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.
Bookmarks