Hawthorn Blocking the Man on the Mark

[caveman72]

Would it be a free if the man on the mark took a few steps back putting the opposition player in front of him.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Haven't read all the posts yet, but they should call time on if someone comes to shepherd the man on the mark before play on is called. After play on is called, it is free game.

The umpires occasionally call time on and ask the player to clear the area if it's blatant, but it's started happening so often that they probably can't be bothered most of the time where it's a borderline call.

 

[Farm Boy]

Bump.

 

[Farm Boy]

Simple solution; if a player on the team that has the ball comes within x metres of the man on the mark its play on so the man on the mark can go straight to the man with the ball before he can be shepherded.

That is one of the better ideas I have heard.

 

[Cold Sober]

That is one of the better ideas I have heard.

Great bump, Hawthorn are taking an advantage similar to cheating the way they now block the man on the mark.
AFL need to step in sooner than later to eradicate this blight on the game.

 

[Farm Boy]

Great bump, Hawthorn are taking an advantage similar to cheating the way they now block the man on the mark.
AFL need to step in sooner than later to eradicate this blight on the game.

It is cheating and they have been doing it for a long time. It should be a 50m penalty against Hawthorn.

 

[quotemokc]

That is one of the better ideas I have heard.

Ty, the player that takes a mark gets a protected zone so why not the man on the mark as well.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Yeah, the protected zone plus the shepherd is the issue because defending players can't come near to stop it as a play.

I was a little worried when we played them and the umpire told them they could stand next to the man on the mark but had to wait for play on to shepherd.

Now that it's got to the point where a player doesn't even have to run in during the play on to block the man on the mark, its probably time for a rule change to fix it.

I think a protected zone for the man on the mark would be sensible (I thought there used to be?) That would stop attackers standing next to them, and would also protect the man on the mark from being poleaxed by a blind side hit as the umpire calls play on.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It won't be happening this week. Nice timing Duck.

 

[Cold Sober]

If the media spent less time up Clarksons arse or trying to get Bolton and Buckley sacked and focused more on yet another blight on the game, this problem could be highlighted.

 

[Tex9798]

Great bump, Hawthorn are taking an advantage similar to cheating the way they now block the man on the mark.
AFL need to step in sooner than later to eradicate this blight on the game.

Blight on the game? Overreaction.

Blight on the game is players seeking a free kick by ducking/shrugging, players simply dropping the ball when tackled.

Shephearding the man on the mark, which is normally done as the umpire calls play on is a total non issue.

 

[Farm Boy]

Carey bought it up because North is playing Hawthorn this week no more no less.
He was baffled until it was pointed out to him that when a player deviates of the mark its called play on and its legal to shepherd.

Firstly the Hawthorn player should be nowhere near the player on the mark. That is, the guy doing the shepherding should be no where near the guy on the mark, so even if the player with ball in hand does play on, the parasite Hawthorn player who is shepherding shouldn't be close to the guy on the mark. Secondly, on the weekend, the player with ball in hand was only playing on once he got the initial shepherd. Once again, cheating, and once again, the Hawthorn parasite who is shepherding shouldn't be able to obstruct the man on the mark. Its cheating.

 

[Farm Boy]

Blight on the game? Overreaction.

Blight on the game is players seeking a free kick by ducking/shrugging, players simply dropping the ball when tackled.

Shephearding the man on the mark, which is normally done as the umpire calls play on is a total non issue.

They are both a blight on the game. But make no mistake about it, doing what Hawthorn did on the weekend is an absolute blight on the great game of Aussie Rules.

 

[Cold Sober]

Blight on the game? Overreaction.

Blight on the game is players seeking a free kick by ducking/shrugging, players simply dropping the ball when tackled.

Shephearding the man on the mark, which is normally done as the umpire calls play on is a total non issue.

Running past the kicker within 5 metres, even if running away you're penalized.
Hovering like a rapist behind a tree gets the green light.

 

[Farm Boy]

Running past the kicker within 5 metres, even if running away you're penalized.
Hovering like a rapist behind a tree gets the green light.

Absolutely 100% spot on.

The AFL crack down on the bloke running past the kicker - and often running away from the kicker. Yet the man on the mark is allowed to be interfered with. It is a farce. Hawthorn got away with this all game on the weekend. It is cheating.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Great bump, Hawthorn are taking an advantage similar to cheating the way they now block the man on the mark.
AFL need to step in sooner than later to eradicate this blight on the game.

