Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 155

Thread: Preliminary Final Sydney v North Pre Match Discussion Thread

  1. #13
    Veterans List aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Down South
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by stellation View Post
    Is Boomer in trouble for running into Selwood? Does he have any naughty points carried over?
    No and Yes......

  2. #14
    scott names the planets stellation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    peaches eaten, trousers rolled
    Posts
    9,330
    Blog Entries
    2
    Who has run with Dal Santo for us this year? Was it Bird? Is he a worry to be ready to do that all game?

  3. #15
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    13,901
    I think it was a McVeigh matchup rather than a run with.

  4. #16
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    4,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Jewels View Post
    That would be the logical thing to do, but from my experience, the words AFL and logic just don't go together.
    The AFL is a corporation and the fans needs are the last thing in their collective mindset. Profit is the only word corporations understand. The tickets are so expensive so the riff raff, you and I, won't be able to afford them. They are really not looking at supporters going to these major events, heaven forbid the wrong sort might get in, it is toffs who will spend big bucks they want. The hoi polloi can go to the matches every week of the year but these are special events and the AFL wants special people, those who have huge dollars to spend, to attend. The allocation of space for either team's supporters at the AFL Grand Final is quite low. The reason for that is to induce other corporations, sponsors, the elite & International guests to have as many seats as possible. Grand Finals & Prelims are not about supporting your side they are corporate events run by the AFL to screw as much money out of the wealthier sods as possible. There ya go!

  5. #17
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    4,236
    Quote Originally Posted by stellation View Post
    Is Boomer in trouble for running into Selwood? Does he have any naughty points carried over?
    I doubt it. This is the finals and I doubt they will give him weeks. He will get a wrap over the knuckles.

  6. #18
    Bring it on! Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,139
    Harvey will get off and rightly so imo...insufficient force surely?

    Some key match ups - We need to lock down Dal Santo, Wells and Harvey. Cunningham, Bird and McVeigh perhaps the candidates? Nick Smith on Thomas a key imo.
    Swannies for life!

  7. #19
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    13,901
    If we bring in Bird into the 21, who gets the sub's vest?

  8. #20
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,936
    Quote Originally Posted by stellation View Post
    Is Boomer in trouble for running into Selwood? Does he have any naughty points carried over?
    He should be if the MRP applies the tougher interpretation of the Laws to protect head injuries that the AFL set out at the end of 2003 (wording below). This is the same rule that got Fyfe his first suspension this year.

    Harvey elected to bump when he had other options, the bump caused a head clash that led to extensive bleeding which in turn caused the umpire to send Selwood off the field under the blood rule. Should be open & shut case. Freo fans will be rightly furious if Harvey gets off.

    "Rough conduct – Head clashes in bumps – The Tribunal Guidelines and DVD will be amended to provide for a player to be cited for Rough Conduct, where in the bumping of an opponent he causes forceful contact to be made to his opponents head or neck – even if that contact is caused by a clash of heads.Umpires will be instructed to award free kicks and report players for rough conduct where necessary. In recent years the Tribunal DVD has proposed that a clash of heads when one player elects to bump an opponent should be regarded as having been caused by circumstances outside of the control of the player which could not reasonably be foreseen. The 2014 guidelines will reinforce to players their duty of care when they elect to bump an opponent, and that a clash of heads is an action that could reasonably be foreseen."

  9. #21
    Veterans List wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    4,236
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    If we bring in Bird into the 21, who gets the sub's vest?
    Lloyd played far too well to be sub. We have a rather healthy problem. Norf are dangerous and playing well at this time. We need to take our game to the next level to beat them. I think we also need to work on our delivery into the forwardline. It is shabby and cost us dearly last week. I am sick of the long bomb as it is not to our advantage as the opposition just set lots of players back and create a huge pack. This allows them to clear the ball out of our forward zone. We need to lower the eyes and Horse needs to lose that game plan big time if we are to advance to the GF.

    By the way just on the long bomb. If we didn't do it every week I would say it was the players stuffing up. But we do it every week and continue to do it until it doesn't work then we lower the eyes and look for a lead. So Horse get the message more leads, less bomb.

  10. #22
    One Man Out ShockOfHair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Due north
    Posts
    3,668
    Yeah, I don't get the long bombs either, especially when the other team has a player loose. One of those footballing mysteries.

    North were good last night, but amazing the Cats nearly stole it with several gazillion fewer disposals and forward entries. Another mystery.

  11. #23
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,186
    NM look to have some serious problems in defence. Both Thompson and Grima are way down from last year. Most of Geelong went missing in the game; they hardly touched the footy until the last quarter and butchered the ball to no end. There was no pressure on their outside runners, so naturally Gibson and Dal Santo got plenty of the ball. They will have a rude awakening next Friday.

    I don't think we need to lock down on too many players. The usual full court press will do. I can see Cunningham going to Boomer, and would like to give Lloyd a role to put some pressure on Gibson, who is a top aerobic athlete and will get lots of possession if left free to roam.

  12. #24
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    2,936
    Scott suggesting he might select Joel Tippett to play on Kurt. Probably just talk, trying to keep the Swans guessing, but could be interesting!

    Battle of Tippett brothers could be a reality: Scott - M.afl.com.au

Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO