#AFL Round 23 Swans vs Hawthorn, SCG, Sat 25 Aug 7:25pm @sydneyswans #AFLSwansHawks

[Ralph Dawg]

Have to say, really disappointed in Hanners last night. His public hissy fit at aliir and his general demeanor was a bit off, especially for one who has been carried by his team mates now for the last two seasons. Yes Aliir was having a stinker but Hanners has had 2 seasons of stinkers. He just spent the whole time sulking. Now compare him to AJ after he busted his other knee. Still wanted to sit on the bench, still sang the team song after the great win against the D's. AJ is all class but that has never been in doubt. Hanners was actually my son's favourite player for a while (he actually asked if he could go to Xavier college - we live in Brisbane!) but I'm glad he has moved onto a better role model, Isaac Heeney. Maybe the swans need to as well and take St Kilda up on their trade offer if it is juicy enough.

[Ralph Dawg]

Can't blame the team for not kicking it to him. When you drop the ball or fail to take a simple mark a dozen times in a match the assumption is that he will do it again. Aliirs prone to do that and is hopeless below the knees but he took it to a new level last night. It looked like his confidence was completely shot.

It's a double edge sword. By not kicking to him, you shoot his confidence down even more. The reality is that we need Aliir at his best to be even a chance in September. Grundy is too slow to play off his direct opponent and Rampe a little under sized to take the intercept mark so even though he's not great with his disposal, Aliir is crucial for our ability to stop inside 50's and transition out of defence (via someone else!). I think Clarkson identified this and it was clear there was no easy disposal for Aliir, even when he did get the ball.

[mcs]

Hawks have done that for years. The player with the ball plays on and the infringing team mate shepherds him. What's more, there is no penalty for doing so. If they get caught, which is rare, the ball simply comes back, no penalty. They need to take the ball of them when they do this.

This has been an absolute pet hate of mine with the wees and poos for years - but as you say they get away with it 99.5% of the time, and the other 0.5% of the time it just comes back. Make it punishable by a reversal of the kick and you will kill that crappy tactic immediately imho. Its bending the rules of the game for mine and not necessary.

[Agent 86]

Well that's wrong.....

Yep. Good as a man short, unfortunately.

[Agent 86]

This. There were a few things, individually, that could have turned the result but it would be rough to point at any one of them. I do think that if Aliir had played as he has for the last couple of months, we probably would have won. He's been close to our best player over that period. He seemed to lose all confidence early in the game. I guess the next step in his development is the mental strength to move on quickly from a mistake - especially important for defenders. I can't agree with the person above who asked if he is a fair weather player. He was good even during the period when the whole team was awful. He just had a poor game tonight.

What else could have turned things around? We should have been an extra couple of goals ahead at half-time, after dominating in the second quarter. The misses from Hayward and Dawson (first quarter?) stick out as they were very gettable but there were other chances went begging. Even in the final quarter, Kennedy's set shot was well within his repertoire, and Jack had the time and space to steady and get a better kick away.

Yeah, it was hard to know what happened to AA last night, he seemed to be holding back for fear of making a mistake (rather than getting in & having a crack - which has been his way recently). Guilty of ball-watching and meek efforts a number of times. I missed the start of the game, so didn't see the fumble leading to the Hawk's 2nd goal - but maybe this played on his mind?

[Bexl]

Interfering with the man on the mark is something the Hawks have been doing for years. There was one last night where Mitchell blatantly stood in front of McCartin who was manning the mark, well before the umpire called "play on". I think it is against the rules but isn't something the umpires seem alert to, or at least inclined to police.

That's true about them doing it for years. the umpire did the right thing in blowing his whistle as he kicked it. if it was a goal it would not have counted. It worked against us this time unfortunately as he then passed it and they got a goal.

[Bexl]

This has been an absolute pet hate of mine with the wees and poos for years - but as you say they get away with it 99.5% of the time, and the other 0.5% of the time it just comes back. Make it punishable by a reversal of the kick and you will kill that crappy tactic immediately imho. Its bending the rules of the game for mine and not necessary.

+1

[chalbilto]

+2

[giant]

I've wondered at times this year whether Heeney has been struggling with fitness - whether it's the knee that he had operated on in the off-season or something else. His good moments are wonderful, but he has tended to drift in and out of games for most of this year and I do think he can provide a lot more intensity across a whole game. It could also be that the team hasn't quite worked out his best position. He's been thrown into a few different positions and, as still a youngish player, might find it easier with a bit more of a set position in which to develop his craft.

