yesterday and it allows their marking forward free acces to the ball and an easy mark. If it's now legal then let's do it if not they should stop Collingwood from doing it.

I've seen it paid as a free several times this year but not yesterday.

Isnt there a rule of how far of the ball you are allowed to block/shepherd. You can bet though if we start to do it we will get pinged!

[CHAMP 347]

Isnt there a rule of how far of the ball you are allowed to block/shepherd. You can bet though if we start to do it we will get pinged!

It was originally 5 yards but was extended 47cm with metrification to 5 metres. It is applied very liberally.

[Demonman666 0]

It's not so much the blocking around the stoppages, that's legal and we will learn to do that, it's the blocking in the forward line whe the opposition prevent our players from making it to the contest, that's not legal. They did it so many times yesterday and it allows their marking forward free acces to the ball and an easy mark. If it's now legal then let's do it if not they should stop Collingwood from doing it.

I've seen it paid as a free several times this year but not yesterday.

Go back to the game against Geelong. That did it all game long so much it was brought up by Mick Malthouse who was commentating at the time.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,954]

It's not so much the blocking around the stoppages, that's legal and we will learn to do that, it's the blocking in the forward line whe the opposition prevent our players from making it to the contest, that's not legal. They did it so many times yesterday and it allows their marking forward free acces to the ball and an easy mark. If it's now legal then let's do it if not they should stop Collingwood from doing it.

I've seen it paid as a free several times this year but not yesterday.

Collingwood's third goal (when Thomas kicked to a free player in the goal square) came about because Clark was blocked off the ball from competing in the marking contest - if you watch the replay you can see him with arms out asking the umpire "WTF?" There was another incident I saw where Green was blocked at least 10 metres off the ball by Maxwell in the second quarter going into our F50. I'm sure there were many others that I missed (by the way none of these were even brought up by the "commentators").

[Redleg 40,453]

Collingwood's third goal (when Thomas kicked to a free player in the goal square) came about because Clark was blocked off the ball from competing in the marking contest - if you watch the replay you can see him with arms out asking the umpire "WTF?" There was another incident I saw where Green was blocked at least 10 metres off the ball by Maxwell in the second quarter going into our F50. I'm sure there were many others that I missed (by the way none of these were even brought up by the "commentators").

I think you will find the commentators have been instructed by the AFL not to denigrate umpires and rarely highlight their mistakes.

[daisycutter 29,482]

I think you will find the commentators have been instructed by the AFL not to denigrate umpires and rarely highlight their mistakes.

Sorry Redleg but I would say they revel in showing and highlighting mistakes/interpretations during play and on replays.

They are selective though, much more focus with certain clubs etc

They do stop short on their comments re directly having a go at the umpires individually

edit: spulling

Edited June 12, 2012 by daisycutter

[Biffen 12,939]

Under the rules

56 C111.

Blocking/shepherding/tunnelling may legall occur if the guilty team has a larger membership than the team being infringed upon whilst the smaller club mst observe the 5 metre rule.

[Robot Devil 1,895]

Under the rules

56 C111.

Blocking/shepherding/tunnelling may legall occur if the guilty team has a larger membership than the team being infringed upon whilst the smaller club mst observe the 5 metre rule.

Could not have said it better myself!