Strategy New Tactic..?

[Burro]

When I watched the Hawks Pies match I saw on at least 2 occasions the Pies player on the mark was held by a Hawks player. I thought that hold anybody without the ball was a free kick. The Pies players were asking for a free.

Is this the new Hawks tactic just like 2008 hold behind play. It looks a pretty low act to me and the AFL should move quickly to stop it.

 

[candiehappy]

When I watched the Hawks Pies match I saw on at least 2 occasions the Pies player on the mark was held by a Hawks player. I thought that hold anybody without the ball was a free kick. The Pies players were asking for a free.

Is this the new Hawks tactic just like 2008 hold behind play. It looks a pretty low act to me and the AFL should move quickly to stop it.

pretty common for players to block the man on the mark, holding should be a free

 

[kicksome]

theyve been doing it a while now, and they seem to do it a fair bit.
Sheppard the man on the mark and the kicker gains a few extra metres then they go for distance and try and get it over the back. Then its all open for thyril, poppy, and bruest

 

[Geelong Dynasty]

Good observation, another thing I've noticed is the Hawks push the limit on how close to the mark they get, Cyril for example was called back about 4 times in one incident by the umps on Sunday, he was about 2 meters over the mark in the goal square, umpire let it go.
On the other hand Geelong seem to drop back off the mark and apply only token pressure. Dunno if this is for a good reason or not but it irks me.

 

[Eddynukes]

Good observation, another thing I've noticed is the Hawks push the limit on how close to the mark they get, Cyril for example was called back about 4 times in one incident by the umps on Sunday, he was about 2 meters over the mark in the goal square, umpire let it go.
On the other hand Geelong seem to drop back off the mark and apply only token pressure. Dunno if this is for a good reason or not but it irks me.

Reason we drop back is because otherwise it's 50 against us....

Like Duncan the other week, was standing the mark, pointing at where the mark was, and the umpire called 50 straight away.

Couldn't believe 50 wasn't called against Rioli

 

[FredLeDeux]

Good observation, another thing I've noticed is the Hawks push the limit on how close to the mark they get, Cyril for example was called back about 4 times in one incident by the umps on Sunday, he was about 2 meters over the mark in the goal square, umpire let it go.
On the other hand Geelong seem to drop back off the mark and apply only token pressure. Dunno if this is for a good reason or not but it irks me.

For some years, we have systematically dropped back on the mark and inside towards the goal-to-goal line, so as to prevent the kicker (and/or his passing handball receiver) running off down that line, and force him towards the boundary if he does want to run off. Hawthorn's attack on the man on the mark is an attempt to negate this tactic by us and others.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

They've been doing it for years. Collingwood used to do it too.

 

[catempire]

The OP is referring to holding specifically, not the mere blocking that Hawfs have been doing for 5-6 years.

 

[catters05]

When I watched the Hawks Pies match I saw on at least 2 occasions the Pies player on the mark was held by a Hawks player. I thought that hold anybody without the ball was a free kick. The Pies players were asking for a free.

Is this the new Hawks tactic just like 2008 hold behind play. It looks a pretty low act to me and the AFL should move quickly to stop it.

Cats should get down to AFL house to clarify before the game...

 

[catters05]

Couldn't believe 50 wasn't called against Rioli

You couldn't believe it? He had a Hawks jumper on.

 

[Burro]

I would not mind if there was an exclusion area on the mark. Just a one on one contest, the kicker and the man on the mark. I don't have any problem with a block if it is within the rules, so 5 metres needs to be looked at and holding is just not on, it really makes the game look bad. Hawks just seem to always try to bend the rules, there is a reason the 2008 GF is not shown on replay...it was a crap game because of what they did.

 

[JohnZ]

Honestly, our tactic is to nullify the opposition, being both the umpires and the poos and wees. How do we do it? Play our usual tactic, of slow methodical keepings off, frustrating the dawks and pouncing on the opportunity to kick it to hawkins on the lead, or mccarthy with a screamer in the goal square.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Thought thread was going to be about our slight shift in game style.
Yes they do it, most other teams do too (including us), it will continue.

