Hawthorn Blocking the Man on the Mark

[dnbassador]

Sorry if their is already a thread on this

But what a peoples thoughts on this?

Every week i see it happen the Opposition Player stands the mark then a Hawthorn player runs up behind him and Blocks him so the Hawthorn player with the ball can run straight past.

Some reason it really annoys me haha

Also on the same kinda Topic it seems alot of players are gettin pinged with 50m penalties due to following their man around the player that has the Free Kick. But if you dont following them they can hand pass to a team mate that can kick further or link up a play which becomes damaging cause hes unmanned.

 

[Hawkforce]

Sorry if their is already a thread on this

But what a peoples thoughts on this?
.

It's called a "shepherd". It's an ancient practise from the dark times that the Hawthorn Football Club have injected into their game plan to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.

 

[Cynic]

Sorry if their is already a thread on this

But what a peoples thoughts on this?

Every week i see it happen the Opposition Player stands the mark then a Hawthorn player runs up behind him and Blocks him so the Hawthorn player with the ball can run straight past.

Some reason it really annoys me haha

Also on the same kinda Topic it seems alot of players are gettin pinged with 50m penalties due to following their man around the player that has the Free Kick. But if you dont following them they can hand pass to a team mate that can kick further or link up a play which becomes damaging cause hes unmanned.

I think we copied the tactic of Collingwood...it's a pretty common tactic in the AFL and it's far from limited to any one club.

 

[Generalissimo]

I think we copied the tactic of Collingwood...it's a pretty common tactic in the AFL and it's far from limited to any one club.

Collingwood were the first club I noticed doing it, but they don't seem to anymore. There's no rule against it, but IMO there should be. The player on the mark should be protected from interference, just as the player with the ball is.

 

[KissKiss]

Collingwood were the first club I noticed doing it, but they don't seem to anymore. There's no rule against it, but IMO there should be. The player on the mark should be protected from interference, just as the player with the ball is.

I seem to remember Harry O getting in trouble for doing it a year or 2 ago. I thought they changed the rules because of him/Collingwood players doing it

 

[Cynic]

I seem to remember Harry O getting in trouble for doing it a year or 2 ago. I thought they changed the rules because of him/Collingwood players doing it

I'm drawing on an often piss poor memory but I think O'Brien bumped an unsuspecting guy on the mark which I think was frowned upon.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Yes i seem to recall the AFL imposing some sort of restrication where a player could not be around the person on the mark, and i am sure i have heard umpires warning players about this.

 

[blue harvest]

Someone started a thread on this a few hours before and you start the exact same thread but with Hawthorn in the title????

As I replied in the original thread, you can't shepherd the man on the mark unless the umpire has called play on because it would put you in the 5m protected zone.

However, what some teams do is hang around just behind the man on the mark, then as soon as the player with the ball plays on they immediately shepherd. Not sure whether there is a rule to counter this or not.

 

[footscore]

I remember Geelong were doing this and then AFL Insider brought it to everyone's attention (David King) by suggesting the AFL need to crack down on it but it seems like Hawthorn should be fine

 

[dnbassador]

Someone started a thread on this a few hours before and you start the exact same thread but with Hawthorn in the title????

As I replied in the original thread, you can't shepherd the man on the mark unless the umpire has called play on because it would put you in the 5m protected zone.

However, what some teams do is hang around just behind the man on the mark, then as soon as the player with the ball plays on they immediately shepherd. Not sure whether there is a rule to counter this or not.

oh really im blind i cant see it

 

[FrancisX]

Collingwood mastered it in 2010. Don't like it but not sure it's illegal technically.

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Collingwood mastered it in 2010. Don't like it but not sure it's illegal technically.

LOL a Fremantle supporter not liking questionable tactics during a game.

 

[DermottsFacelift]

As has been mentioned several times this was pioneered by Collingwood and most clubs do it.

 

[redned]

The protected area is 5m either side of the man on the mark but not behind him (16.3.2). So a player can be close behind the MOTM but can only move past him when play-on is called. I have seen some that I reckon were line-ball.

On dnambassodor's other question on following a player, it is a 50m penalty if an opposition player enters the protected area, except when the player is accompanying or following within 5m of their opponent. I think I have seen some penalised where I thought that this requirement was being met. I thought that it had changed to 2m this year but checked the rules and they still say 5m.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

This has been happening for a fair while.
Whilst it may seem annoying, don't forget that it means there's a free opposition player elsewhere so it has its risks.
Xavier Ellis was manning the mark once and got absolutely cleaned up and had to leave the ground, play on. That's where I feel the line should be drawn

While I'm on it, they need to do something to remove the danger of a player coming off the bench and polaxing someone, which almost happens all too often

 

[Hungdaddy]

This has been happening for a fair while.
Whilst it may seem annoying, don't forget that it means there's a free opposition player elsewhere so it has its risks.
Xavier Ellis was manning the mark once and got absolutely cleaned up and had to leave the ground, play on. That's where I feel the line should be drawn

While I'm on it, they need to do something to remove the danger of a player coming off the bench and polaxing someone, which almost happens all too often

Reminded me of that Breust incident, ouch

 

[dnbassador]

yeah thats happening way to often its becoming scary

 

[smeltitdeltit]

perhaps something along the lines of "You must go straight on when a player comes off" (injury dependant)
Stops them holding the oncoming player to confuse the matchups on the other team.

 

[tigs2010]

Don't Carlton do it now? Pretty sure it's a Mick tactic.

 

[romeoh]

Pies and Hawks started it-can't abide it-its lowlife stuff. I haven't noticed other clubs doing it but should be stamped out.

 

[Parasite]

Don't Carlton do it now? Pretty sure it's a Mick tactic.

Damn right they do. Annoyed me no end, I think it was one of Zac Tuouy's long goals, the spoil came late, someone manned the mark, Scotland came in and pushed him off the mark remonstrating, meanwhile Tuouy just takes off on Scotland's side and kicks a goal. Surely you can't do that.

Not exactly the same tactic, but the same result.

 

[Righteo]

Came here to post the same thing Parasite, the second of Tuohy's long goals came about because Scotland pushed Mundy (who was manning the mark) off balance and allowed him to run to the 50.

 

[Skeppersap]

How many rules do we need changed because of Hawthorn's tactics before action is taken against the club?

 

[Underarm]

Other clubs use the extra man in other ways. the run around handball, the over the top handball. Collingwood and Hawthorn do it really effectively. If the contact is fair, whats the Issue?

 

[Hodge is God]

How many rules do we need changed because of Hawthorn's tactics before action is taken against the club?

I don't think they're is anything wrong with playing within the rules of the time.

And ****ing hell, action against the club? Even if they changed the rule, they won't penalise Hawthorn for playing within the rules to get an advantage.