Hawthorn Blocking the Man on the Mark

[hk89]

You are not a Saints fan

Wooohoooo!

 

[Gralin]

They're standing too close before the call though. It would be like standing 2m behind the guy with the ball and waiting for him to get a play on call and then chasing him down. Look at the footage that was brought up on TF last night, they're literally within a foot of the man of the mark before the call.

No standing 2m behind the player with the ball would be infringing in the protected zone

There is no protected zone behind the mark

 

[owen87]

No standing 2m behind the player with the ball would be infringing in the protected zone

There is no protected zone behind the mark

That was his point.

It's a legal tactic but not one I think particularly adds to the game. In my opinion they should extend the protected zone beyond the man on the mark, solved.

When you see a player running right up behind the man on the mark you know exactly what's about to come, and the man on the mark can't do a thing to stop it.

 

[Gralin]

That was his point.

It's a legal tactic but not one I think particularly adds to the game. In my opinion they should extend the protected zone beyond the man on the mark, solved.

When you see a player running right up behind the man on the mark you know exactly what's about to come, and the man on the mark can't do a thing to stop it.

not true, the man on the mark can back into the player waiting to shepherd and the umpire will reset them, if a team mate wants to come in to help they have time

its not like a cheese move in a video game, I've seen the shepherd fail and the player with the ball is tackled, I've seen the ball turned over from kicks following the shepherd because the kick was to an uneven contest

it's simply a tactic within the rules that some people don't like, it's not really that different from the hand off to a running player for the goal either in the case of the Gunston one.

How many times do we see a team mate run through the protected zone for the hand ball receive when there is a mark around 50?

Don't see posters asking for that to b removed or called cheating

 

[Danger!Selwood]

They're standing too close before the call though. It would be like standing 2m behind the guy with the ball and waiting for him to get a play on call and then chasing him down. Look at the footage that was brought up on TF last night, they're literally within a foot of the man of the mark before the call.

They are allowed to be as close as they want behind the man on the mark, as long as they don't interfere with him until after play on has been called.

Its quite smart and using the rules in place to gain an advantage. Its not like teams shouldn't be aware that Hawthorn do it, they've been doing it well for years now. In a way its similar to Selwood using the high free kick rules to his advantage, until they change either or both rules, opponents need to be smarter about it.

 

[hk89]

In a way its similar to Selwood using the high free kick rules to his advantage, until they change either or both rules, opponents need to be smarter about it.

It differs in two ways though:
1. It is not an attempt to win a free kick.
2. Selwood's high frees should mostly no longer be frees under the rule interpretation changes last year.

But yes, prior to last year's rule interpretation change, you could say both are utilising a legal tactic that some people think should lead to a rule change.

Malthouse was the first coach I remember utilising this. At least I'm pretty sure it happened with Collingwood before Buckley took over, certainly Collingwood were the first team to make extensive use of the tactic. If they end up changing the rule, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a rule has been changed once Hawthorn was deemed to be getting an advantage from a tactic that other teams had been utilising well before them without too much eyebrow raising.

 

[Danger!Selwood]

It differs in two ways though:
1. It is not an attempt to win a free kick.
2. Selwood's high frees should mostly no longer be frees under the rule interpretation changes last year.

But yes, prior to last year's rule interpretation change, you could say both are utilising a legal tactic that some people think should lead to a rule change.

Malthouse was the first coach I remember utilising this. At least I'm pretty sure it happened with Collingwood before Buckley took over, certainly Collingwood were the first team to make extensive use of the tactic. If they end up changing the rule, it certainly wouldn't be the first time a rule has been changed once Hawthorn was deemed to be getting an advantage from a tactic that other teams had been utilising well before them without too much eyebrow raising.

Its using the rules that are in place to gain an advantage. Whether you think Selwood does it to primarily draw a free kick, or whether he is trying to break a tackle (which he is allowed to do any way he wants mind you) its not him who blows the whistle regardless, and whether he gets a free or not, he's going to keep doing it.

Anyway, more to the point- teams should know by now that the Hawks do this, and should change their tactics to counter the advantage.

 

[owen87]

not true, the man on the mark can back into the player waiting to shepherd and the umpire will reset them, if a team mate wants to come in to help they have time

its not like a cheese move in a video game, I've seen the shepherd fail and the player with the ball is tackled, I've seen the ball turned over from kicks following the shepherd because the kick was to an uneven contest

it's simply a tactic within the rules that some people don't like, it's not really that different from the hand off to a running player for the goal either in the case of the Gunston one.

