Richards, Bolton and Bevan

[liz]

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

Who do you think was blocking in that marking contest? The only potential free I saw in that contest was Kennelly's slight retardation of Sampi - and I agree that that could have been legitimately paid as a free.

But in the context of a discussion on blocking (which seems to be the highlighted term) I am curious as to where you would have pulled a free kick from.

[voodooguru]

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.

A block occurs when a player, to the advantage of a team mate (hence the reference to sheperding), impedes an opposition players progress to the best marking position. If a defender is at the best marking position, his only obligation is to mark (or spoil) the ball. It's just your garden-variety two-on-one if a team mate arrives at the best marking position just as, well, just before the ball gets there.

Looking forward to the replay to check it right out.

The You Star mark could have been eclipsed by Tadhg's infringing on Sampi, IMO.

[Bloody Hell]

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.

Yes, he's an absolute gun.

(This post is automatically generated by Bloody Hell whenever Craig Bolton is mentioned)

[hammo]

Who do you think was blocking in that marking contest? The only potential free I saw in that contest was Kennelly's slight retardation of Sampi - and I agree that that could have been legitimately paid as a free.

But in the context of a discussion on blocking (which seems to be the highlighted term) I am curious as to where you would have pulled a free kick from.

I was responding the rules as a whole, not just blocking, and didn't bold anything.

[liz]

I was responding the rules as a whole, not just blocking, and didn't bold anything.

See the text you quoted.

[hammo]

See the text you quoted.

Floppinab bolded it, I was lazy and didn't unbold it. Big deal. I was talking about the rules being interpreted to the letter of the law and that if they were, the Eagles could have expected a free kick - and yes, the infringement was Kennelly's interference.

[floppinab]

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.

Nup, not confusing anything. There is no difference between "intential retarding" and "holding of position" with regard to the intent of this rule. They both block the forward from accessing the marking contest. All the ump should be satisfied of is if the defender has put his body in a position that stops the forward from making an attempt at marking the football. I would've thought that if a defender blocks the forward and makes no attempt himself at marking the ball, allowing a teammate to take an uncontested mark, that's a pretty good indication of what the rule is trying to stop. Remeber one of the frees against Hall in the Bomber game where he put a pretty reasonable hip and shoulder on Michael, went on to take the mark, but was still penalised. Michael was removed from the marking contest, hence the free kick (and of course because it was Hall the free was paid !!!!!)

It's a stupid rule, a dead set shocker. It never used to be like this, the 5m sheperd rule applied. I'm not sure when this one was changed but it wasn't all that long ago.