Remove this Banner Ad

Negative-free zone

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepalenko
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I get the feeling Jeff is close to a break out game. The ball just didnt sit for him on Friday and he missed 3 shots he would normally gobble, but he got the 3 shots and a fantastic run down tackle free albeit from a play on slow release call (Always feel they are a little unfair). As they used to say about wayward FF's if they are getting their hands on the pill sooner or later they will straighten up but if they aint touching it they wont score.

And just on the play on from a mark or free, did anyone notice Harry O's tactic of running over to our man on the mark and standing along side him waiting to effect an immediate shepherd should the player with the ball decide to play on? Got to the stage where the ump was calling him out or even called for Tex to take him away (I think Tex cottoned on and was going in to chop out the player on the mark that would otherwise be double teamed). The danger is (and Jeff was pinged a 50 from a Robbo free against (which was because Robbo flew for a mark and his leg hit the guy in front but Robbo touched the ball once he had touched the ground again - thats a new one) for simply following his man past the player with the ball) is that they pay a 50 to them if someone else goes in to help.

I think if it becomes a new tactic the player that goes in to stand on the marker to shepherd him gets the mark or free reversed. That will stop it dead.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

JustaBattler said:
40yr please fix up your second paragraph - interesting enough to deserve a clearer expositon! I noticed same things - but am not clear on the rules etc in these situations.
Click to expand...
Sorry probably not the correct thread. So just quickly, I notice Harry O a number of times when his team mates marked or were awarded frees, especially in the pockets would run over and stand by our man on the mark, the moment he moved Harry O would lay a shepherd allowing the guy to get another few meters forward, by this point play on has been called but Harry O's actions created the play on. It may only have bought enough time or space to get another 5 meters forward to about the line the mark was on but to the side of where Harry O was holding our guy out with the shepherd for a second or so to allow his team mate to release the kick just that bit further forward.

As far as I can tell it is not against the rules however the umps started calling for him to leave the area. You see if he is along side the man on the mark he too is 5m from the ball players. But it is clearly an unfair advantage that has a double edged benefit. If no opposition player goes with you, you have a free shepherd and you buy that extra 5m or more, if another opposition player goes with you he risks a 50m so you are effectively dragging him within the danger area of giving that extra penalty away.

The rule used to be that if you were along side your opponent you could run within inches of the man with the ball but every now and then if a player gets a meter or 2 behind his direct opponent and his opponent goes with 5 meters of the ball player and he follows him, he gets pinged for being within 5 meters. It got so at one stage you could even cross between the ball player and the man on the mark so long as your direct opponent did so first. So it is now a grey area thanks to the over judicious use of paying those 50's. Try running across the mark now even chasing your man, ping....gone.

That is how Jeff was pinged for it, he was chasing down his opponent ran past the ball holder about 3 meters away....ping 50 paid by another ump even though his opponent ran by on the same line, the ump that awarded the free was busy explaining to Robbo that you only touched the ball (in the marking attempt) once your feet were back on the ground, therefore your knee has pushed the other guy in the back. Never in 40 years watching ever heard that as a free kick. So in other words you must touch the ball in a marking attempt before you land or its a push if any part of you touches the back of the guy in front....what about the rest of the players in the pack that dont touch the ball and no one marks it, do we do a head count and say well there are 3 opposition and only 2 of your guys therefore one of you must be pushing someone in the back, just ludicrous. Some of the ump explanations are getting zanier and zanier.
 
40yearBLUE said:
....

That is how Jeff was pinged for it, he was chasing down his opponent ran past the ball holder about 3 meters away....ping 50 paid by another ump, the ump that awarded the free was busy explaining to Robbo that you only touched the ball (in the marking attempt) once your feet were back on the ground, therefore your knee has pushed the other guy in the back. Never in 40 years watching ever heard that as a free kick. So in other words you must touch the ball in a marking attempt before you land or its a push....what about the rest of the players in the pack that dont touch the ball and no one marks it, do we do a head count and say well there are 3 opposition and only 2 of your guys therefore one of you must be pushing someone in the back, just ludicrous. Some of the ump explanations are getting zanier and zanier.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks for the explanation regarding the standing next to mark tactic:thumbsu: - I guess it gets used by teams who play the extra or loose man in defence. *I too was bemused by the free against Robbo - maybe teh umps dont see him as a fair dinkum pack marker...
 