Been off the boil ever since he had that head knock half way through the year for mine. Still playing good footy, just nowhere near where he was playing at the beginning of the year.

Brave effort from the lads last night I thought, the Hawks veterans stood up when they needed to, as indeed they have all year. Still plenty of footy to be played yet though.

I do have to say, it didn't look like a clash between 4 and 5 - this equalisation process is producing any number of mediocre teams.

[Agent 86]

That's true about them doing it for years. the umpire did the right thing in blowing his whistle as he kicked it. if it was a goal it would not have counted. It worked against us this time unfortunately as he then passed it and they got a goal.

Yep, but there doesn't seem to be a 'Rule' against it (AFAIK??) - with all the BS about the 'protection zone', of which we've seem some mind-boggling interpretations by the umps this year, maybe it's time for someone other than Clarko to have a coffee with the CEO.

[Meg]

As others have said Hawthorn have used the tactic of blocking the man on the mark by standing immediately behind him for years - and this has been ticked off by the AFL as legal.

I wasn’t aware though that they were also blocking by standing in front of the man on the mark. The AFL has said (see below) that the recall of the ball for replay (as per last night) is the correct response.

Given the AFL’s current obsession with promoting ‘attractive’ football, here is an easy place to start - make this tactic illegal.

"The penalty at this stage is a stoppage in play," he said.

"The umpire will stop the play, he'll clear the player out and then reset play and that becomes a real slow play for the (offending) team."

Hawthorn's shepherding tactic gets the all-clear from umpires - AFL.com.au

[mcs]

As others have said Hawthorn have used the tactic of blocking the man on the mark by standing immediately behind him for years - and this has been ticked off by the AFL as legal.

I wasn’t aware though that they were also blocking by standing in front of the man on the mark. The AFL has said (see below) that the recall of the ball for replay (as per last night) is the correct response.

Given the AFL’s current obsession with promoting ‘attractive’ football, here is an easy place to start - make this tactic illegal.

"The penalty at this stage is a stoppage in play," he said.

"The umpire will stop the play, he'll clear the player out and then reset play and that becomes a real slow play for the (offending) team."

Hawthorn's shepherding tactic gets the all-clear from umpires - AFL.com.au

What is frustrating is while it can create a slow play, like it did last night - it also let a forward get free from a man, who then was found by the hawks player after he got back. Of course we should have been more aware to it, but doesn't make it any less frustrating.

[mcs]

Been off the boil ever since he had that head knock half way through the year for mine. Still playing good footy, just nowhere near where he was playing at the beginning of the year.

Brave effort from the lads last night I thought, the Hawks veterans stood up when they needed to, as indeed they have all year. Still plenty of footy to be played yet though.

I do have to say, it didn't look like a clash between 4 and 5 - this equalisation process is producing any number of mediocre teams.

I still feel at this stage the talent is too thinly spread by having 18 teams. The talent pool needs really to be producing probably 50 or 60 quality AFL players to really make a difference and bring more teams up from mediocre to 'not quite as mediocre'.

[Agent 86]

As others have said Hawthorn have used the tactic of blocking the man on the mark by standing immediately behind him for years - and this has been ticked off by the AFL as legal.

I wasn’t aware though that they were also blocking by standing in front of the man on the mark. The AFL has said (see below) that the recall of the ball for replay (as per last night) is the correct response.

Given the AFL’s current obsession with promoting ‘attractive’ football, here is an easy place to start - make this tactic illegal.

"The penalty at this stage is a stoppage in play," he said.

"The umpire will stop the play, he'll clear the player out and then reset play and that becomes a real slow play for the (offending) team."

Hawthorn's shepherding tactic gets the all-clear from umpires - AFL.com.au

Well Spotted Meg. So, as soon as a player makes contact with, or gets in front of the man on the mark (before the umpire has called play-on), then that would be a free kick to the defender? Mitchell does BOTH of these in this case.

[Meg]

Well Spotted Meg. So, as soon as a player makes contact with, or gets in front of the man on the mark (before the umpire has called play-on), then that would be a free kick to the defender? Mitchell does BOTH of these in this case.

Yep, it should be in my book. That would stop the tactic very quickly.