Round 11: North Melbourne v Sydney Swans

[annew]

Where do you see whistleblowers that is referred to in a couple of posts?

[snajik]

You guys give rampe a hard time. He plays a superb game yet does one stuff up and is crucified. The swans switch play across goal many times. It's a risky move. Most times it pays off, occasionally it doesn't. Doesnt mean we should stop doing it.

+1 Rampe gives his all. Just a shame that his clangers can be so glaringly noticeable as its easier to remember than all of his fine grunt work. The back line would be far worse off without him there.

[Swansinger]

Fine game by Macca - much more to it than just picking up uncontested possessions.
Parker was very good and Mitchell was more than handy.
Laidler had an unglamourous , rock-solid game - just what you want from a defender in his role.
Jetta's disposal by foot was at times sublime.

Nice to see Richo force BT into saying that Pyke was a good player !

But did BT write up the match score for afl.com.au ?
I'm sure they will fix it , but right now , this is how it reads

NORTH MELBOURNE 3.4 4.6 8.11 14.7 (91)
SYDNEY SWANS 4.3 9.5 12.7 10.15 (75)

[Conor_Dillon]

I was at the game, and have also watched some of the replay since coming home. I don't know what planet some of these commentators inhabit (except BT, who I already know inhabits the planet Obese Egomaniac F-Wit). I wanted to rewatch the incident of Ziebell smashing through Hannebery from behind, because at the ground it seemed mystifying he didn't get a free. The commentators spent their time praising ZIEBELL'S courage in the contest (when he was simply charging through a completely open player from behind). Not a SINGLE mention of Hanners' courage backing into the unknown. For people who had actually played the game, and would surely appreciate the courage required to do what Hanners did (versus the literally zero courage required by Ziebell in that incident), it almost makes you wonder whether there is a deliberate decision made amongst these people to paint everything in the most negative light for the Swans they possibly can.

Yeh agree 100% RE the commentary on the Hannebery incident, it didn't take any courage whatsoever from Ziebell...I think it was just a flow-on from the Ziebell love fest in the media lately, he is the most overrated player in the AFL, honestly not sure he'd get a game for us.

[dejavoodoo44]

Yeh commentary was a North Melbourne barrackfest. Those guys refuse to acknowledge there is a national audience.

Yes, I thought it was quite telling, how they labelled the Swallow holding the ball decision "the worst decision of the year", while they were only slightly mystified by the Richards non-decision. In my interpretation, Swallow had the ball for an extended period of time in a legitimate tackle and made no attempt to dispose of it, so he was rightly penalised. While on the other hand, Richards attempted to go back to take his kick, but was wrestled and dispossessed by a player standing on the wrong side of the mark. The fact that the umpire called play on and then allowed the goal to stand, made this a much more realistic candidate for "worst decision of the year"

[mcs]

Yes, I thought it was quite telling, how they labelled the Swallow holding the ball decision "the worst decision of the year", while they were only slightly mystified by the Richards non-decision. In my interpretation, Swallow had the ball for an extended period of time in a legitimate tackle and made no attempt to dispose of it, so he was rightly penalised. While on the other hand, Richards attempted to go back to take his kick, but was wrestled and dispossessed by a player standing on the wrong side of the mark. The fact that the umpire called play on and then allowed the goal to stand, made this a much more realistic candidate for "worst decision of the year"

Should have been a 50m penalty the Richards one. How they possibly thought it was play on completely baffles me. Every team gets bad calls throughout a season, but by gee we have had some shockers so far this year.

[dejavoodoo44]

Surely that punch to Buddy's head was reportable!!!????

Yes, you'd hope that the incident will be reviewed and Firrito will be cited. But I suspect that they'll probably trot out the tired line of it being a genuine attempt to spoil. While from my point of view, the only thing that a swinging fist to the back of the head was an attempt to spoil, was Buddy's state of consciousness. I mean, a highly trained athlete with superior hand/eye coordination, shouldn't miss the ball by a metre or so.

[dejavoodoo44]

Should have been a 50m penalty the Richards one. How they possibly thought it was play on completely baffles me. Every team gets bad calls throughout a season, but by gee we have had some shockers so far this year.

Yes, there does seem to a strange view among some of the umpires, that if you come from in front of the mark, then this allows you some sort of special privileges, like being able to stand ahead of the mark with impunity. I mean, Hawthorn seem to able to get away with this ploy, week in, week out.

[Nico]

Should have been a 50m penalty the Richards one. How they possibly thought it was play on completely baffles me. Every team gets bad calls throughout a season, but by gee we have had some shockers so far this year.

No what matter we think about the umpiring of the Richards incident the reality is that Ted DID play on. Why he would do that in the defensive goal square baffled the people I was with. Pretty dumb play for mine.
We really do need to rid ourselves of the kicking turnovers that hit an opposition player on the chest, when under no pressure. Kennedy had 8 kicks; 3 went directly to North players and one went out on the full.

[Nico]

Yeh agree 100% RE the commentary on the Hannebery incident, it didn't take any courage whatsoever from Ziebell...I think it was just a flow-on from the Ziebell love fest in the media lately, he is the most overrated player in the AFL, honestly not sure he'd get a game for us.

What was Ziebell to do? He knocked the ball away and contacted Hanners in the back in the contest. It is not a free to Hanners and I don't know that it was a mark. Ziebell is allowed to do what he did. To say it took no courage is rubbish. It was in play and happens in almost every marking contest to varying degrees. It was in essence a hospital kick.

[barry]

+1 Rampe gives his all. Just a shame that his clangers can be so glaringly noticeable as its easier to remember than all of his fine grunt work. The back line would be far worse off without him there.

Rampe had 25 possesions. More than any north player i think

[Conor_Dillon]

What was Ziebell to do? He knocked the ball away and contacted Hanners in the back in the contest. It is not a free to Hanners and I don't know that it was a mark. Ziebell is allowed to do what he did. To say it took no courage is rubbish. It was in play and happens in almost every marking contest to varying degrees. It was in essence a hospital kick.

Where did I say he did anything wrong? And how did it take courage? I'm not sure if you've played footy or not but spoiling from behind with a knee up to protect yourself doesn't require any courage, it was a good spoil but he was hardly placing himself in a position to get hurt.