We all know how when Whits rarely gets a free kick when he finds some space on a lead, props and then has an opposition player or two crash into him from behind.

Well according to Derek Humprey-Smith, Whits is being deemed to be sheparding the ball. This is a seriously rediculous interpetation of the sheparding rule. The rule is supposed to be for incidents where a player is being delibertly kept out of a contest when the ball is more than five metres away. Standing and propping while ball comes in is not sheparding. And even if you are standing and propping and someone crashes into your back as happens with Whits a lot then that is under any other circumstances at the very least a free kick and in one or two cases I have seen this year a charge.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06

Yeah, noticed that too Mark. Apparently reading the play quicker than your opponent is illegal.

F*cking ridiculous.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

They showed a DVD to all of the players before the season started called 'The Rules of the Game'.

In it they showed examples of various free kick scenarios from real matches.

In that video Whitnall was shown 2 or three times in regards to that particular rule.

The umpires specifically look for him to do it as he has a history of it.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

If he's on a lead, and the ball is heading over his head, how does stopping to change direction equate to shepherding?

It's a joke. It is a rule designed to stop players from using 'footy smarts'.

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

It's a ridiculous interpretation. Surely if he's able to legitimately attempt to mark the ball he's holding his ground, not shepherding. If they pay those against Lance they then should pay a free against every player who uses strength to hold their opponent out while attempting a mark.

The cocks in charge of the umpires are stupid.

saw that too ... couldn't believe what i was hearing!!

mark harvey and tony shaw were equally horrified, harvs going on to point out that whits was being punished for having footy smarts.

according to humphery [REDACTED], whits knew contact would come and braced himself for it, thereby denying his opponent a chance to go for the mark! so he's actually meant to just stand there as a sitting duck? utter bullshit!!!!!!!!

so why is backing into, or blocking, a defender to shepherd through a goal allowed?

it's all about their @#$%&! interpretations!! no common sense, no footy knowledge shall be entered into!

_________________
... an eagle flew out of the night. he was something to observe, came in close i heard a voice, bending stretching every nerve, had to listen had no choice ...

Stupid interpretation for sure but if this is now public knowledge (I'm sure someone at the club has pointed it out to Lance if it's being discussed here) then I'll be mighty shitty if he keeps trying to do it tonight.

There are a stack of rules I shake my head at but if they're being interpreted in a particular way then it's not much use continuing the practise and saying "the umpire's an idiot".

Here's an idea Lance - go for the ball...

Which is actually what he's doing in these instances.

Yup. Just that he's doing it before his opponent knows what's going on. Having a bit of foresight is illegal nowadays

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

And often because the kick hasn't been perfect, so Lance has had to pull up so that he doesn't lead too far so that the ball goes over his head.
The umpires interpretation is ridiculous

Always happens when the ball is kicked over Lances head, so he props back abit and is deemed sheparding.. Happened last week againist the tigers and I abused the umpire of course, got allot of looks from people around me as the "F" word was coming out abit..

F'ing stupid umpires, what is he meant to do, stand there when the ball goes over his head and not make a contest.. F'ing stupid f'en rule...

Jarusa, if that's true and I don't doubt you...that's seriously rediculous and the clubs hould be haranging and campaining against it in media and writing to AFL etc...

It doesn't make sense! Show of strength or smarts is a free kick against??? Perhaps you need to turn around lock fingers and give an opponent a leg up to the ball. Whitts does it 'all the time' is a crock. It's a valid strategy if you're opponent is stupid and crashes or tags you everywhere. Take him to the wrong spot ...stop and then move to the ball...whether in fronty, over behind to the left or right....almost every contested mark is taken that way....are all of these free kicks - becuase you didn't allow your opponent a clear run to the ball???

Crap

_________________
“Every single element of the Club has to be the best in the league, meticulously and methodically, and only by doing this will we be elite and challenge for number 17.”
Greg Lee

They showed it on Fox Footy just recently.

It will probably be repeated during the year.

I think it is more a result of the commentators.

I remember a match 3 or 4 years ago when Lance positioned himself behind where the ball would drop, (knowing a much taller opponent was behind him would have marked or spoiled). The other player cannoned into Whitnall's back and Whitnall got a free kick.

The commentators on the night replayed the incident over and over and over complaining about it. Whitnall got 'labelled' and noticed by umpires and everyone for that tactic from that point forward.

Now here we are 3 years later and what was once a free to Whitnall is now a free kick against.

_________________
|♥♥♥♥♥♥| http://www.blueseum.org |♥♥♥♥♥♥|

I've felt crap all week....now I'm going to explode....

_________________
“Every single element of the Club has to be the best in the league, meticulously and methodically, and only by doing this will we be elite and challenge for number 17.”
Greg Lee

Yep, obviously I'm biased, but I feel this interpretation of the rule is bunk, and not only is it bunk, if there was true consistency shepherding of ANY KIND would be outlawed. Is it not the goal of a teammate shepherding his mate to stop an opponent from going for the ball. Not only is this a legal part of the game, it is also something we get shitty at if players don't do it. So how come it is okay in one instance and not the other.

You know it doesn't make sense!

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

I'll have to go against the trend here, Lance does sometimes illegally shepherd his opponent from getting to the ball. In the DVD which I've seen a few times now the examples are legitimate and we'd be crying foul if the shoe was on the other foot.

It's not footy smarts

Then what's he supposed to do? Squib the contest?

_________________
Richard Pratt - A Carlton legend.

Everyone agrees Whitnall is a smart footballer, but rarely takes a pack mark.
Yes the interpretation of the rule is ridiculous, it is now at the stage where or forwards are continually being pushed under the ball.
This has been happening all season.
Here's a novel idea, try putting the ball out infront of the leading forward and stop bombing it in. Cause even if our forwards read the play better, they are not marking, it.
Regards Pedro.

Well you've got to look at specific situations...others don't squib contests but they don't completely take their opponent out either. In the video one example is where Lance completely backs into Everitt's run at a boundary throw in and honestly almost does serious damage to him as he flew over the top.

I'm a huge huge Lance fan, but he's got to curb his ways

I am talking about where Lance has propped or is backing up with flight of the ball in order to take a mark. Boundary throw ins are completely different.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06