- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,286
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You can't shepherd unless the ball is within 5m.
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Shepherding the player on the mark
- Thread starter grokq
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You can't shepherd unless the ball is within 5m.
Dacksaredown
Club Legend
- Jun 20, 2012
- 1,777
- 1,626
- AFL Club
- Gold Coast
- Other Teams
- Houston Rockets
The one two weeks ago where Lewis literally held on to Treloar on the mark and Hodge ran around him was a shocker. It's not a grey area. It's cheating and it's right in front of the umpires
This was ridiculous. They shouldn't even get a warning. If they are breaking the rules, they are breaking the rules. Umpires aren't there to help teams avoid penalties, they are there to protect the other team when the rules are broken ffs.
Yeah it really was ridiculous! And I can't believe even Hawks fans can't see that!
nobbyiscool
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,274
- 23,658
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
I'm surprised this is still an issue. Waaaaay back in about round 3 or 4 I remember going to see Dogs vs Hawks, and the Dogs countered it perfectly.
A player from the defending team won't be penalised for being inside the protected area if he's following an opponent. So where Hawthorn sent a player to shepherd the man in the mark, the Dogs sent a second player to stand next to shepherder. The result was that if the shepherder did his job, his opponent was right there to attack the man with the ball.
Last night was strange, cos Geelong were routinely sending a second defender to stand next to the shepherder... then he would routinely stand there with his thumb up his arse doing nothing about the shepherder or the player with the ball.
A player from the defending team won't be penalised for being inside the protected area if he's following an opponent. So where Hawthorn sent a player to shepherd the man in the mark, the Dogs sent a second player to stand next to shepherder. The result was that if the shepherder did his job, his opponent was right there to attack the man with the ball.
Last night was strange, cos Geelong were routinely sending a second defender to stand next to the shepherder... then he would routinely stand there with his thumb up his arse doing nothing about the shepherder or the player with the ball.
It was a joke, multiple times the Hawks were warned with no punishment. Just a joke. What made things worse was... was the umpires were then blowing time off. They better rectify that adjudication through the week. Protected zone applies to BOTH teams!!
that's the issue really, isn't it? if it's a hold it needs to be paid. lewis should have been penalised and there were a couple more over the weekend that probably could have been.
harry o did it years ago and it got stopped. why has it crept back in?
Boxhead_31
The Greatest Team Of All
- Oct 12, 2007
- 36,957
- 51,574
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- South BHFL
Being within the 5m protected zone isn't allowed
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 26, 2012
- 8,528
- 12,477
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
This tactic shits me to no end. It's an effective tactic, but I still hate seeing it.
If there is a protected area around the player with the ball after a mark, then the player standing the mark should also have a protected area.
What really annoys me is when the umpire will tell the attacking player to move away from the player standing the mark, the attacking player ignores the umpire, so the umpire does nothing about it. So the attacking player gets away with it.
Hawthorn seem to employ this tactic the most, but it's not their fault the umpires let them get away with it. If I was coaching I'd be encouraging my players to do it as well.
The umpire needs to either blow time off and wait for the attacking player move away from the player standing the mark, or he needs just give a free kick against the attacking player. Give out a free kick a couple of times and players will stop doing it pretty quickly.
If there is a protected area around the player with the ball after a mark, then the player standing the mark should also have a protected area.
What really annoys me is when the umpire will tell the attacking player to move away from the player standing the mark, the attacking player ignores the umpire, so the umpire does nothing about it. So the attacking player gets away with it.
Hawthorn seem to employ this tactic the most, but it's not their fault the umpires let them get away with it. If I was coaching I'd be encouraging my players to do it as well.
The umpire needs to either blow time off and wait for the attacking player move away from the player standing the mark, or he needs just give a free kick against the attacking player. Give out a free kick a couple of times and players will stop doing it pretty quickly.
- Nov 21, 2010
- 13,784
- 18,177
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
I don't really get why people don't like the tactic. Legit holds I can understand, but they're basically just basketball screens.
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 26, 2012
- 8,528
- 12,477
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Based on the inconsistent umpiring of it, I'm not even sure if it is legal or not.
My main issue with it is the fact that the umpires aren't consistent with policing it and will often let it happen, even when players are blatantly ignoring their calls to stop doing it.
If it is legal to do, I don't see how it is fair for attacking player to stand next to the man on the mark and shepherd him, but a second defender can't come in and stop him from doing so.
nobbyiscool
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 11, 2006
- 21,274
- 23,658
- AFL Club
- Tasmania
They weren't telling them to stop doing it on Friday night - they were telling them that they had to stand behind not next to the man on the mark.
So it was immaterial anyway, they'd stand a step behind them and do the same job. This isn't one of those things that can be used for the Hawthorn conspiracies. The problem - if there is one - is the rule, not the interpretation.
kickthething
Brownlow Medallist
I can tell you what is a joke, its Hayden Kennedy trying to justify the rubbish decisions over the 4 games on the weekend. No wonder the Umps are in turmoil, if he is coaching them there basically is no such thing as a bad decision.
Last edited:
- Nov 21, 2010
- 13,784
- 18,177
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Chelsea, Detroit Pistons
It shouldn't be inconsistent because it's fairly clear cut. Before the umpire calls play on, the player from the team kicking the ball has to be behind the player on the mark. Then once play on is called they can step to the side of the player and hold their ground (ala basketball screen) or if the ball comes within 5 metres they can full on shepherd.
If you want to stop it, you can bring another player up to go the other side of the block but that may stretch out the zone too much so players/coaches are often probably happy to concede a little more distance on the long kick.
As long as that second defender is also initially behind the mark, they should also be able to come up.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-12/hawthorns-shepherding-tactic-gets-the-allclear-from-umpires
Apparently it's all above board.
Apparently it's all above board.
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 26, 2012
- 8,528
- 12,477
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
And yet there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in the games I've watched. Some times the umpire will call time off and make the attacking player clear out. Sometimes the attacking player ignores that direction and the umpire just gives up and lets it go.
There's also a lot of inconsistency in what is allowed to be done while shepherding. Sometimes the player "shepherding" is damn near tackling the player on the mark, yet a free kick is almost never paid in those situations.
catters05
Norm Smith Medallist
Would be easier if they just stopped it completely.
- Jun 18, 2010
- 4,127
- 5,569
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- FFC Quay Club
It almost always happens more than 5m from the ball. In these circumstances it is a free kick under the published rules.
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 26, 2012
- 8,528
- 12,477
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Except for the fact that it is never paid.
- Jun 18, 2010
- 4,127
- 5,569
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- FFC Quay Club
I can't remember the last time they paid the 5m rule under any circumstances. It would be a much better game if they did.
Hawthorn don't infringe (Lewis aside, that was awful) - they stay behind the mark. Many other clubs don't seem to understand, and engage before the play-on, or stand beside the man-on-the-mark.
Geelong employed a new counter-tactic which worked brilliantly, confused the umpires and stopped Hawthorn from playing on on multiple occasions. Big tick to Scott for that one.
Geelong employed a new counter-tactic which worked brilliantly, confused the umpires and stopped Hawthorn from playing on on multiple occasions. Big tick to Scott for that one.
The Geelong players were stepping back off the mark into the man waiting behind them and the umpire was stopping the play to separate them. The Hawks players weren't in the wrong but it stuffed up any quick play on tactic they may have had, and allowed Geelong time to set up their defence.
No mention of the deliberate behind?
Similar threads
