Shepherding the player on the mark

[grokq]

Apologies if this has been brought up before.

What is the ruling around a player from the same team as the kicker shepherding the player standing the mark? This tactic being employed several times yesterday in the Haw V Coll game, by Hawthorn players and I've observed them doing it before. One instance should have been a blatant free against Jordan Lewis against Treloar, i.e. holding on to him, but this was just missed by the umpires.

In general play though, it seems a pretty unfair tactic. The player standing the mark is flat footed and the kicker chooses to run off his line. Rather than being able to attempt a block, smother or tackle, the player on the mark is obstructed by the shepherding player who starts out just behind him but sneaks up on his right or left depending on which way the kicker moves. This is obviously a set play.

I realise Hawthorn didn't invent this tactic and I remember Collingwood use to employ a similar tactic as far back as 2010.

Does anyone else think this is an area that should be cleaned up. Perhaps there should be an exclusion zone around the man on the mark?

 

[caitsith01]

It has been brought up many times. The answer is, no-one seems to know. Hawks players routinely tackle the man on the mark, sometimes to the ground, with no free being paid. Seems to be similar to the rule where Hawks players can be nowhere near a marking contest, arrive late and lightly tackle the player who has taken the mark with no 50 being given.

What I want to see is an opposition coach with the brains to instruct their players to go and stand next to the Hawks player in that scenario. Umpire can't ask one of them to leave without asking the other to leave. When the player with the ball plays on, the extra defender can either tackle the bloke tackling the man on the mark, or tackle the player with the ball.

 

[ML4Hodgy]

You can't shepherd until the umpire calls play on, that's why they start a metre behind the man on the mark. Umpires stop play and bring the ball back if there's interference before the play on call.
You also can't shepherd very hard, as this brings a free kick (this is from memory, but given nobody has really lined up the man on the mark I'm pretty sure I'm right). Both were brought in after 2010 after teams (and from memory the Pies especially) used both tactics.
Hawks use the tactic quite regularly in general play, but I've seen lots of opposition teams use it to get extra distance from the kick-out.

 

[SuperSub17]

Seeing as you can't shepherd more than 5 metres away, it really should be a free kick as soon as it happens if the player with the ball is further than 5 metres behind his mark.

 

[grokq]

You can't shepherd until the umpire calls play on, that's why they start a metre behind the man on the mark. Umpires stop play and bring the ball back if there's interference before the play on call.
You also can't shepherd very hard, as this brings a free kick (this is from memory, but given nobody has really lined up the man on the mark I'm pretty sure I'm right). Both were brought in after 2010 after teams (and from memory the Pies especially) used both tactics.
Hawks use the tactic quite regularly in general play, but I've seen lots of opposition teams use it to get extra distance from the kick-out.

It should be treated differently from a normal shepherd. In a normal shepherd situation, like the give-and-go, the player who gives off the ball and then shepherds can't protect the receiver from someone coming in from a different direction, i.e. who isn't blocked out by him. In the man on the mark situation, the team manning the mark can't have someone come from a different angle because they'd have to already be inside the
exclusion zone protecting the kicker - 50m penalty. This is the problem as I see it - the team with the ball has an even greater advantage.

The other problem is that this is all part of a play-on, and the umpires attention seems to start with:
- Is the man on the mark in a legal place?
- Has the kicker gone off his line - if yes, then it's play on, and ...
attention then seems to turn to the kicker and the play downfield. No ump is watching what happens between the man on the mark and the shepherder, who can scrag with a fair chance of getting away with it.

 

[HairyO]

You also can't shepherd very hard, as this brings a free kick (this is from memory, but given nobody has really lined up the man on the mark I'm pretty sure I'm right). Both were brought in after 2010 after teams (and from memory the Pies especially) used both tactics.

Yep. Maxwell claims he invented it. Clarko took it to the next level.

The umpires watch it very closely. You can always hear them warning the player standing next to or behind the man on the mark to make no contact.

Once play-on is called, it becomes a standard shepherd.

 

[Gralin]

It was used by the Pies in 2010, coming out of defence most frequently to allow the defender to kick further down the line. It's not a new tactic, its not against the rules and it means the team doing it is a player short somewhere else on the ground, why is this still getting brought up like its some sort of cheating that the umpires, commentators and AFL haven't noticed for at least the last 6 years

 

[caitsith01]

So is it legal for another player to stand next to the man standing next to the man on the mark? I.e., so there are two players from each team in the area?

 

[markr]

The protected area is only in front of the mark. As long as you are behind the player on the mark anyone can stand anywhere.

You see it regularly at Hawthorn kickouts. We will usually play on to the left with a player there to shepherd the man on the mark so the kickout can go a bit deeper. Plenty of sides bring up a second player to pressure the kicker since they know the man on the mark is going to be shepherded. In general play I guess they either don't have time to do it, or just figure the extra player is better off at the drop of the ball.

 

[Gavin Excell]

What about hawks players tackling players on the mark. Hilariously bad Lewis got away with that while the umpire stared at it

 

[Randomizor]

What about hawks players tackling players on the mark. Hilariously bad Lewis got away with that while the umpire stared at it

That's just an illegal tackle

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Those pesky Hawks!

 

[romeohwho]

That's just an illegal tackle

Exactly, but never gets paid.

 

[madhawksfan]

It has been brought up many times. The answer is, no-one seems to know. Hawks players routinely tackle the man on the mark, sometimes to the ground, with no free being paid. Seems to be similar to the rule where Hawks players can be nowhere near a marking contest, arrive late and lightly tackle the player who has taken the mark with no 50 being given.

What I want to see is an opposition coach with the brains to instruct their players to go and stand next to the Hawks player in that scenario. Umpire can't ask one of them to leave without asking the other to leave. When the player with the ball plays on, the extra defender can either tackle the bloke tackling the man on the mark, or tackle the player with the ball.

A bit like how you aren't supposed to block/shepherd players out of a marking contest yet Geelong defenders do it constantly.

 

[Garlic muncher]

I don't like it at all, it is illegal shepherding to me as the ball is not live until it is kicked, unless the umpire has called play on.

 

[sobrave]

should make it a protected area around the player on the mark, like the player with the kick is protected

if you tackle or interfere with the man on the mark it should be a free kick the other way

 

[Oscarman]

A bit like how you aren't supposed to block/shepherd players out of a marking contest yet Geelong defenders do it constantly.

If your team is in the top 4 pretty much anything is allowed.

The 10 metre protected area should apply to everyone except the player in possession and the opposition player manning the mark. Also a 50 shouldn't be paid (but it has) against the player going to man the mark if there is no-one on it.

 

[Unknown Identity]

There was a stage i think last season where the umpire would hold up the play and request the player to move away from the man on the mark, this year seems to be open slather..

Not a fan of it at all..

 

[BF Tiger]

It was a blight in tonight's game (Cats v Hawks).

 

[replicant]

How many times did Hawks get warnings for it? Just give a ******* free, or they'll keep doing it! Other sports if you keep deliberately infringing it's a free then a yellow card. Umps just warned them time after time and did nothing.

 

[Liger]

This is akin to hawks rushed behinds in 2008 GF.
A blight.
If AFL get it together they'll make a clear rule on it.

 

[Skeppersap]

Good ol' Hawks......pushing rules to the limits so a new rule needs to be created! Should be a free kick for shepparding more than 5m from the ball every time.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Good ol' Hawks......pushing rules to the limits so a new rule needs to be created! Should be a free kick for shepparding more than 5m from the ball every time.

It mightn't look good, but once play on is called then it's ok but as you say, if the kicker with the ball hasn't moved to within 5m then it should be a free.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

It mightn't look good, but once play on is called then it's ok but as you say, if the kicker with the ball hasn't moved to within 5m then it should be a free.

What's the free for though?

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Seeing as you can't shepherd more than 5 metres away, it really should be a free kick as soon as it happens if the player with the ball is further than 5 metres behind his mark.

Are they shepherding though? Or are they just standing next to the opponent on the mark?