Has there been a free for a goal line shepherd all year?

[master bate]

It seems like pretty much anything goes these days.

You used to push an opponent away from the ball but then have to pretend to mark it whilst letting it go.

Now you just grab the defender, push them way across the goal and it's all good.

Check out the work by Pods here with the Jenkins goal here at 0:48.

 

[kickazz]

There has not been a free for this since Kent Kingsley retired.

You are right, aything goes with goal-line shepherding. I suppose it's a big call to out and out deny a goal so the umps get a bit shy about it.

 

[master bate]

There has not been a free for this since Kent Kingsley retired.

You are right, aything goes with goal-line shepherding. I suppose it's a big call to out and out deny a goal so the umps get a bit shy about it.

I'm fine for pushing and shoving when the ball lands in the 10th row of the crowd.

But just using the one above as an example the ball nearly hit the goal umpires feet. Cale Hooker as a defender has to have some rights to go for the ball and not be dragged across the goal square by Pods who isn't interested in the ball.

Possibly the umps being told we need all the goals we can get this year so don't go calling any back.

It's consistent. It's just consistently wrong!

 

[shintemaster]

Feels like it's been that way for a long time though. I've never actually understood why the rules suddenly cease to exist when it is a shot on goal, but arguably it's not a huge deal as long as they stick to this consistent interpretation and high contact / rough conduct is still penalised.

 

[Blueboys11]

Been a bug bear of mine for a long time this one. Can basically tackle a player to the ground and it's play on

Should be you are allowed to shepherd, but you have to be facing the ball at all times (or something similar). As soon as you take your eye off the ball and focus solely on your opponent, it's a free kick. Simple!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

This rule isn't due to be discussed until the meeting next April. Umpires can only deal with one rule at a time.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Feels like it's been that way for a long time though. I've never actually understood why the rules suddenly cease to exist when it is a shot on goal, but arguably it's not a huge deal as long as they stick to this consistent interpretation and high contact / rough conduct is still penalised.

Mate, when you've followed the game for as long as I have, there are many rules that apparently don't exist any more, even though they're still in the book.

 

[estibador]

I don't mind them letting that stuff go

a) as long as they're consistent
b) as long as it's pushing/shepherding and not a tackle that drags someone to the ground.

I like the team aspect of it. It's pretty much just protecting your teammate, only instead of actually protecting him you're protecting his kick.

 

[clogged]

I don't mind them letting that stuff go

a) as long as they're consistent
b) as long as it's pushing/shepherding and not a tackle that drags someone to the ground.

I like the team aspect of it. It's pretty much just protecting your teammate, only instead of actually protecting him you're protecting his kick.

Yeah but opposition still deserves a fair run at the ball. Shepherding should be within five metres.

 

[estibador]

Yeah but opposition still deserves a fair run at the ball. Shepherding should be within five metres.

It's one of those quirks I don't mind - like how you can get away with a lot more when rushing a behind than you would if you were running it over the boundary line.

 

[SuperSub17]

If that's not front-on contact I have no idea what is.

 

[master bate]

If that's not front-on contact I have no idea what is.

Yeah can you imagine around the ground if you did it. Could be holding, front on contact, shepherding, but on the goal line it's anything goes. And there's pretty much a dedicated ump just to look at the contest. It's why I'm sure it's a directive from up above to let things go.

 

[themidlandmaster]

I remember during the 2011 prelim Leigh Matthews admitted you can do anything on the goal line

 

[Hawkforce]

Collingwood made the 2011 Grand Final on the back of two blatant illegal shepherds on Gibson in the last quarter. No one really made a fuss then - so I guess it's now anything goes.

 

[sobrave]

Yes

 

[CrowToon]

There are a whole bunch of rules that seem to be seldom seen in any game that suddenly rear their heads randomly because X umpire decides that this is now the time.

The goal line shepherd last night is a good example.

We've seen a couple of horrible 50m running over the mark infringements paid. Yet in other other games you hear the umpire call them back.

Protected area had been desd since about round 3 this season and then randomly appears on Thursday night despite in other games players being allowed to come around to stand the mark.

There'd be more.

Our game is just too insane with the number of complex rules and there appears to be a priority tag attached to different rules. Some get paid everytime, others barely. No other league works like this, its a simple set of rules consistently applied. We don't have that and that is why our game is spent bitching about umpiring so much because it is frustratingly inconsistent.

We see the same footballing action and you don't know if the umpire is going to call any of the following:

• Holding the ball
• Incorrect disposal
• Holding the man
• Dangerous tackle
• In the back
• High tackle

I'm probably missing a couple there.

We can all view the same tackle yet we all wait with baited breath as to how the umpire views it. I'd hate to play footy, you'd have no idea what to do.

 

[_Mike_]

you'd have no idea what to do.

Neither do the umps, the game is well and truly over officiated thanks to Scott’s meddling

 

[Micksy]

More goals = more ads.
Expect last night's umpire to be dropped.

 

[Toump Ass]

I wonder if campaignerpire last night realised Cody Flopman tricked him then thought "I'll get one back!" so pulled this out of his arse.
And if that's the case then I'm ok with it.

