Strategy New Tactic..?

[Burro]

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.

Yep, you got it. It would have to be a reversed free.

 

[Meow]

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.

That makes sense, but the tactic still necessitates a protected zone of sorts around the man on the mark. In the instance you've described, Mitchell is not in the contest yet unfairly influences the play, and the rationale behind introducing the protected zone was to stop this from occurring altogether.

 

[STP18]

That makes sense, but the tactic still necessitates a protected zone of sorts around the man on the mark. In the instance you've described, Mitchell is not in the contest yet unfairly influences the play, and the rationale behind introducing the protected zone was to stop this from occurring altogether.

This is the diagram from the rules, so technically it seems they are outside the 'protected zone', kind of like a blind spot. Pretty shitty though I agree.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Yeah but Hawthorn
View attachment 282651

I'm telling Mark Fraser on you.

 

[Burro]

That makes sense, but the tactic still necessitates a protected zone of sorts around the man on the mark. In the instance you've described, Mitchell is not in the contest yet unfairly influences the play, and the rationale behind introducing the protected zone was to stop this from occurring altogether.

I think it would be an effective tactic in some parts of the ground. Just think that by taking the man on the mark out of the play the kicker could get another 5 or 10 metres on his kick. Handy if you are trying to kick a goal from 60 or get the ball behind play up the ground.

 

[Burro]

Maybe the man on the mark needs to fake being thrown to the ground.....need some advice from poopy or lindsay

 

[winty]

What I want to know is where the spare opposition player is when they're doing that.

 

[Meow]

This is the diagram from the rules, so technically it seems they are outside the 'protected zone', kind of like a blind spot. Pretty shitty though I agree.
View attachment 282678

Been baffled all season by the fact it extends 5m behind the player with the ball (in sort of a semicircle), but not behind the man on the mark.

 

[Burro]

What I want to know is where the spare opposition player is when they're doing that.

This is why you would not do it in every part of the ground.

 

[Boxhead_31]

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

There was one when Pendles was clearly held after the Hawks played on ump was looking right at it but unsurprisingly it wasn't paid

 

[you pick one]

The Collingwood player is on the mark,how was this not a free kick? F--k me umpire

 

[Liger]

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.

You can guarantee Clarkson has gone through the rule book and run about 5 Staedtler highlighters dry in working out the rule loopholes Hawthorn can exploit for the 2016 final next week.

 

[JD Tomahawk]

This tactic happened to me years ago running around in the 2's. 2 very heavy set forwards just made a meal out of me. He ended up kicking 7. Somebody stop them!

 

[BotsMaster]

You can guarantee Clarkson has gone through the rule book and run about 5 Staedtler highlighters dry in working out the rule loopholes Hawthorn can exploit for the 2016 final next week.

Not a year goes by without that video being posted at least once.

 

[Liger]

Not a year goes by without that video being posted at least once.

And may it live in infamy!!!

 

[frggr]

Yep, you got it. It would have to be a reversed free.

Or just calling play on, maybe?

 

[Burro]

Or just calling play on, maybe?

That would not really change anything. The man on the mark is still being held and the kicker runs off. Needs to be a free or a bounce at least.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Yeah but Hawthorn
View attachment 282651

I thought this thread was going to be about keeping the ball away from Matthew Nicholls so we are not subject to his 'interesting' decisions.

 

[Burro]

I thought this thread was going to be about keeping the ball away from Matthew Nicholls so we are not subject to his 'interesting' decisions.

Now your talking about an umpire thread.......