Shepparding the man on the mark

[LostDoggy]

To me this has become an ugly part of the game. Collingwood did it numerous times to us. Zac Dawson got a week for an over zealous one. I think Hudson or Minson was called to stop doing it a few weeks back.

I know people doing this tactic run a fine line. You shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the man on the mark until the umpire calls play on but teams put players so close that it doesn't matter. As far as I'm aware there is no penalty if do it before the ump calls play on, you just take the kick again.

Thoughts?

[boydogs]

The other players are meant to be 5 metres clear, I have heard umpires telling players to clear out but don't recall a free being awarded for them being too close, a bit like them calling players on the mark a couple of metres back. The tactic seems to be used most when a player takes the mark, backs off a metre or two then quickly runs on before the area is cleared to use his teammates near the man on the mark to shepherd - or, gives the ball off then shepherds the man on the mark himself.

I don't really have an issue with this, it keeps a value on marking in the play on at all costs world as it helps to create some space and time instead of just slowing things down. I am curious to hear why you feel so strongly about it to refer to it as ugly

[alwaysadog]

To me this has become an ugly part of the game. Collingwood did it numerous times to us. Zac Dawson got a week for an over zealous one. I think Hudson or Minson was called to stop doing it a few weeks back.

I know people doing this tactic run a fine line. You shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the man on the mark until the umpire calls play on but teams put players so close that it doesn't matter. As far as I'm aware there is no penalty if do it before the ump calls play on, you just take the kick again.

Thoughts?

This is a puzzling development Ernie, and I hope I'm not taking your thread off course by suggesting that it needs considering along with the other strange development, the lurking player behind the mark to run down any unsuspecting attempt to play on.

There seems to be total confusion in both cases; there is no longer a protected space on the mark and none behind the mark. I can't understand how a player can be run down before a play on call has been uttered.

[LostDoggy]

The other players are meant to be 5 metres clear, I have heard umpires telling players to clear out but don't recall a free being awarded for them being too close, a bit like them calling players on the mark a couple of metres back. The tactic seems to be used most when a player takes the mark, backs off a metre or two then quickly runs on before the area is cleared to use his teammates near the man on the mark to shepherd - or, gives the ball off then shepherds the man on the mark himself.

I don't really have an issue with this, it keeps a value on marking in the play on at all costs world as it helps to create some space and time instead of just slowing things down. I am curious to hear why you feel so strongly about it to refer to it as ugly

Its ugly because the umps don't police the 5 metre rule nor is there any penalty for it.

[LostDoggy]

This is a puzzling development Ernie, and I hope I'm not taking your thread off course by suggesting that it needs considering along with the other strange development, the lurking player behind the mark to run down any unsuspecting attempt to play on.

There seems to be total confusion in both cases; there is no longer a protected space on the mark and none behind the mark. I can't understand how a player can be run down before a play on call has been uttered.
I agree.
Also encroaching on the mark. The umps have no idea here, either guy on the mark sneaks a yard or two forward or the player in possession marks his own spot which isn't right.

[alwaysadog]

Its ugly because the umps don't police the 5 metre rule nor is there any penalty for it.

Usually when this happens from their point of view at least there is some master strategy at work, even if it seems less than intelligent from the perspective of the long time football follower, but I can't work these efforts out in terms of the AFL's more action less stoppages master plan.

[alwaysadog]

The other players are meant to be 5 metres clear, I have heard umpires telling players to clear out but don't recall a free being awarded for them being too close, a bit like them calling players on the mark a couple of metres back. The tactic seems to be used most when a player takes the mark, backs off a metre or two then quickly runs on before the area is cleared to use his teammates near the man on the mark to shepherd - or, gives the ball off then shepherds the man on the mark himself.

I don't really have an issue with this, it keeps a value on marking in the play on at all costs world as it helps to create some space and time instead of just slowing things down. I am curious to hear why you feel so strongly about it to refer to it as ugly

Depends on what we are actually talking about or think the rules and therefore their implementation is designed to achieve.

I assume that if a player has a free kick or a mark, then that player has preference in deciding how to initiate further play until or unless a play on call is uttered.

The two examples that seem to me to be stifling the right to choose to play on are crowding on the mark or players lurking immediately behind the mark who run the ball carrier down and get free kicks rather than giving up 50 metre penalties.

I can't speak for Ernie and he doesn't need me to, but that's pretty ugly.

[boydogs]

Depends on what we are actually talking about or think the rules and therefore their implementation is designed to achieve.

I assume that if a player has a free kick or a mark, then that player has preference in deciding how to initiate further play until or unless a play on call is uttered.

