Ted did go to handball but he should have got a 50m penalty for being manhandled after the contest.
Ted did go to handball but he should have got a 50m penalty for being manhandled after the contest.
He played on but Norf tackled him as he was just about to hand ball. There is no way that the umpire had time to call play on prior to Norf tackling him. Therefore it should have been 50m.Originally Posted by Nico
The Richards decision would have to be one of the worst umpiring decisions of 2015 for any club. Richards, in a headlock tries to go behind the mark and gets tackled, as far as I can see play-on not called (could that happen during a headlock?)all in the goal square. Takes real skill to see that as a free to Norf.
We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!
I agree with you on this, but it was a mark. But I also realise that it's easy to tell with the advantage of slow motion replay, something the umps don't have at their disposal. It's just one of those things that sometimes bobbled balls are called marks and ones like Hanners' mark that get punched away are called play on.
Ziebell has always been a reckless player. He;s a danger to himself and others. He actually had a pretty bad night. He kicked 3 behinds and butchered the ball for only a 26% DE. Overall he should have received more ridicule than praise. It's an enormous detraction to enjoying Saturday night footy having that idiot commentary team calling the games.
On the Richards incident, it was unclear if he was trying to handball or just faking it. Also players tend to extend their arms in the direction behind the mark to show that they want to go behind the defender. Richards actually does that quite often. Getting tackled and dropping the ball made it appear like an attempted handball. In any case, it really doesn't matter because he was tackled after taking the mark and wasn't given to the opportunity to go behind the mark. A clear 50 metre penalty.
Last edited by Ludwig; 14th June 2015 at 12:14 PM.
Plain and simple, that umpire was a cheating ****, called play on as soon as he saw Ted was tackled(at that point a 50 metre penalty should have been called) and part of a concerted effort by all the officials to give North every chance of staying in the game. This lead to a 4 goal difference in the margin, we should have, in a FAIR world, won by at least 40 pts. It was one of the most blatantly skewed umpiring performances I've seen in years.....disgusting, but unfortunately something that doesn't surprise in this Gillon led, Melbourne based joke of a league.
It really doesn't matter how many times Richards goes to fake or dummy a handball, it is not play on until he releases the ball or moves off his line. It was a 50m penalty for this reason however for some reason the umpire was calling play on. The only answer would be that the umpire was unsighted and thought Ted had stuffed his handball.
As far as the Goodes tackle, the interpretation was completely correct as the player made no attempt to dispose if the ball. He continued to drive towards the try line while in possession - all he needed was a fly half ready to scoop up the ball when he was eventually brought to ground.
After watching Seven's Saturday Night Football, many fans were left wondering, as to just what modifications could be made to most improve Brian Taylor's commentary style.
imagesLV50KOWD.jpg
I thought 32,000 was a pretty good crowd for last night's game.
Could someone who was at the game give me their estimate of the percentage that were Swannies fans? Watching the highlights later, it sounded like a very healthy percentage of the crowd was cheering the mighty Bloods!
Did you accidentally burn your cereal this morning, stevo?
I agree on Ziebell. The way he plays isn't courageous, it's reckless. He risks injury or suspension regularly, and it's not all that courageous when you're unavailable and the team has to go on without you.
The Richards call was just plain wrong, end of story.
Overall, other than misreading the Swallow free kick, the commentary team weren't too bad. Darcy is obviously biased to the Vic teams but the rest were fine. They all agreed Richards was dudded and generally argued for the Swans when the state of the game suggested they should. BT is still incompetent, but I didn't think he unbalanced.
Strong performance from our guys anyway. Another solid away win with only two tough away trips to come (West Coast and Geelong). We should be feeling pretty good about where we are.
Today's a draft of your epitaph
I think Ziebell is a decent player. He was excellent last week against the Eagles. He was okay yesterday. I was amused by the Warne tweet that was broadcast during yesterday's game, and moreso the commentators' response. "Is there any supporter that wouldn't love Ziebell in their team?" Hmmm... let me think. Yes, most Swans fans would be relatively non-plussed, given there is nothing that positive that Ziebell does that Parker doesn't do just as well (and more consistently). Hanners also does most of what Ziebell does, plus also gut runs entire games, week after week.
Ziebel is a poormans Parker
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks