Jump to content

Shepherding the man on the mark

titan_uranus
titan_uranus
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Posted

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?

  • Quote
    •  
      On 15/04/2018 at 12:41, 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.

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote
    •  

    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.

  • Quote

      On 15/04/2018 at 12:41, 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.

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 12:41, 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.

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 12:41, 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

  • Quote
    •  

    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.

  • Quote

    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. 

  • Quote

    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?

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 16:08, 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

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 14:53, 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.

  • Quote

      On 15/04/2018 at 21:31, 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.

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 14:24, 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....

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 21:45, 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.

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 14:24, WERRIDEE said:

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

     

      On 15/04/2018 at 22:15, jnrmac said:

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

     

      On 15/04/2018 at 14:53, 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...

      On 15/04/2018 at 21:31, 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...

  • Quote

    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.

  • Quote

    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

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 12:41, 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.

  • Quote

    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.

     

  • Quote
    •  

    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.

  • Quote
      On 15/04/2018 at 21:31, 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? 

  • Quote

    • Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • PREVIEW: Brisbane

      And just like that, we’re Narrm again. Even though the annual AFL Sir Doug Nicholls Round which commemorates the contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture to our game has been a welcome addition to our calendar for ten years, more lately it has been a portent of tough times ahead for we beleaguered Narrm supporters. Ever since the club broke through for its historic 2021 premiership, this has become a troubling time of the year for the club. For example, it all began when Melbourne rebranded itself as Narrm across the two rounds of the Sir Doug Nicholls Round to become the first club to adopt an Indigenous club name especially for the occasion. It won its first outing under the brand against lowly North Melbourne to go to 10 wins and no losses but not without a struggle or a major injury to  star winger Ed Langdon who broke his ribs and missed several weeks. In the following week, still as Narrm, the team’s 17 game winning streak came to an end at the hands of the Dockers. That came along with more injuries, a plague that remained with them for the remainder of the season until, beset by injuries, the Dees were eliminated from the finals in straight sets. It was even worse last year, when Narrm inexplicably lowered its colours in Perth to the Waalit Marawar Eagles. Oh, the shame of it all! At least this year, if there is a corner to turn around, it has to be in the direction of something better. To that end, I produced a special pre-game chant in the local Narrm language - “nam mi:wi winnamun katjil prolin ambi ngamar thamelin amb” which roughly translated is “every heart beats true for the red and the blue.” >y belief is that if all of the Narrm faithful recite it long enough, then it might prove to be the only way to beat the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba on Sunday. The Lions are coming off a disappointing draw at Marvel Stadium against a North Melbourne team that lacks the ability and know how to win games (except when playing Melbourne). Brisbane are, however, a different kettle of fish at home and have very few positional weaknesses. They are a midfield powerhouse, strong in defence and have plenty of forward options, particularly their small and medium sized players, to kick a winning score this week after the sting of last week’s below par performance.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Hawthorn

      There was a time during the current Melbourne cycle that goes back to before the premiership when the club was the toughest to beat in the fourth quarter. The Demons were not only hard to beat at any time but it was virtually impossible to get the better them when scores were close at three quarter time. It was only three or four years ago but they were fit, strong and resilient in body and mind. Sadly, those days are over. This has been the case since the club fell off its pedestal about 12 months ago after it beat Geelong and then lost to Carlton. In both instances, Melbourne put together strong, stirring final quarters, one that resulted in victory, the other, in defeat. Since then, the drop off has been dramatic to the point where it can neither pull off victory in close matches, nor can it even go down in defeat  gallantly.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Footscray

      At twenty-four minutes into the third term of the game between the Casey Demons and Footscray VFL at Whitten Oval, the visitors were coasting. They were winning all over the ground, had the ascendancy in the ruck battles and held a 26 point lead on a day perfect for football. What could go wrong? Everything. The Bulldogs moved into overdrive in the last five minutes of the term and booted three straight goals to reduce the margin to a highly retrievable eight points at the last break. Bouyed by that effort, their confidence was on a high level during the interval and they ran all over the despondent Demons and kicked another five goals to lead by a comfortable margin of four goals deep into the final term before Paddy Cross kicked a couple of too late goals for a despondent Casey. A testament to their lack of pressure in the latter stages of the game was the fact that Footscray’s last ten scoring shots were nine goals and one rushed behind. Things might have been different for the Demons who went into the game after last week’s bye with 12 AFL listed players. Blake Howes was held over for the AFL game but two others, Jack Billings and Taj Woewodin (not officially listed as injured) were also missing and they could have been handy at the end. Another mystery of the current VFL system.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Brisbane

      The Demons head back out on the road in Round 10 when they travel to Queensland to take on the reigning Premiers and the top of the table Lions who look very formidable. Can the Dees cause a massive upset? Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 130 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Hawthorn

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Demons loss to the Hawks. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

      • 52 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Hawthorn

      Wayward kicking for goal, dump kicks inside 50 and some baffling umpiring all contributed to the Dees not getting out to an an early lead that may have impacted the result. At the end of the day the Demons were just not good enough and let the Hawks run away with their first win against the Demons in 7 years.

        • Like
      • 371 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All