Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 155

Thread: Preliminary Final Sydney v North Pre Match Discussion Thread

  1. #37
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    I want to add that the PA Freo game was so entertaining. One of the best games of the season. It's really enjoyable when you can relax because you don't have any skin in the game.
    That is so true!

  2. #38
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    3,075
    This article sums up the Harvey incident and what should be the MRP outcome. All these supposed "experts" saying it was "accidental" and "there was nothing in it" simply don't know what (or don't want to know) the rules say.

    Tribunal expert Bruce Matthews says Brent Harvey should miss the preliminary final

  3. #39
    Senior Player ernie koala's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    northern beaches
    Posts
    3,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    Having looked at the incident again, I think Harvey is in trouble. It's hard to argue insufficient force if the Selwood is bleeding and forced from the field. You would think that would at least constitute Low Impact. He also jumped into Selwood, left the ground with both feet, and it was off the ball. But who knows.

    I want to add that the PA Freo game was so entertaining. One of the best games of the season. It's really enjoyable when you can relax because you don't have any skin in the game.
    Agree RE:Port v Freo game, it was fun to watch... No gritted teeth, no cussing umpires decisions, no high blood pressure.

    You could tell after about 20 seconds of the 3rd quarter that Port were going to make a game of it. They suddenly looked like the Port team from last week .

    Ken's magic words at halftime must of hit the right notes.


    As for Boomer, if the MRP are consistent, he'll get a week......But they're not.

    It'll be the usual chook raffle, and therefore could go either way.

    I reckon they'll go, 'insufficient force' , and let him play.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

  4. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    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."
    And it was off the ball which makes it even worse

  5. #41
    On the Rookie List DamY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Surry Hills
    Posts
    1,479
    Haha I actually was yelling at the TV because of Port's poor first half. Maybe I like them more than I know!

  6. #42
    For years ive always wanted to bet on the 2nd week of footy because the top4 teams "always" win. This year I finally laid down some cash. D'oh.

    Even so I was going for port because I think they can beat hawthorn.

    We are going to thrash norf. Bunch of flogs.

  7. #43
    On the Rookie List DamY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Surry Hills
    Posts
    1,479
    Quote Originally Posted by barry View Post
    For years ive always wanted to bet on the 2nd week of footy because the top4 teams "always" win. This year I finally laid down some cash. D'oh.

    Even so I was going for port because I think they can beat hawthorn.

    We are going to thrash norf. Bunch of flogs.
    Was just reading an article in The Age - someone had dropped $50k on both Freo and Geelong!!!!! So you got off relatively easy!

  8. #44
    On the Rookie List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by ernie koala View Post
    Agree RE:Port v Freo game, it was fun to watch... No gritted teeth, no cussing umpires decisions, no high blood pressure.

    You could tell after about 20 seconds of the 3rd quarter that Port were going to make a game of it. They suddenly looked like the Port team from last week .
    Said the same thing to my son at time. Amazing to think that a group of 21 odd blokes can just collectively flick a switch and they're away. You got to wonder where it was missing in the first half. That said Ports defensive pressure in the first half caused most of the Dockers poor shots on goal and kept them it.

    I thought the umpiring was attrocious at times. In the back has become a lucky dip now, similar to the "blocking" free they pick out in the ruck contests. Couldn't believe Gray got to take that shot on goal again. He was properly on line the first time, if that happened in general play it would've been play on.

  9. #45
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,055
    Quote Originally Posted by floppinab View Post
    Said the same thing to my son at time. Amazing to think that a group of 21 odd blokes can just collectively flick a switch and they're away. You got to wonder where it was missing in the first half. That said Ports defensive pressure in the first half caused most of the Dockers poor shots on goal and kept them it.

    I thought the umpiring was attrocious at times. In the back has become a lucky dip now, similar to the "blocking" free they pick out in the ruck contests. Couldn't believe Gray got to take that shot on goal again. He was properly on line the first time, if that happened in general play it would've been play on.
    I think you can also look at it in the sense of Freo's manic defence dropping off somewhat in the second half and thus allowing Port to flick that switch and get their game going. There were similarities with the PF we played against Freo last year. They were close to perfect with their pressure in the first half but did drop off in the second half. However a) they were a little further ahead on the scoreboard than they were against Port so had done enough and b) we were too far off our best team and were carrying too many sore players so just didn't have it in us to mount the comeback that Port were able to, though we did at least score a bit more freely in that second half.

    Freo needed to put the score on the board when they had their chances. Port's own defensive pressure might be used to explain some of their misses but they will be disappointed, nonetheless, that they didn't capitalise on their first half domination.

  10. #46
    One Man Out ShockOfHair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Due north
    Posts
    3,668
    Last night's game resembled the SCG match against Port, where we smothered them in the first half and they smashed us in the second. You know that eventually Port will get on the outside.

    Interesting stats on the Swans vs the Roos. A bit surprised to see we are 8th for contested possession differential, 15th for disposal efficiency.
    Also: North have only beaten us once in the past seven years.
    Sydney should be too consistent for the Roos in preliminary final

  11. #47
    It looks to me like Ross Lyon is doing his typical act of running a good team into the ground with poor recruiting and drafting and development. Pav, Sandilands et al will be gone within a year or two. Their "replacements" Taberner and Clarke look like complete spuds. Pearce is absolutely shocking. Crowley is such a poor offensive player that his tagging role effectively adds no net positive to the team. Like the Suns with Abblett, Fyfe is such a good player that he might drag the Dockers kicking and screaming into the Top 8 over the next 5 years but apart from a few shining lights (namely Neale and Walters) it's tough to see a bright future for Freo.

  12. #48
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    14,177
    If you think about the possible reasons it's probably not as surprising. Losing Mumford and having to survive with Derickx for about 8? games as the leading ruckman our contested possession numbers conceded would have risen. Disposal efficiency is also related to how contested a style we play, it's much harder to hit targets out of a pack.

    The big stat for me in that little blurb is our scores from intercepts. It's been mentioned a few times amongst the various TV footy shows but we generate a lot of our scores from turnovers in our forward 50.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678 ... 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