40yearBLUE said:
Sorry probably not the correct thread. So just quickly, I notice Harry O a number of times when his team mates marked or were awarded frees, especially in the pockets would run over and stand by our man on the mark, the moment he moved Harry O would lay a shepherd allowing the guy to get another few meters forward, by this point play on has been called but Harry O's actions created the play on. It may only have bought enough time or space to get another 5 meters forward to about the line the mark was on but to the side of where Harry O was holding our guy out with the shepherd for a second or so to allow his team mate to release the kick just that bit further forward.

As far as I can tell it is not against the rules however the umps started calling for him to leave the area. You see if he is along side the man on the mark he too is 5m from the ball players. But it is clearly an unfair advantage that has a double edged benefit. If no opposition player goes with you, you have a free shepherd and you buy that extra 5m or more, if another opposition player goes with you he risks a 50m so you are effectively dragging him within the danger area of giving that extra penalty away.

The rule used to be that if you were along side your opponent you could run within inches of the man with the ball but every now and then if a player gets a meter or 2 behind his direct opponent and his opponent goes with 5 meters of the ball player and he follows him, he gets pinged for being within 5 meters. It got so at one stage you could even cross between the ball player and the man on the mark so long as your direct opponent did so first. So it is now a grey area thanks to the over judicious use of paying those 50's. Try running across the mark now even chasing your man, ping....gone.

That is how Jeff was pinged for it, he was chasing down his opponent ran past the ball holder about 3 meters away....ping 50 paid by another ump even though his opponent ran by on the same line, the ump that awarded the free was busy explaining to Robbo that you only touched the ball (in the marking attempt) once your feet were back on the ground, therefore your knee has pushed the other guy in the back. Never in 40 years watching ever heard that as a free kick. So in other words you must touch the ball in a marking attempt before you land or its a push if any part of you touches the back of the guy in front....what about the rest of the players in the pack that dont touch the ball and no one marks it, do we do a head count and say well there are 3 opposition and only 2 of your guys therefore one of you must be pushing someone in the back, just ludicrous. Some of the ump explanations are getting zanier and zanier.
Click to expand...
Haven't you watched many Filth games over the past couple of seasons 40 year??

Been happening for at least that long with Harry O, I believe he cant encroach on the player standing the mark and must be at least 5 metres away until the umpire has called play on!
 
Just Kreuzing said:
Haven't you watched many Filth games over the past couple of seasons 40 year??

Been happening for at least that long with Harry O, I believe he cant encroach on the player standing the mark and must be at least 5 metres away until the umpire has called play on!
Click to expand...
Only really watched them play us and the odd blockbuster and had not noticed that tactic before.

My understanding of the 5m rule is it is 5m away from the bloke with the free or mark. Any many times he we along side the man on the mark before the ball was released, and therefore before play on was called.

One time the ump called on him to clear the area because he too was standing on the mark, but the ball player had not moved yet, then another time Tex went with him and the ump called Tex to take him away with you.

Its another interesting grey area. How many times has a player run down a player from behind and given away 50m and the umpire says he had not run off his line therefore play on had not been called. Well in this case you have a similar problem only an ump wont reverse a free or mark just because a team mate is too close. So Harry gets away with being Johhny on the spot to effect a shepherd when or because it is risky for a teammate to be that close before play on is called.


And one more glaring miss from the umps was how was the smoother of the Collins banana attempt not paid a 50 for running over the mark play on was called? Unless sound is now travelling faster than light?
 
40yearBLUE said:
Only really watched them play us and the odd blockbuster and had not noticed that tactic before.

My understanding of the 5m rule is it is 5m away from the bloke with the free or mark. Any many times he we along side the man on the mark before the ball was released, and therefore before play on was called.

One time the ump called on him to clear the area because he too was standing on the mark, but the ball player had not moved yet, then another time Tex went with him and the ump called Tex to take him away with you.

Its another interesting grey area. How many times has a player run down a player from behind and given away 50m and the umpire says he had not run off his line therefore play on had not been called. Well in this case you have a similar problem only an ump wont reverse a free or mark just because a team mate is too close. So Harry gets away with being Johhny on the spot to effect a shepherd when or because it is risky for a teammate to be that close before play on is called.


And one more glaring miss from the umps was how was the smoother of the Collins banana attempt not paid a 50 for running over the mark play on was called? Unless sound is now travelling faster than light?
Click to expand...
Umpire calls him back to outside 5 metres when he is there on his own before play on has been called.

He is allowed inside 5 metres if there is an extra player (Walker) there as he is manning him up, he does not have to be outside 5 metre protected area if an opposition player he is defending is in there, thats why the umpire was telling Walker to get himself outside the 5 metre protected area which would automatically force Harry O outside of there with him.

The umpire wont reverse a free kick for Harry O being in there on his own but should not allow any advantage to be gained by him being there. They should call the ball back and clear the protected area and let them have their kick again.
 
Just Kreuzing said:
Umpire calls him back to outside 5 metres when he is there on his own before play on has been called.

He is allowed inside 5 metres if there is an extra player (Walker) there as he is manning him up, he does not have to be outside 5 metre protected area if an opposition player he is defending is in there, thats why the umpire was telling Walker to get himself outside the 5 metre protected area which would automatically force Harry O outside the with him.

The umpire wont reverse a free kick for Harry O being in there on his own but should not allow any advantage to be gained by him being there. They should call the ball back and clear the protected area and let them have their kick again.
Click to expand...

and there I was thinking the scrum and ruck rules in rugby were complicated..
T@
 
Just Kreuzing said:
Simplified - Cant be inside 5 metre protected area until play on is called or if your opponent is in their you are able to man him up, thats all!
Click to expand...

Much appreciated !

*hence the "T@"
 
40yearBLUE said:
I get the feeling Jeff is close to a break out game. The ball just didnt sit for him on Friday and he missed 3 shots he would normally gobble, but he got the 3 shots and a fantastic run down tackle free albeit from a play on slow release call (Always feel they are a little unfair). As they used to say about wayward FF's if they are getting their hands on the pill sooner or later they will straighten up but if they aint touching it they wont score.
Click to expand...


Let's hope it is a Lewis Jetta style breakout. We may have to suffer a few more misses if it is. Also maybe we can get Matty Kreuzer can give him a few tips on how to pick up a ball below his knees. Second week in a row he nearly had a fantastic game
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hey guys noticed the same thing for a while now from the collingwood lads. Just on the Jeffy fifty, don't think it was for being too close because you can hear the other ump saying "threw the ball away, fifty" Naturally channel 7 was more interested in Robbo chatting to the ump so didnt get a chance to see who threw the ball away.
 
Just Kreuzing said:
Simplified - Cant be inside 5 metre protected area until play on is called or if your opponent is in their you are able to man him up, thats all!
Click to expand...
My understanding is the 5 meter exclusion zone is a ring 10 meters diameter with the player with the ball in the middle of it. And the man on the mark would be 5 meters or less depending on where he decided to kick, from the man on the mark but provided they are behind the mark (opposition goal side of the mark) they have not infringed into the exclusion zone, but from my understanding the man with the ball is the centre of the exclusion zone. That is why a player that runs past the man with the ball from one side of him to the other but just behind him, if he is not with or chasing closely an opposition player he is deemed to have infringed the exclusion zone and a 50 is paid.

But 2 players can stand the mark as an example, or an opposition player (team mate of man with ball) can stand next to the man on the mark, and not be infringing on the exclusion zone unless the umpire decides it is.

It seems the umpires now have interpretive powers so in effect make the rules of the game up as they see fit within certain but ever loosening guide lines.
 
40yearBLUE said:
My understanding is the 5 meter exclusion zone is a ring 10 meters diameter with the player with the ball in the middle of it. And the man on the mark would be 5 meters or less depending on where he decided to kick, from the man on the mark but provided they are behind the mark (opposition goal side of the mark) they have not infringed into the exclusion zone, but from my understanding the man with the ball is the centre of the exclusion zone. That is why a player that runs past the man with the ball from one side of him to the other but just behind him, if he is not with or chasing closely an opposition player he is deemed to have infringed the exclusion zone and a 50 is paid.