The two examples that seem to me to be stifling the right to choose to play on are crowding on the mark or players lurking immediately behind the mark who run the ball carrier down and get free kicks rather than giving up 50 metre penalties.

I can't speak for Ernie and he doesn't need me to, but that's pretty ugly.

Fair point, I was looking at it from the other angle per the thread title shepherding the man on the mark, but you are right the encroachment is also coming from opposition players lurking to tackle or pressure the man who took the mark - this does stifle things as it is a tactic used to slow the team in possession down as they have to wait for the umpire to clear them out before being able to continue unimpeded, and could definitely if allowed to develop make the game a less appealing stop-start one.

[alwaysadog]

Fair point, I was looking at it from the other angle per the thread title shepherding the man on the mark, but you are right the encroachment is also coming from opposition players lurking to tackle or pressure the man who took the mark - this does stifle things as it is a tactic used to slow the team in possession down as they have to wait for the umpire to clear them out before being able to continue unimpeded, and could definitely if allowed to develop make the game a less appealing stop-start one.

I have no doubt that both are intended to cause the same result; slow up play while things are cleared out and opposition players covered or better still exploit the umpires confusion about the rule to regain possession by grabbing a player who plays on.

How many 50 metre penalties do you think it would take for the whole thing to revert to the original state? What I can't fathom is why the "great minds at HQ" are not on to this.

[bornadog]

I think what Zac Dawson did is a disgrace and the umpire should be dropped as well as Dawson receiving a match. The player on the mark could never even consider that he would be shepparded out like that.

[alwaysadog]

I think what Zac Dawson did is a disgrace and the umpire should be dropped as well as Dawson receiving a match. The player on the mark could never even consider that he would be shepparded out like that.

Perhaps it will bring this aspect of the game under scrutiny, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible or logical outcome.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think what Zac Dawson did is a disgrace and the umpire should be dropped as well as Dawson receiving a match. The player on the mark could never even consider that he would be shepparded out like that.

Deserved to get rubbed out.

"Contact with a player who reasonably wouldn't be expecting contact". There was no reason that the player on the mark would have have reasonably expecting contact.

[boydogs]

Perhaps it will bring this aspect of the game under scrutiny, but I won't hold my breath waiting for a sensible or logical outcome.

Looks like they are taking a stand on this one, another suspension for a heavy bump on the man on the mark this week

[Mantis]

"Contact with a player who reasonably wouldn't be expecting contact". There was no reason that the player on the mark would have have reasonably expecting contact.

Interesting to hear the thoughts of Cam Mooney & Matthew Richardson on OWAT last night.

Both were of a firm opinion that soon as you crossed the white line you should be expecting contact and both try and play their footy with that in mind.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Interesting to hear the thoughts of Cam Mooney & Matthew Richardson on OWAT last night.

Both were of a firm opinion that soon as you crossed the white line you should be expecting contact and both try and play their footy with that in mind.

That's just bollocks.


A long, long time ago, I was jogging through the centre square. The ball was on the wing and it looked like we might win possesion. Next thing I knew the trainers were helping me up.

40 metres off the ball and looking the other way. Yeah, sometimes you're not expecting contact.

[Mantis]

That's just bollocks.

A long, long time ago, I was jogging through the centre square. The ball was on the wing and it looked like we might win possesion. Next thing I knew the trainers were helping me up.

40 metres off the ball and looking the other way. Yeah, sometimes you're not expecting contact.

I agree with that example, but when you are in and around the ball you need to have some awareness of who is around you, but many players these day don't.

(I can hardly talk - After the Sydney game I was playing kick to kick on Manuka and got shirt fronted by my brother-in-law. I was leading out for a kick and just as I relaxed to take the mark I got hammered from my blind side and ended up with a nice cut on the inside of the mouth and a sore jaw. Dirty prick!!)

[aker39]

Looks like they are taking a stand on this one, another suspension for a heavy bump on the man on the mark this week


He got cleared at the tribunal

[Sockeye Salmon]

He got cleared at the tribunal

I thought that was reasonable.

The guy had played on but hadn't kicked it at that stage. I thought a shephard was appropriate under the circumstances.

[LostDoggy]

(I can hardly talk - After the Sydney game I was playing kick to kick on Manuka and got shirt fronted by my brother-in-law. I was leading out for a kick and just as I relaxed to take the mark I got hammered from my blind side and ended up with a nice cut on the inside of the mouth and a sore jaw. Dirty prick!!)

How many weeks did he get?

[Mantis]

How many weeks did he get?

He has to live with my sister, that in itself is enough punishment.;)

[LostDoggy]

He has to live with my sister, that in itself is enough punishment.;)

Harsh! Fair enough.