Essendon fan talking about cheating.

Strike me dead.

 

[Gypsy King]

Running past the kicker within 5 metres, even if running away you're penalized.
Hovering like a rapist behind a tree gets the green light.

Colourful description. Cold Sober at his finest.

Hawthorn shouldnt be getting the green light. Its criminal.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

I think another issue here is that there is no penalty for interfering with the man on the mark too early. You can just try it over and over and all the umpire can say is move out or wait. There's no incentive not to push the rules.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

LMAO.
It's not cheating as the rules allow you to do it.
As long as the man on the mark isn't behind the mark, the opposition player cannot do anything except stand behind him. They are thus not in the protected zone. There is nothing stopping another player from the team with the man on the mark standing next to the guy who is about to shepherd.

I actually think they should change the rules myself to protect the man on the mark. Maybe a 5m protected zone for them.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Can only assume this ugly-looking tactic has been given the green light by the AFL because it helps to "open up the play". Meanwhile the "protected zone" crackdown on players that nobody even notices was clearly targeted at Richmond, hence Hardwick's angst.

Whilst it may seem annoying, don't forget that it means there's a free opposition player elsewhere so it has its risks.

True, and I think some/all clubs plan around it when playing Hawthorn, hence the lack of outcry.

 

[yeahmate]

LMAO.
It's not cheating as the rules allow you to do it.
As long as the man on the mark isn't behind the mark, the opposition player cannot do anything except stand behind him. They are thus not in the protected zone. There is nothing stopping another player from the team with the man on the mark standing next to the guy who is about to shepherd.

I actually think they should change the rules myself to protect the man on the mark. Maybe a 5m protected zone for them.

Absolutely correct that there is nothing specific in the rules currently against it, but AFL could charge any player doing it, and Clarkson as well for allowing it, with conduct unbecoming/bringing the game into disrepute the way they got Hird with a 12 month suspension maybe and a couple mill fine. Good bump, Hawthorn doing well at the moment so the AFL should act quickly to change the rules again.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Can only assume this ugly-looking tactic has been given the green light by the AFL because it helps to "open up the play". Meanwhile the "protected zone" crackdown on players that nobody even notices was clearly targeted at Richmond, hence Hardwick's angst.


True, and I think some/all clubs plan around it when playing Hawthorn, hence the lack of outcry.

Except Melbourne forgot about it.....

 

[Gralin]

It's not cheating, it's in the rules, it's been explained many times and Hawks aren't the only team that use the tactic, just the one that Carey talked about this week before we play North.

The penalty for messing with the man on the mark before play on is called is the defense getting more time to setup while play is reset

The cost to the attacking team of doing it is being outnumbered elsewhere as they have two players where the mark is while the opponent has one

It is a tactic that has been used at least since Malthouse was still coaching Collingwood, the commentators have had a good 8 years to learn the rules around it but just like to call cheating to create controversy, it's what they get paid to do after all.

Geelong have countered it quite well having the player on the mark be aware of the tactic and back towards the opponent waiting to shepherd, this causes the umpire to blow the whistle and reset the play, they keep doing until the other team gives up or the player backs off enough to not be effective

 

[falcons2]

The rules regarding shepherding dictate clearly what can be done. If the ball is not within 5m you cannot block or shepherd. But you can stand near the man on the mark providing you are not interfering. Only after the umpire calls play on can the shepherd occur. No rule against being ready to do that therefore it is not cheating, just a simple tactic.

For those who talk about cheating, could you please define cheating?

This tactic can easily be overcome. The player with the ball will always play on to the side the blocker approaches. If the blockers opponent came with him and stood further to that side the player with the ball could not play on. Problem solved! But clubs don't do this but choose to have the free man. If any club was concerned about the tactic they would do this and it would instantly stop but they don't see know value in the blocking tactic it so don't bother.
The only people upset are an uneducated media and a jealous supporter set.

 

[rippersnipper]

I thought there was a 5m protected zone around the man on the mark to stop this? If you're gonna penalise blokes 10m away for running past the man with the ball then how can you let players just interfere with the guy standing, unprotected on the mark? It isn't a consistent rule.