 

[Outback Footy]

When such a BS free is awarded at that time and context of the game it sucks. A great game all night, we were coming back with a wet sail, looking to make it a tight finish when this s**t gets called, Port score on yhe rebound and suddenly its a 12 point turn around and the game blows out to ungettable status it just blows. Shepherding is allowed FFS

If I was a conspiricist like ToumpAss Id be screaming foul.

 

[The Hobo]

I wonder if campaignerpire last night realised Cody Flopman tricked him then thought "I'll get one back!" so pulled this out of his arse.
And if that's the case then I'm ok with it.

Obviously i'm biased here - but my thoughts are that the shepherd that took place here was different to most that we see on the goal line.

Firstly, it's usually two relatively stationary players - one trying to keep one out of the drop zone, one trying to grapple his way into it.
Second, both are usually watching the ball as this transpires.

There is a reverse angle that clearly shows that whilst Baker was looking at the ball initially, he took his eyes off the ball and onto Wines for the last few steps prior to then bumping into him and sending him flying. The eyes off the ball, and running from afar and bumping him off his line are where it is a bit different to regulation on the goal line holds.


I certainly do wish the AFL did come out and clarify exactly what is and isn't allowed on the goal line. It's long been an area of conjecture.

 

[Outback Footy]

Obviously i'm biased here - but my thoughts are that the shepherd that took place here was different to most that we see on the goal line.

Firstly, it's usually two relatively stationary players - one trying to keep one out of the drop zone, one trying to grapple his way into it.
Second, both are usually watching the ball as this transpires.

There is a reverse angle that clearly shows that whilst Baker was looking at the ball initially, he took his eyes off the ball and onto Wines for the last few steps prior to then bumping into him and sending him flying. The eyes off the ball, and running from afar and bumping him off his line are where it is a bit different to regulation on the goal line holds.


I certainly do wish the AFL did come out and clarify exactly what is and isn't allowed on the goal line. It's long been an area of conjecture.

Correct, it wasnt a hold, or a wrestle, it was a shepherd. Perfectly legal if the ball is within 5 metres of the action (which it was). Every time a shepherd happens the player blocking the opposition is looking at the player theyre blocking.

Should have been a goal, reducing the margin to 8, instead a rebound goal in reply blew the margin out to 20 and took all the wind out of the dogs sails. Classic 12 point turnaround decision. definitely impacted what, until then, had been a great game of footy.

 

[The Hobo]

Correct, it wasnt a hold, or a wrestle, it was a shepherd. Perfectly legal if the ball is within 5 metres of the action (which it was). Every time a shepherd happens the player blocking the opposition is looking at the player theyre blocking.

Should have been a goal, reducing the margin to 8, instead a rebound goal in reply blew the margin out to 20 and took all the wind out of the dogs sails. Classic 12 point turnaround decision. definitely impacted what, until then, had been a great game of footy.

The 5m rule doesn't apply for a marking contest. You are not allowed to shepherd or block in a marking contest.

Wines was getting in position to mark the ball (or spoil it).

 

[Outback Footy]

The 5m rule doesn't apply for a marking contest. You are not allowed to shepherd or block in a marking contest.

Wines was getting in position to mark the ball (or spoil it).

Thats a bit potato/potato really isnt it? 99.9% of times this exact thing happens its regarded as shepherding because its on the goal line. I agree its not allowed in general play, this wasnt general play, its a quite specific circumstance with quite specific interpretations. Usually. This wasnt a marking contest, it was a shot for goal. Or at least has been for the last couple decades.

But hey, its a dynamic game, s**t changes. Apparently trippings allowed now and blokes can have their arm broken (Jones) by an opponent (Curtis) kicking it and its play on. No such thing as kicking in danger any more apparently either. So obviously its ok to change the interpretation of goal line shepherding thats been accepted for the last 20 years too.

Your interpretation was what the umpire and the AFL relied on. Lets see if its repeated at all for the rest of this season and into the future.

 

[The Hobo]

Thats a bit potato/potato really isnt it? 99.9% of times this exact thing happens its regarded as shepherding because its on the goal line. I agree its not allowed in general play, this wasnt general play, its a quite specific circumstance with quite specific interpretations. Usually. This wasnt a marking contest, it was a shot for goal. Or at least has been for the last couple decades.

But hey, its a dynamic game, s**t changes. Apparently trippings allowed now and blokes can have their arm broken (Jones) by an opponent (Curtis) kicking it and its play on. No such thing as kicking in danger any more apparently either. So obviously its ok to change the interpretation of goal line shepherding thats been accepted for the last 20 years too.

Your interpretation was what the umpire and the AFL relied on. Lets see if its repeated at all for the rest of this season and into the future.

I agree that based on the usual interpretation, shepherding and blocking on the line is allowed. As I said in my original post though, I think the key difference is how he's done it - ran through with no regard for the ball and has sent the bloke flying. If it was more subtle, he would have got away with it.

I personally believe that anything a player can either mark or spoil on the line should be considered the same as a marking contest - because that's what it is. Until the ball went over the line, it was a marking contest.

Either way, it's blatantly clear that the AFL need to clear this up as to what is and isn't allowed. It's clearly umpired differently to anywhere else on the ground where it's a clear free kick every single time.