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

[Velour&Ruffles]

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.

Completely agree. it is horrid and unattractive tactic. The AFL arses around with mysterious "protected zone" 50s that nobody can understand but let's this garbage go on. Just pathetic.

[Bloody Hell]

Who is the best ruckman you saw between 1970 and 1990? Of course we would be playing two ruckmen so that Heeney and Dawson don't have to ruck.

If Naismith was available, Sinclair would be playing McCartin's role and McCartin would be playing NEAFL.

[mcs]

Completely agree. it is horrid and unattractive tactic. The AFL arses around with mysterious "protected zone" 50s that nobody can understand but let's this garbage go on. Just pathetic.

That is what is so frustrating. AFL gets its 'must target this rule for this season' around protected zones etc and farting about trying to change other rules that probably aren't really broken, but haven't touched this even though Hawks in particular have employed it for years.

[Meg]

Completely agree. it is horrid and unattractive tactic. The AFL arses around with mysterious "protected zone" 50s that nobody can understand but let's this garbage go on. Just pathetic.

And another exploitation of the nonsensical 50m penalty rule was used in (I think) the Port v Dons match. Player from attacking side ran behind his own team player who was setting up to take his kick drawing his man with him, then at last minute baulked and ran the other side causing his man to run the opposite side of the ball carrier into the ‘protected zone’ and hence give away a 50m penalty.

It was a quite deliberate ploy. In my view, given the supposedly sacred nature of the protected zone, no one should be allowed in it. And so if an attacking team player runs into the zone it should immediately be ’play on’.

[CureTheSane]

Allir seems to lose all confidence when he slipped at the start.

I thought Heeney had a pretty great game.

[neilfws]

I felt bad for Allir last night, after his good run. Bad days are magnified when you're a defender. Really did seem to lose all confidence.

But bouncing back from those days is part of being a successful player, so I hope he gets the support he needs.

I also hope he is shielded from the inevitable chatter along the lines of "he's a cult favourite but how good is he really."

[Velour&Ruffles]

Yep, but there doesn't seem to be a 'Rule' against it (AFAIK??) -

Don't let that put you off. The AFL is the most knee-jerk, reactive institution in the world. They make up new rules on a daily basis.

[Plugger1300]

So hopefully you won’t be watching any more games this season then ?

He probably was one of the posters that said we wouldn't win another game after the GC loss...........

[AnnieH]

Well, personally, I think that that game was thrown.
You CAN'T turn up for the first half and disappear in the second.

Anyhews, got my ticket for the first final... Brewongle Row M 95-96
Whooo hooooo.

[sprite]

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

So you want a free kick against a player standing in a legitimate position, then you should also penalise a team that has multiple players standing behind the mark as well. Just get over it, the ploy is frustrating and as long as umpires police it then fine. Don't forgot we have and continue to do the same mainly in the backline.

[liz]

So you want a free kick against a player standing in a legitimate position, then you should also penalise a team that has multiple players standing behind the mark as well. Just get over it, the ploy is frustrating and as long as umpires police it then fine. Don't forgot we have and continue to do the same mainly in the backline.

I don't follow this comment. A person standing alongside or in front of the man on the mark isn't in a legitimate position. Multiple players standing behind the mark are in legitimate positions.

And I confess this isn't a ploy I've observed the Swans using, in the backline or elsewhere.

[AnnieH]

On numerous occasions on Saturday night, Hawks players took longer than the 30 seconds allocated on the shot clock... one player drew it out to 36.
What's the point of the shot clock if they go over the 30 seconds?
Hawks aren't the only team to do it either.

[Hotpotato]

So instead of giving fans a chance to see their teams, they have given
Tigers n Hawks (Thursday night) more recovery time.

[AnnieH]

So instead of giving fans a chance to see their teams, they have given
Tigers n Hawks (Thursday night) more recovery time.

They finished higher on the ladder - gotta get something for being better than everyone else.

[Dan]

The 30 seconds is to start your run up, not 30 seconds to kick the ball. It's why players such as Ben Brown can take longer than 30 seconds for each shot on goal.