Richards, Bolton and Bevan

[NMWBloods]

Which is illegal.

[Mr_Juicy]

no it's not

[NMWBloods]

Even if you are watching the ball you cannot block another player's run at the ball or shepherd them away from it unless you are making a legitimate attempt to mark.

[reigning premier]

Exactly..... But that's what they were doing.

Bevan would put himself at here the ball was going to land and be body on body with the StKilda player in a "legitimate contest" for the ball. B2 would then simply float in from the side uncontested. There was no real body work until the ball was within 5m therefore making Beavn's "blocking" legal. All B2 needed to do was get in front and jump across.

Cracking team footy.

[floppinab]

Even if you are watching the ball you cannot block another player's run at the ball or shepherd them away from it unless you are making a legitimate attempt to mark.

I'm amazed this free does not get paid more often than it does. It seems as clear as day in the rules and must happen 5 or so times every game. I think there is a lot of confusion with this one as most spectators, players (and the umps as well given how many times it doesn't get paid) assume the 5m sheperd rule applies in this circumstance but as you have stated NMW, it does not.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:

(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player,
who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

[hammo]

(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player,
who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

A strict interpretation of the laws would have seen an Eagles free kick awarded in 2005 instead of Leo being paid the mark.

[barry]

St Kilda didnt pay Bevan any respect. When coming out of defence, he was quite often left loose. In fact in a fair few of our plays out of the backline, Bevan was the link man, and did quite well.

[floppinab]

A strict interpretation of the laws would have seen an Eagles free kick awarded in 2005 instead of Leo being paid the mark.

mmmmmm, possibly, but I was referring to the classic 2 on 1 marking contests that you see all the time (Hall is a common victim), where one opposition player keeps Hall well out of the marking contest to allow the third player an easy mark.

[reigning premier]

St Kilda didnt pay Bevan any respect. When coming out of defence, he was quite often left loose. In fact in a fair few of our plays out of the backline, Bevan was the link man, and did quite well.

Good summation.....

With Bevan now starting to think a bit more, instead of just crashing packs and going in to hard, our defence is more readily turning into offence. Opposition fwds can no longer afford to ignore any of our backs and try and snuff out our running defence by shutting down Eski, Kennelly or Leo. ALLL of our defenders are now starting to take on their man and give us the quick turn around. Lazy fwds that aren't prepared to keep on their man are getting found out.

It's a great team defence with all of our backs now prepared to run and carry the ball.

[connolly]

I'm amazed this free does not get paid more often than it does. It seems as clear as day in the rules and must happen 5 or so times every game. I think there is a lot of confusion with this one as most spectators, players (and the umps as well given how many times it doesn't get paid) assume the 5m sheperd rule applies in this circumstance but as you have stated NMW, it does not.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:

(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player,
who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

You are confusing an intentional retarding of a player going for a mark with Bevo's good positioning and holding of his position in front of his opponent. The absurd rule changes (interpretations) by the AFL style police to hugely advantage slow or stationary marking forwards under the booming bomb has been counteracted by defenders taking the front position in front of their opponent and "ghosting" a defender team mate who is attempting to mark or punch the ball. The Bloods have developed a very effective tactic of having two players fly for the ball thereby keeping the marking forward away from the marking contest. Its not illegal and is the latest counter move by smart coaches (such as ours) against the netball rules. Not all defences are doing it. It does need extremely hard working ruckmen and courageous defenders prepared to either hold their ground in front of packs or prepared to run back into packs to become the second marking player. I don't have the stats but I get the impression our frees against for hands in the back in defense has diminished in last month or so. Don't really know how much Peter Berbakov is responsible for the development of the tactic and of our young defenders but someone deserves a pat on the back

[Mr_Juicy]

Even if you are watching the ball you cannot block another player's run at the ball or shepherd them away from it unless you are making a legitimate attempt to mark.

correct

[Mr_Juicy]

I'm amazed this free does not get paid more often than it does. It seems as clear as day in the rules and must happen 5 or so times every game. I think there is a lot of confusion with this one as most spectators, players (and the umps as well given how many times it doesn't get paid) assume the 5m sheperd rule applies in this circumstance but as you have stated NMW, it does not.

15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where he or
she is satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an
opposition Player.
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he
or she:

(d) pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or
deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player,
who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;

shouldn't rule 15.4.5 read...

"A Referee...."

[monopoly19]

You are confusing an intentional retarding of a player going for a mark with Bevo's good positioning and holding of his position in front of his opponent. The absurd rule changes (interpretations) by the AFL style police to hugely advantage slow or stationary marking forwards under the booming bomb has been counteracted by defenders taking the front position in front of their opponent and "ghosting" a defender team mate who is attempting to mark or punch the ball. The Bloods have developed a very effective tactic of having two players fly for the ball thereby keeping the marking forward away from the marking contest. Its not illegal and is the latest counter move by smart coaches (such as ours) against the netball rules...

Yep, totally agree. Bevan was doing what he would usually do in a marking contest (eg. he and his opponent wrestled/locked arms) and this allowed Bolton to take the mark easily. There was nothing illegal about what he did - his opponent was as much a part of the contest as he was, only he was outnumbered. I do think most of the kudos should go to Bolton though, as he was the one who left his player and read the play well enough to help out Bevan.

[woo]

A strict interpretation of the laws would have seen an Eagles free kick awarded in 2005 instead of Leo being paid the mark.

this still makes me cringe....because its fact...that grand final could have ended very differently

[connolly]

Yep, totally agree. Bevan was doing what he would usually do in a marking contest (eg. he and his opponent wrestled/locked arms) and this allowed Bolton to take the mark easily. There was nothing illegal about what he did - his opponent was as much a part of the contest as he was, only he was outnumbered. I do think most of the kudos should go to Bolton though, as he was the one who left his player and read the play well enough to help out Bevan.

Apart from the first ten minutes when Gehrig arsed a couple of kicks Bolts played pretty much the perfect full back game. Showed outstanding judgement and defensive skill.