Malthouse's Illegal Tactics

[staple]

Malthouse has instructed his players to use illegal tactics to get goals from outside the 50m arc. In a game where inside 50 marks were rare, Collingwood scored a couple of goals, e.g. Harry O'Brien's, where the Swans player on the mark has been shepherded by a Collingwood player from spoiling the kick. THIS IS ILLEGAL and happened every time they had a shot on the 50 arc or just outside. The player on the mark cannot be impeded or have anyone within 5 metres of them or it is a reversal. The umpires do not notice this rule, but it was a killer for the swans as these goals were pivotal and would not have been possible without the illegal shepherds.

Are the umpires aware of this rule? Malthouse certainly is. Clever man. Cause the umpire on the ball looks at the ball carrier, and the umpires off the ball look down the field for frees. Should Roos start instructing his players to do it?

[snajik]

Yes I noticed this as well. Swans players standing the mark were interfered with on a few occasions. It allowed the kicker to get closer to the man on the mark and I'm sure on one occasion run around that player and gain an extra 5-10 metres. Looked very dodgy and typically Collingwood.

[AnnieH]

Dirty. Filthy.
@@@@ I hate collingwood.

[satchmopugdog]

The man at the post Office said tonight"Fancy letting the filth beat you"

The filth..that is right

[pinkemu]

Sydney's City Rail are still trying to get the stink out of the trains that rolled through Homebush on Saturday night. Worse than tomcat piss.
I wont be catching the trains for at least 2 weeks. thanks filth

[Nico]

They also ran on the preferred side of a Swans player with a mark or free. A Collingwood player stood the mark and the other player was within 5 metres of the Swans player preventing him to move off the mark and move the ball forward or sideways.

I have seen this tactic by other sides and clearly they are no more than 2 metres from the kicker. They just don't ping them 50 metres when they should. Collingwood actually tried to disguise it with the player seemingly running from behind the Swans player to take over the mark, but the player on the mark moves only fractionally back.

[Midfield]

Malthouse has instructed his players to use illegal tactics to get goals from outside the 50m arc. In a game where inside 50 marks were rare, Collingwood scored a couple of goals, e.g. Harry O'Brien's, where the Swans player on the mark has been shepherded by a Collingwood player from spoiling the kick. THIS IS ILLEGAL and happened every time they had a shot on the 50 arc or just outside. The player on the mark cannot be impeded or have anyone within 5 metres of them or it is a reversal. The umpires do not notice this rule, but it was a killer for the swans as these goals were pivotal and would not have been possible without the illegal shepherds.

Are the umpires aware of this rule? Malthouse certainly is. Clever man. Cause the umpire on the ball looks at the ball carrier, and the umpires off the ball look down the field for frees. Should Roos start instructing his players to do it?

I'm not sure which of the goals you are referring to (so im not saying you're wrong), but the man on the mark can have someone within 5 metres, as long as that person is slightly behind him. He cannot touch the man on the mark until the player with the ball steps off his line, but once he does and the ump calls play on, he is fair game.

[Chookbilly]

The thing I noticed more was the illegal blocking tactics Presti was using against Hall.
I saw on a number of occassions where Hall just couldn't even make a run at the ball. Hence the number of uncontested marks Collingwood took inside our forward 50.

[gossipcom]

I'm not sure which of the goals you are referring to (so im not saying you're wrong), but the man on the mark can have someone within 5 metres, as long as that person is slightly behind him. He cannot touch the man on the mark until the player with the ball steps off his line, but once he does and the ump calls play on, he is fair game.

I'm pretty sure they're referring to the two times in the 1st quarter when LRT was on the mark and was shepherded off the ball - the player was standing next to him not behind him, etc and on both occasions they goaled from it. It bugged the hell out of me while watching it, because it didn't allow the players to even have an attempt to get to the player who was kicking the goal because of the shepherd.

[Goal Sneak]

Hence the number of uncontested marks Collingwood took inside our forward 50.

It didn't help that our disposal into the F50 was woeful for much of the game, but yes, their blocking also contributed.

[staple]

I'm pretty sure they're referring to the two times in the 1st quarter when LRT was on the mark and was shepherded off the ball - the player was standing next to him not behind him, etc and on both occasions they goaled from it. It bugged the hell out of me while watching it, because it didn't allow the players to even have an attempt to get to the player who was kicking the goal because of the shepherd.

Yep, those were the ones. Dale thomas was the culprit the first time. I hate that guy so much. At least he got a haircut.

[laughingnome]

I'm pretty sure they're referring to the two times in the 1st quarter when LRT was on the mark and was shepherded off the ball - the player was standing next to him not behind him, etc and on both occasions they goaled from it. It bugged the hell out of me while watching it, because it didn't allow the players to even have an attempt to get to the player who was kicking the goal because of the shepherd.

However (and I hate defending this action) the umpire had called 'play on' before the man on the mark had been impeded every time this happened. Under current rules I think what they did is therefore legal, and Malthouse has shown he's still got a bag of tricks.