 

[catters05]

Thought thread was going to be about our slight shift in game style.
Yes they do it, most other teams do too (including us), it will continue.

AFL needs to stamp it out. THis protected zone crap and then some guy is allowed to mess around with the man on the mark, its stupid.

 

[Lana]

It's hardly new, and if the rules were followed the ball would be returned to the kicker and the mark would be reset.

Collingwood loved to do it in 2010-11. Eventually the AFL clamped down on it

 

[catters05]

It's hardly new, and if the rules were followed the ball would be returned to the kicker and the mark would be reset.

Collingwood loved to do it in 2010-11. Eventually the AFL clamped down on it

And now since Hawks do it, AFL does nothing about it.

 

[catempire]

It's hardly new, and if the rules were followed the ball would be returned to the kicker and the mark would be reset.

Collingwood loved to do it in 2010-11. Eventually the AFL clamped down on it

The holding bit is new. Should be a free kick against.

 

[00VicWard001]

I would not mind if there was an exclusion area on the mark. Just a one on one contest, the kicker and the man on the mark. I don't have any problem with a block if it is within the rules, so 5 metres needs to be looked at and holding is just not on, it really makes the game look bad. Hawks just seem to always try to bend the rules, there is a reason the 2008 GF is not shown on replay...it was a crap game because of what they did.

When skill etc is on the decline, you resort to a little bit of cheating.

To be fair, I've noticed Bartel doing little pushes and shoves to win contests. It's apparent that he doesn't have the athleticism anymore.

 

[romeohwho]

Reason we drop back is because otherwise it's 50 against us....

Like Duncan the other week, was standing the mark, pointing at where the mark was, and the umpire called 50 straight away.

Couldn't believe 50 wasn't called against Rioli

Yep, they do get a bit of leeway the old Hawkers. And agree they have definitely added holding on to their previous taking out the man on the mark tactic-free kick ump.
We don't get that leeway- so we wouldn't want to try it- still waiting to see another East/West line free paid this year!

 

[STP18]

I remember Collingwood doing it under Malthouse during their premiership years. I raised it in a topic somewhere during the off-season about Hawthorn but apparently there's no issue with standing 1 step behind the player on the mark and as soon as it's play on stepping forward and shepherding. With their game plan revolving around short, accurate passing, it gives them a whole lot more time to find and hit targets without getting closed down immediately had that player not been there.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

pretty common for players to block the man on the mark, holding should be a free

Blocking the man on the mark should be a free. It adds nothing to the game and is contrary to the intentions of the man-on-the mark rules.

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Yep, they do get a bit of leeway the old Hawkers. And agree they have definitely added holding on to their previous taking out the man on the mark tactic-free kick ump.
We don't get that leeway- so we wouldn't want to try it- still waiting to see another East/West line free paid this year!

Still waiting to see them pay an interchange infringement free kick that wasn't actually an interchange infringement, which they did to Geelong in a game against the Hawks in 2013.

 

[Catastic82]

Blocking the man on the mark should be a free. It adds nothing to the game and is contrary to the intentions of the man-on-the mark rules.

Yeah but Hawthorn

 

[Meow]

Protected zone should be extended to include the man on the mark for this reason. If it's breached, pay a 50m penalty. The whole purpose of bringing in the rule was to prevent opponents beside/behind the play from unfairly pressuring players who had taken the mark. Doesn't the tactic described in the OP do exactly this?

Of course, that wouldn't stop certain sides receiving more time + umpire warnings than others to clear the protected zone.

 

[STP18]

Protected zone should be extended to include the man on the mark for this reason. If it's breached, pay a 50m penalty. The whole purpose of bringing in the rule was to prevent opponents beside/behind the play from unfairly pressuring players who had taken the mark. Doesn't the tactic described in the OP do exactly this?

Of course, that wouldn't stop certain sides receiving more time + umpire warnings than others to clear the protected zone.

If I'm understanding what the OP is talking about correctly it can't be a 50m because Hawthorn are the team with the ball.

Think Hodge has the ball, Selwood is on the mark, and Mitchell is standing right beside Selwood ready to grab/shepherd as soon as the umpire calls play on/Hodge runs off his line.