Shepherding the man on the mark

[titan_uranus 22,753]

Hawthorn did this repeatedly today to good effect. It bought some of their kicks an extra 10 metres by allowing the kicker to get out on an angle without the man on the mark cutting him off. It also got Gunston a goal early in the fourth quarter.

IMO this should be outlawed by changing the rules: the protected zone should apply to the man on the mark who is otherwise defenceless. But until that happens, why don't we do it? Didn't any of our players see how frequently Hawthorn did it and how it helped them get out the back of our press?

[At the break of Gawn 3,672]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Hawthorn did this repeatedly today to good effect. It bought some of their kicks an extra 10 metres by allowing the kicker to get out on an angle without the man on the mark cutting him off. It also got Gunston a goal early in the fourth quarter.

IMO this should be outlawed by changing the rules: the protected zone should apply to the man on the mark who is otherwise defenceless. But until that happens, why don't we do it? Didn't any of our players see how frequently Hawthorn did it and how it helped them get out the back of our press?

Yep, was mentioned a heap on MMM, too. They used that tactic all day.

[Go the Biff 3,208]

I seem to recall that the legality of the tactic was raised at senior AFL level a few years ago & the footy ops mob gave it the ok. To me it's shepherding off the ball and should never have been approved. The Hawks are masters at it and Geelong have also used it effectively over the years.

Just glad it wasn't around when I was plodding around suburban mudheaps decades ago. I suspect I'd have got a few unscheduled holidays

[jnrmac 19,323]

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.

[dee-tox 4,829]

Farcical. 

[WERRIDEE 5,248]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Hawthorn did this repeatedly today to good effect. It bought some of their kicks an extra 10 metres by allowing the kicker to get out on an angle without the man on the mark cutting him off. It also got Gunston a goal early in the fourth quarter.

IMO this should be outlawed by changing the rules: the protected zone should apply to the man on the mark who is otherwise defenceless. But until that happens, why don't we do it? Didn't any of our players see how frequently Hawthorn did it and how it helped them get out the back of our press?

Why are Hawthorn always ahead of the pack and we never are? Clarkson is the greatest coach of all time.

[KingDingAling 3,622]

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

Hawthorn did this repeatedly today to good effect. It bought some of their kicks an extra 10 metres by allowing the kicker to get out on an angle without the man on the mark cutting him off. It also got Gunston a goal early in the fourth quarter.

IMO this should be outlawed by changing the rules: the protected zone should apply to the man on the mark who is otherwise defenceless. But until that happens, why don't we do it? Didn't any of our players see how frequently Hawthorn did it and how it helped them get out the back of our press?

They did it all day. I was watching them do it and swearing my head off. Its not in the rules. The man on the man was blocked out from running east or west. How isn't that not a free kick against Hawthorn? This didn't just happen a few times either - it happened regularly. I don't want us to do it because it should have been a free kick to us. I reckon if we did it then they'd of paid it against us.

[dave 183]

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Hawthorn did this repeatedly today to good effect. It bought some of their kicks an extra 10 metres by allowing the kicker to get out on an angle without the man on the mark cutting him off. It also got Gunston a goal early in the fourth quarter.

IMO this should be outlawed by changing the rules: the protected zone should apply to the man on the mark who is otherwise defenceless. But until that happens, why don't we do it? Didn't any of our players see how frequently Hawthorn did it and how it helped them get out the back of our press?

We were talking about it today too, its blatant holding the man, they don't shepherd they hold the man, the umps today were absolutely pathetic, Chamberlain needs to be kicked of the umps panel, the guy is a F*%#ingarsehole

[rjay 24,046]

This has been going on for years now...it's nothing new.

Pretty sure it was Malthouse that first used it with C/Wood.

We should be well aware & able to counter it by now.

[Watts the matter 1,235]

Well since you are allowed within 5 meters of your opponent, if they are standing next to the man on the mark, another player should then creep 5 meters over the original mark. 

[Skuit 9,380]

While it's not uncommon, Adelaide applied the tactic heavily against us in Darwin last year as well. Does it have something to do with the way we set up defensively down the line ? Like leaving the boundary side open?

[Demons1858 1,663]

What we should be asking is why we are not doing it? Which comes back to the quality of the coaching.

[FireInTheBennelly 4,027]

Hawks have been doing it for years.

I recall us trying it a few years back, from memory Dunn was involved. The result was the kick being recalled and we were warned not to do it again. Chalk it up to equalisation I guess.

[Diamond_Jim 12,017]

4 hours ago, FireInTheBelly said:

Hawks have been doing it for years.

I recall us trying it a few years back, from memory Dunn was involved. The result was the kick being recalled and we were warned not to do it again. Chalk it up to equalisation I guess.

Yep.... noticed it in Hawks games a few years back.

Thought that any opposition team would know in seconds how to counter it.

Remember it does put them one man down further up the field

Dare I say it's a match day coaching issue

[nutbean 8,837]

6 hours ago, rjay said:

This has been going on for years now...it's nothing new.

Pretty sure it was Malthouse that first used it with C/Wood.

We should be well aware & able to counter it by now.

it is an ugly look though wouldn't you say ? I don't like it. 

The zone around the mark should be protected from all.

[Diamond_Jim 12,017]

7 minutes ago, nutbean said:

it is an ugly look though wouldn't you say ? I don't like it. 

The zone around the mark should be protected from all.

When I first noticed it during Hawks premiership years I thought it was illegal and agree it looks bad.

Hawks have always pushed the lines...

1. It was them intentionally pulling down players after a mark to slow the game down that caused the 15m penalty to be extended to 50M.

2. They would rush the ball through for a point thus necessitating the intentional rushed behind rule.

On this aspect on reflection I think that if we are going to have the no 5/10m exclusion zone it makes a little bit of a mockery if you can position a player next to the man on the mark. Then again I am getting a little tired of the constant rule tweaking and the over umpiring of games.

[jnrmac 19,323]

7 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Why are Hawthorn always ahead of the pack and we never are? Clarkson is the greatest coach of all time.

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

[jnrmac 19,323]

31 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

When I first noticed it during Hawks premiership years I thought it was illegal and agree it looks bad.

Hawks have always pushed the lines...

1. It was them intentionally pulling down players after a mark to slow the game down that caused the 15m penalty to be extended to 50M.

2. They would rush the ball through for a point thus necessitating the intentional rushed behind rule.

On this aspect on reflection I think that if we are going to have the no 5/10m exclusion zone it makes a little bit of a mockery if you can position a player next to the man on the mark. Then again I am getting a little tired of the constant rule tweaking and the over umpiring of games.

No it wasn't. It was Sheedy.

[rjay 24,046]

8 hours ago, WERRIDEE said:

Why are Hawthorn always ahead of the pack and we never are? Clarkson is the greatest coach of all time.

 

23 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

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

 

7 hours ago, rjay said:

This has been going on for years now...it's nothing new.

Pretty sure it was Malthouse that first used it with C/Wood.

We should be well aware & able to counter it by now.

It's a tactic that's been used for near on 10 years now.

We should be on top off it...

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

it is an ugly look though wouldn't you say ? I don't like it. 

The zone around the mark should be protected from all.

Agree...

[Clintosaurus 6,665]

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.

[drdrake 3,052]

It takes smart players to do this, which we don't have.  They need to stand behind the player on the mark and can only Shepherd when play on is called.  It enables the kicker to turn a 50m kick into a 60m play that puts pressure on defensive zones.  Easy to defend against man up the man that is going to shepherd, try to stop is where the ball is rather that 60m down field

[Redleg 38,030]

10 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Hawthorn did this repeatedly today to good effect. It bought some of their kicks an extra 10 metres by allowing the kicker to get out on an angle without the man on the mark cutting him off. It also got Gunston a goal early in the fourth quarter.

IMO this should be outlawed by changing the rules: the protected zone should apply to the man on the mark who is otherwise defenceless. But until that happens, why don't we do it? Didn't any of our players see how frequently Hawthorn did it and how it helped them get out the back of our press?

They have been doing it for 5 years. We obviously are not aware of that, as we developed no counter plan.

[monoccular 16,394]

Was under the (mis)impression that there was a 5 meter no go zone around the man on the mark. 

As I recall we tried it a few times and the ball was called back.

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

Coaches were warned off it a few years back when Malthouse was all over it. Dear old Heretia Lamumba, in his Harry O'Brien incarnation, was a gun at it.

Now it's come back big time and the AFL are sitting on their hands. It's completely against the spirit of the game. It's just wrong.

God they're inept.

However! In the rules, NO PLAYER is allowed in the protected zone (unless they're chasing their oppo, etc). 50m penalty. But in true AFL "the real rules exist only in the head of the current umpires director" fashion, they say nothing about what happens when the player is on the ball carrier's team.

So strictly speaking, they can do it.

The only rule in play would be 15.4.2 (shepherding), where you can't block a player more than 5m from the ball. When was the last time you saw that being paid? Even though it happens week in week out in a huge number of "long ball" situations?

But when the umps allow blatant and severe pushes in the back ... when they allow tackled players to slump to the deck and roll the ball away ... when they constantly allow short kicks ... throws ... why would they worry about a "technical" rule like this?

The only rule in play seems to be that Clarkson is a genius, so why shouldn't he be allowed to do it?

I note that after a few weeks of leniency, deliberate OOB made a triumphant comeback.

I am convinced that after a "dark age" where the umpiring has been consistently terrible, it is now worse than ever before.

[Moonshadow 16,409]

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

it is an ugly look though wouldn't you say ? I don't like it. 

The zone around the mark should be protected from all.

Absolutely. It's a bad look for the game and only makes the rules very grey. If only one person can man the mark because of the 5m rule, how is it fair that his opponent can stand right there and shepherd?