Hawthorn Blocking the Man on the Mark

romeoh

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 23, 2011
6,199
4,083
AFL Club
Geelong
While your at it give us your opinion of the low life ducking for free kicks that your captain invented.
Terrifc strategy.
ps he doesn't actually duck so can only assume you dont really watch him play-just baabaaing.;)
 

tazhawk

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 5, 2004
12,214
3,818
Here
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
There are no other teams
Oh no the Geelong "Selwood does not duck but players from your team do" brigade are out in force.

Hawk fans see a Hawk player duck for a free kick and hate it.

Geelong fans see Selwood making a career out of it and celebrate and embrace it.

Spot the difference?
 

romeoh

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 23, 2011
6,199
4,083
AFL Club
Geelong
Oh no the Geelong "Selwood does not duck but players from your team do" brigade are out in force.

Hawk fans see a Hawk player duck for a free kick and hate it.

Geelong fans see Selwood making a career out of it and celebrate and embrace it.

Spot the difference?
Haha- Puopolo deliberately ducks his head down with sole intention to win a free kick. Selwood drops the knees and raises his arm, all done with the intention of getting away from the tacklers and getting on with the game. Different intent-different tactic-yep you are right-I can spot the diff!
ps try and stay on topic though old bean-this is actually a thread about an unsavoury tactic employed by your club. Spotto the diff?
 

Stratton_Gun

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 4, 2010
17,944
15,737
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Manchester United
Nothing wrong with it
Player stands next to the man on the mark not touching him. He doesn't touch the man on the mark til its play on so it's fair play
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Haha- Puopolo deliberately ducks his head down with sole intention to win a free kick. Selwood drops the knees and raises his arm, all done with the intention of getting away from the tacklers and getting on with the game. Different intent-different tactic-yep you are right-I can spot the diff!
ps try and stay on topic though old bean-this is actually a thread about an unsavoury tactic employed by your club. Spotto the diff?


Poppy should be praised for being smart! Clarko raised it as an issue for the Hawks when we were beaten by the Eagles last year. If you listen to what he said back then, he didn't have a direct go at the Eagles (but yes, slightly backhanded go), he said the Hawks needed to play to this rule better! Poppy has learnt to be pretty dam good at it!

I personally hate it and the shepparding on the mark and the blocking miles off the ball to allow players to lead with their opponent picked off by the screener and the free kick for falling into a guys back when they drop to the ground to get it, etc! But while the rules say they are legal and while umps umpire in a way that means its worth doing, a bab-billion percent I want the Hawks to take advantage of that! Any fan that doesn't want their team taking advantage of these things just isn't being smart!

By the way, this position doesn't mean you (or I) can't want the AFL to fix up these rules at the sametime!

JMTC
 

footscore

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 1, 2012
9,168
4,222
AFL Club
Geelong
So after King's suggestion, did the afl crack down on it?

Or were Geelong fine too...


King made it public on his AFL Insider show from early last year and yes Geelong were obviously told to stop as we did not see players stand beside the mark from roughly one month after it was highlighted.
Whether that was due to criticism or a change in tactics by the coaching staff is unknown.
I can't say that Geelong were penalized by any umpires (via 50 metre penalties) as I do not remember any such incidents involving 50 metre penalties down the field..

Again, if Hawthorn do continue to do this and it's within the rules then fine, nothing wrong with that whatsoever but if it does become an issue where they begin to encroach on the player behind the mark then it needs to be raised in the media just as Kind did with Geelong last year.
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
As a pure football question, I hate it as a tactic but until the AFL do something about it, you have to use it! The answer (until the AFL fix the law (my suggestion is 2 to 5m exclusion zone around guy on the mark)) to nullify the tactic is have the guy that is blocking the mark's opponent with him and then he should be able to stop the kicker playing on.
 

*PAF

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts Port Adelaide - Nathan Krakouer Player Sponsor 2015 Port Adelaide - Brendon AhChee Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Jarrad Redden Player Sponsor 2014 Port Adelaide - Matthew Broadbent Player Sponsor 2013 Port Adelaide - Foundation Sponsor Port Adelaide - Captains Club 2012 Sponsor Port Adelaide - John Butcher 2012 Player Sponsor
Feb 17, 2005
22,024
10,285
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Simple to fix. Man on the mark is not to be touched, but include/make allowances for the player that is taking the free.
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Simple to fix. Man on the mark is not to be touched, but include/make allowances for the player that is taking the free.


Thats the rule now! The problem is that as soon as they call play on, the man is no longer on the mark as there is no mark and its open season on him! To me the easy fix is that there should be a a 5m exclusion zone around the man on the mark. If you are in that zone when play on is called, you can't interfer with the player that was on the mark. What happens if you do is the question. Perhaps a ball up or really stickly a free kick.

JMTC
 

cleomenes

Cancelled
Nov 18, 2010
1,483
2,052
AFL Club
Collingwood
Those who have mentioned that the shepherd of the man on the mark came from Collingwood are correct. Right from the start, though, the umpires made sure that the shepherd could only be applied after play on was called. I can't say that I like seeing it, but the rules and their interpretation have been consistent on this one.
The treatment of duckers and shruggers has been less consistent. As time has gone on, umpires have recognized how players were trying to cheat, using the trouble the AFL is having deciding what to do about high tackles as an opening for cheap frees. Umpires now are far less likely to award a free to someone leading with his head or dropping his knees at the tackle than they were. Puopolo gets a few, as does Pendlebury for my lot, but I was aware in last year's grand final of how ineffective Puopolo was because he played for those frees all the time and got none. I suspect that umpires will be similarly unimpressed by the tactic this year.
 

The Blue Baggers

Premiership Player
Apr 7, 2013
3,919
3,280
AFL Club
Carlton
it is not just hawthorn either and it is wrong

alot of the time it is not within 5 metres and the umpire should pay a free for an illegal shephard
 

andrevich

Cancelled
Aug 10, 2013
513
305
AFL Club
Adelaide
One rule that actually should be changed ! it is a rubbish exploitation of the rule .
Also regarding the shepherd , i was not aware you could use your arms to grab , hold or swing through a player . It used to be 5 metres as well but now it is anywhere within about 15 metres of play . Hawthorn , Geelong and the Pies exploit this lax enforcement the best . What has happened to this game .
The game should be called "Used To Be Australian Rules Football" or " Everchanging Rules Football " .
 

Books

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 13, 2005
5,218
6,641
On the Stairway to Heaven
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
NZ All-Blacks
Strange thread. One Geelong fan claims they started it. Other Cat fans claim it is unsportsmanlike cheating. Most people say Collingwood started it. Yet Cat fans want the AFL to take action against Hawthorn!!! :eek:o_O
Would Geelong fans even care if the thread was about the Bulldogs? The lesson - if you want to attract a lot of Geelong fans to a thread, mention Hawthorn in the title. They are like moths around a lightbulb.

Anyway...

As to the topic - several clubs do it. It is legal and it doesn't bother me.
Why are we concerned about protecting the man on the mark? If a free kick was paid AGAINST him / his team then why is he entitled to special protection?
Look after the guy who has the free, not the player who infringed against him!
 

caitsith01

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2007
7,798
9,577
Earth
AFL Club
Geelong
The answer to nullify the tactic is have the guy that is blocking the mark's opponent with him and then he should be able to stop the kicker playing on.
This has always been my solution, too. Not sure why coaches don't do this. Probably because they are worried that the umpires will pay a stupid 50 metre penalty, or perhaps because there is a greater perceived benefit in having a loose man downfield.

I would definitely like to see the umpires get red hot on contact before play on is called, where the kicker/ball is still 5 metres away, or where the contact is more like a tackle than a legitimate shepherd. If these things happen, it should be a reversed free kick - that would be a massive disincentive.

And the AFL should definitely tweak the rules. Maybe a good solution would be that if a player from the kicker's team gets within 2 metres of the man on the mark it is an automatic play on call.
 
Nothing wrong with it
Player stands next to the man on the mark not touching him. He doesn't touch the man on the mark til its play on so it's fair play

Isn't the player doing the blocking within the 5m protected zone? What if his opponent stood next to him? The umpire would tell him to clear the area so the person doing the blocking should be made to do so as well should he not?
 

mollyfud

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 20, 2005
5,320
128
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Utah Jazz, Vikings
Isn't the player doing the blocking within the 5m protected zone? What if his opponent stood next to him? The umpire would tell him to clear the area so the person doing the blocking should be made to do so as well should he not?

If he told the defensive player to move he would also ask the offensive player to move as well (sorry for the americanisms of Offensive/Defensive but I am too tired to work out the right wordidge)
 

Wisenhowser

Draftee
Jul 20, 2016
1
0
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's called a "shepherd". It's an ancient practise from the dark times that the Hawthorn Football Club have injected into their game plan to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.

Technique developed by vince Lombardi Lombardi began coaching as an assistant and later as a head coach at St. Cecilia High School in Englewood, New Jersey. He was an assistant coach at Fordham, at the United States Military Academy, and with the New York Giants before becoming a head coach for the Green Bay Packers from 1959 to 1967 and the Washington Redskins in 1969. He never had a losing season as a head coach in the NFL, compiling a regular season winning percentage of 72.8 (96–34–6), and 90% (9–1) in the postseason for an overall record of 105 wins, 35 losses, and 6 ties in the NFL.[3]

De use blocking in all his plays famous for the Lombardi Sweep I call it smart coaching! Well done hawkers! Go the system! 4 in the bag and 5'on it's way!
 
Back