But 2 players can stand the mark as an example, or an opposition player (team mate of man with ball) can stand next to the man on the mark, and not be infringing on the exclusion zone unless the umpire decides it is.

It seems the umpires now have interpretive powers so in effect make the rules of the game up as they see fit within certain but ever loosening guide lines.
Click to expand...

and there lies a potential problem.
 
The young players we have tried this year have been positive.
ATM
Watson 8/10 - Solid down back while providing that weapon kick of his. Will only improve!
Bootsma 9/10 - Looks like a kid, plays like he was born to play AFL.
Collins - 6/10 - Hasnt had much opportunity but has showed poise.
McInnes N/A
 
We all know that Duigs has a fantastic temperament and attitude to his footy and he had a great game last Friday but I noticed after the game he went to Yarran, who appears to very much be a confidence player and also had a much better game, Duigs went to him and appeared to say "You are back", which was a great way to pump up his tyres, instil back into him the confidence to go out next week and do it again even better. It was great to see. Capped off a fantastic and close to BOG game by Duigs.
 
40yearBLUE said:
We all know that Duigs has a fantastic temperament and attitude to his footy and he had a great game last Friday but I noticed after the game he went to Yarran, who appears to very much be a confidence player and also had a much better game, Duigs went to him and appeared to say "You are back", which was a great way to pump up his tyres, instil back into him the confidence to go out next week and do it again even better. It was great to see. Capped off a fantastic and close to BOG game by Duigs.
Click to expand...

I know it's a long way off, but he is just the perfect fit for some kind of development role in retirement. Maybe would make a very good coach.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

HARKER said:
Duigan does throw the odd tantrum on the field.
Gave Eddie a mouthful which had Betts scampering off to get out of his way on Friday.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish Harkman, that was just a bit of good old fashioned animated CBT :p
 
HARKER said:
Duigan does throw the odd tantrum on the field.
Gave Eddie a mouthful which had Betts scampering off to get out of his way on Friday.

Can't deny Duigan from giving his all though.
Just on Duigan: Was I the only one that was surprised at his speed last week?
Seemed quicker than I've seen him move before. May be just me..
Click to expand...
Maybe just getting closer to full fitness I reckon:thumbsu:
 
Duigan is running back into good form - takes older recruits longer to come back from injury - they dont have the base level of fitness that kids get in the system for five years. he seemed just as comfortable at CHF as playing off HB last week. Really enjoy this bloke in our team. We would likely have had a coupel of close results gone our way if Laidler and Duigan were on teh paddock at same time.
 
JustaBattler said:
Duigan is running back into good form - takes older recruits longer to come back from injury - they dont have the base level of fitness that kids get in the system for five years. he seemed just as comfortable at CHF as playing off HB last week. Really enjoy this bloke in our team. We would likely have had a coupel of close results gone our way if Laidler and Duigan were on teh paddock at same time.
Click to expand...
Older? he's only 28. Jeez Feel old now.
 
40yearBLUE said:
Very difficult to make the negative of Hammers injury into a positive, but the truth of it is unless Casboult can step up we need 3 rucks on the list and Warnock will now get his chance again. We all know he can play, we just need him to become more consistent. Kruze may well revel in being the sole ruck but the fact is he wont be able to sustain that long term, his body wont hold out for it. So hopefully Warnock gets another go, has a real crack, Kruze settles in to sharing the role and providing the around the ground grunt work we know he loves and 206 signs back on. We cant afford to go in to too many games with only one ruck, and if 206 leaves for lack of opportunity then we would then either have to go find another or ensure Casboult can play ruck at senior level.

Its a shame for Hammer, he has played some good footy this season. Look forward to seeing him again next year.
Click to expand...
Sorry to bump my own post, despite being out for the next couple of weeks with suspension, 206 signed on today for another 3 years. That is good news. We didnt need the speculation and we didnt want to lose him, we need 3 decent rucks on the list. Now we have them contracted. I think Kruze is the next out of contract but I think that is end of next year.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Aphrodite
  • Poll Poll
Hot Topic Free Agency/Trade Period 2025
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
203
Views
19K
Revenant1995
Revenant1995
rp84
    • Like
    • Love
Home game tickets free to good home for each week
Replies
3
Views
807
rp84
rp84

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom