Does Illegal Shepherd still exist ?

[cos789]

In the Swans Vs Carlton game , Swans lobbed the ball up to a very open CHF positition where Swans took the mark in front of Jolly with his arms outstretched in front of a Carlton player .Nobody in the crowd ,no umpire and no commentator had an obstructed view , yet total silence -it's a shepherd .
As for ruck contests it seems we've all iven up .It's all race to the front position and hold position .Cox used to throw his arms out religiously .
Took a whole year for him to be pinged .Grappling and wrestling are illegal shepherds and if people want ruckmen to jump again they should realise this .
It's not a law change -it's the way it used to be!!!!
One more thing .Though you've seen it many times and players get applauded for doing it -you can't shepherd a markable ball through the goals .
That would be an illegal shepherd .You have to look like attempting to mark the ball .Only seen it paid once (rightly and obviously)in a final and the umpire was crucified .

.

 

[iluvparis]

I agree - especially about the shepherding the ball through in the goal square. That used to almost ALWAYS be paid.

Every time Fev does it these days I think - well that will be against us for sure, but nope it seems to have gone out of the umps minds these days. Too many other rules to think about I guess!

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Under the new rules, shouldn't any illegal shepherds automatically be a free and 50m penalty?

The same should also apply to a hold off the ball.

In both instances you're stopping the player from getting to the next contest.

Also, in cases where a player holds his opposition in a tackle too long after disposal, shouldn't that be 50 as well if you want to go by the literal interpretation?

I hate you Adrian Anderson.

 

[Tex_21]

I quite often play in the ruck, and as I am not as tall, nor as well-heeled as many of my opponents, I use my body size to advantage around the ground to get to that front position and keep it. Guard where the ball will fall and target my rovers. Been happening for years-John Nicholls was a great exponent of it. As for other shepards, if the ball is within 5 metres, isn't it fair game? PRovided you don't grab your opponent?

 

[SM]

I don't think there's an issue with the shepherd in the square, though yeah I do always find it weird that it's never commented on, even when the player being shephereded seems so angry about it, but after the ball goes through seemingly doesn't care.

 

[thesmallprint]

 

[Underdog]

if the ball is within 5 metres, isn't it fair game? PRovided you don't grab your opponent?

I thought so. Think of the numerous times in general play where you'll shepherd a dispossessed ball and not make valid attempt to gather it. Plenty.

The marking situation blocks are an interesting one and I think are a clever part of the game. As long as the player has eyes on the ball and can realistically mark it, his block shouldn't matter.

 

[Bone Crusher]

As for other shepards, if the ball is within 5 metres, isn't it fair game? PRovided you don't grab your opponent?

I do remember there used to be a rule against shepherding the ball, but I can't find one now. It pretty much says you can shepherd who ever you like (with the exception of marking and ruck contests), so long as the ball is within 5m.

 

[markr]

As for other shepards, if the ball is within 5 metres, isn't it fair game? PRovided you don't grab your opponent?

In theory you can't shepherd someone out of a marking contest, regardless of where the ball is, but every good tall forward in the game gets shepherded while a third man takes an uncontested mark a metre in front of the contest a few times a match and it never gets paid.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

It's Asylum Seeker Shepherd these days.

 

[FouRFooTGiaNT]

In theory you can't shepherd someone out of a marking contest, regardless of where the ball is, but every good tall forward in the game gets shepherded while a third man takes an uncontested mark a metre in front of the contest a few times a match and it never gets paid.

I'm wondering if that rule still exists, that rule has rarely, if ever been paid lately. Full Forwards get robbed of this rule almost every week, especially when teams are playing 1,2,3 or half their team back in defence. Sometimes it is done more blatant then others and still not paid. I would like to know what the actual definition of the rule is, are we all mis-understanding it? Most of the time, the defending player not marking the ball doesn't use their arms to shepherd the forward, so it is harder to call, but I am of the belief that unless they should be either crumbing the ball if their team mate drops it, or going up in the contest too for the mark.

 

[markr]

From the rules:

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where
he or she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited
Contact with an opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if
he or she:

(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition
Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to
Mark the football;

Basically if you block a player who is going for the mark it should be a free kick. You see it paid every now and then, but usually the key forward's direct opponent will tie him up and make it look like they are both wrestling, while a team mate drops in front for the uncontested mark.

I've often wondered if a key forward could just stick both his arms straight up in the air before the ball is even kicked. He'd look like an idiot, but it would be bloody obvious when the defender wrapped him up who was holding who.

 

[Beckers]

Under the new rules, shouldn't any illegal shepherds automatically be a free and 50m penalty?

The same should also apply to a hold off the ball.

In both instances you're stopping the player from getting to the next contest.

Also, in cases where a player holds his opposition in a tackle too long after disposal, shouldn't that be 50 as well if you want to go by the literal interpretation?

I hate you Adrian Anderson.

+1 The guy makes me want to throw up!

 

[whichone]

I often spew just thinking about him.

 

[Teh_Nub]

I think its fine how it is, god knows we don't need more rule changes and changes in interpretation.

 

[ziad]

Looks like is is not in the spotlight. I am not fussed either way but in some games it is striking how a minor push is paid while blatant holding off the ball is happily let go.

There are so many revised interpretations that consistency between rules, as per the impact of the relevant infringement on the game, appears to have been lost.

 

[clogwearer]

You think the stingray wasn't within 5m of the ball?

 

[the ranger]

I often spew just thinking about him.

that made me LOL for some reason