How many times do we see a team mate run through the protected zone for the hand ball receive when there is a mark around 50?

Don't see posters asking for that to b removed or called cheating

As I said; there's nothing about it that's against the rules, it's just also not something that - I believe - adds to the game. I'd rather just extend the protected zone beyond the man on the mark to get rid of it.

Just because it doesn't always work doesn't mean it's inherently therefore fine, clearly it's something the players are coached to do so there is the belief that it adds an advantage in some form. It's been going on for years now, so it's not a new tactic and it's not something only Hawthorn ever used, but it is something that is quite noticeable again since the umpires has stopped pulling up players on it.

There was a period last season where I think they would hold up play to call the shepherding player back away from the man on the mark if I remember rightly?

 

[yeahmate]

You people do realise of course the protected zone is only for the team without the ball? Nothing in the rules stops teammates running through the protected zone. Not sure extending the protected zone really gets anywhere. Also not really sure what this thread is about - its not against the rules and there is nothing immoral or unethical about applying a perfectly legal shepherd to a teammate when the ball is in play.

 

[Gralin]

As I said; there's nothing about it that's against the rules, it's just also not something that - I believe - adds to the game. I'd rather just extend the protected zone beyond the man on the mark to get rid of it.

Just because it doesn't always work doesn't mean it's inherently therefore fine, clearly it's something the players are coached to do so there is the belief that it adds an advantage in some form. It's been going on for years now, so it's not a new tactic and it's not something only Hawthorn ever used, but it is something that is quite noticeable again since the umpires has stopped pulling up players on it.

There was a period last season where I think they would hold up play to call the shepherding player back away from the man on the mark if I remember rightly?

if they change the rules teams will stop doing it but as you say its been around for a long time, at least the last 8 years so doesn't seem like the AFL has an issue with it.

The umps will usually say something if the player gets to close to the man on the mark. Geelong used that to their advantage in at least one game by forcing that contact when they were on the mark to give their defense more time to setup.

Chris Scott called for a rule change when Gibson clashed heads with one of his players a year or two ago but other than that it seems mostly the commentators and Robbo wondering how it can't be illegal.

I have no issue if the rules are changed to stop it I don't see it as a big deal one way or the other.

 

[Cold Sober]

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.

Thank you, exactly.

 

[Cold Sober]

yep and there was a thread complaining about it back then with poster wanting the AFL to outlaw it, it crops up every year or two as an issue, you can see articles in the papers on and off since 2010

Well maybe its time Big Footy showed how powerful it could become and put pressure on the AFL to change the rule.
We could become stronger than 'Me Too', we need a leader, someone with balls, someone prepared to stand up for what is right, change what is a stain on our great game, no, not the AFLW, the rule in question.

 

[Gralin]

Well maybe its time Big Footy showed how powerful it could become and put pressure on the AFL to change the rule.
We could become stronger than 'Me Too', we need a leader, someone with balls, someone prepared to stand up for what is right, change what is a stain on our great game, no, not the AFLW, the rule in question.

that people of Carey's character get to question the morals of an on field tactic?

 

[Farm Boy]

that people of Carey's character get to question the morals of an on field tactic?

Aghh, that's right. So because Carey banged a chick in the dunnies he can't comment on basic, commonsense football issues like Hawthorn using illegal tactics on the field. If the greatest player to ever grace the field can't comment on onfield issues then who can? You, LOL. Big Footy. Never change.

 

[Cold Sober]

that people of Carey's character get to question the morals of an on field tactic?

What is it about Hawthorn supporters, if they're not bringing up ESS drug scandal they go the personal attack.
Bottom line, the rule in question needs to be changed. Coaches are the first to complain yet the first to exploit, obviously you have the best coach.

 

[Gralin]

Aghh, that's right. So because Carey banged a chick in the dunnies he can't comment on basic, commonsense football issues like Hawthorn using illegal tactics on the field. If the greatest player to ever grace the field can't comment on onfield issues then who can? You, LOL. Big Footy. Never change.

I mean that wasn't a classy act but maybe you should give him a google if you think that's the worst he's done

What is it about Hawthorn supporters, if they're not bringing up ESS drug scandal they go the personal attack.
Bottom line, the rule in question needs to be changed. Coaches are the first to complain yet the first to exploit, obviously you have the best coach.

I agree we have the best coach, I'm just bemused that shepherding after play on is called is a stain on the game and nobody is calling Carey full of it

 

[Struggle]

I'm just waiting for a coach to use this as a time wasting tactic at the end of a close game.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

The reason Pies were pulled up is that there were using a hip and shoulder - running from 5m behind the man on the mark and basically making a clean hit (well...dirty snipe) of an unsuspecting player as play-on was called. I vaguely recall O'Brien cartwheeling someone up on the boundary line which may have been the end (or close to) of it.

As most have noted, the Hawthorn player stands ~1m behind the man on the mark, then runs a 45 angle to the side their teammate with the ball also goes, a soft body-block that only inconveniences for a second but is enough for the ball player to get past.

Simple fix is for the defensive team to just read the play better and cover the play-on - like most/all teams do for marks 55m out anyway. There's a swathe of HBF with booming kicks (and Franklin) who do this as a set play. Hawthorn have just systemised it more effectively around the field.

I find the comparison with Selwood is apt though misguided - if Selwood was not awarded the free then it would be almost identical - the difference is Selwood often plays for the whistle first, whilst I don't recall ever seeing 50m paid if the man on the mark subsequently engages with the shepherding player.

There's no rule change or implementation required - the umpires can improve their judgement of distance, angle and effect (as with any player, they all make errors) - but the rule itself is fine.

 

[Cold Sober]

I mean that wasn't a classy act but maybe you should give him a google if you think that's the worst he's done


I agree we have the best coach, I'm just bemused that shepherding after play on is called is a stain on the game and nobody is calling Carey full of it

Shepherding after play on is called is not the issue, its the hiding behind the tree before hand.
ps As for Mr Carey, it was no angel he was dancing with. [ goodnight ]

 

[Gralin]

Shepherding after play on is called is not the issue, its the hiding behind the tree before hand.
ps As for Mr Carey, it was no angel he was dancing with. [ goodnight ]

there are no trees on the field, there are other players who could talk to a team mate to warn him about someone behind them though......


As for Mr Carey like I said do a google, see what else he got up to after leaving North, here's a hint, put assault in the search

 

[HairyO]

The umpires tell the player to stay back, which they do. Then when the umpires call play on they are allowed to shepherd.

Hawks sacrifice 1 player. So why dont the opposition put an extra player at the mark? Then they have a free man to go after the ball carrier wanting to play on.

Its only a good tactic when the opposition arent thinking.

It is clear that Melbourne werent thinking. It was far less effective against Richmond and Geelong in the weeks before.

Why dont we instead focus on Ben Brown getting 5 free kicks. There has been a clear change from the AFL to have more goals kicked.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Mate, we all have to focus on #FreeKickHawthorn.

Just look at the Geelong fans saying “look over there, Hawthorn are doing something!!” every time one of their god-like midfielders avoids being penalised or quacks.

 

[Sttew]

Mate, we all have to focus on #FreeKickHawthorn.

Just look at the Geelong fans saying “look over there, Hawthorn are doing something!!” every time one of their god-like midfielders avoids being penalised or quacks.

Can't believe how sensible and rational discussion is muddied by your post.....you just can't help yourself

 

[hawkman]

Aghh, that's right. So because Carey banged a chick in the dunnies he can't comment on basic, commonsense football issues like Hawthorn using illegal tactics on the field. If the greatest player to ever grace the field can't comment on onfield issues then who can? You, LOL. Big Footy. Never change.

This isn't illegal though. Stand behind the player on the mark which Hawthorn do 95% of the time and it's fine

 

[PetterdHoisted]

The tactic smells a bit, underhanded, sneaky, generally a bit 'un-Australian Rules'.
This is why, imo, very few coaches embrace it long term (Clarko the exception but he was partial to the odd surprise attack from behind even in his playing days). Having said that, especially standing toe-to-toe with the guy on the mark, it can't lead to injury, so why not?

I think it costs you in the end, your extra man at the stoppage by definition faces away from the play. Also the defence can set up knowing the angle of attack, and just plunder like Rance did against the Hawks a few weeks ago. I'd prefer to have your support man as a handball outlet, and facing the play, that way you get a fast lateral movement and quick change of angles that catches defensive structures out.