Round 11: North Melbourne v Sydney Swans

[Steve]

As with the recent cases we've been on the wrong end of this year, it's not play-on until the umpire calls it as such - so whether Richards had played on or not, it's only relevant whether the umpire called it. They can't say "I hadn't called it, but you really had played on, so there's no 50".

I think the umpire just got flustered due to where it happened and the fact it was soccered through straight away for a goal. In any other part of the ground, there would have been time for the umpire to think, even if the opposition player had picked it up and started running off with it. IMO the fact he had to make a split-second decision whether to call 'all clear' for the goal, or a 50m penalty, got the better of him and he panicked with the wrong call.

As others have said, the fact that Waite had 2 goes and grappling with Richards after the mark (even before reaching in and knocking the ball out) should have been 50m anyway.

Obviously Pyke is going to have to refine his technique as whatever he's doing, the umpires don't like. But I don't think they had a clue what was actually happening when they kept pinging him for blocking - really at best he's just holding his ground as his opponent jumps into him, I'm not sure how that's a different result to Pyke jumping back into his opponent. Fair enough if he's actually pushing a player in the air (back, sideways, under the ball or whatever else), but that's not what Pyke's doing.

[Beerman]

[QUOTE=Meg;673788]

I thought it was a text book example of the new interpretation"- Swallow forged forward with his head burrowed into Goodes' chest. I think it's less to do with the traditional understanding of prior opportunity, and more an attempt to stop players doing something that could injure the neck in some circumstances.[/ QUOTE]

What the commentators are saying is that a player has to put his head down to gather a low ball and that Swallow had no chance to lift his head because of the position of Goodes. That is, that Swallow didn't deliberately lead with his head.
Even if you accepted that (and I am happy to do so) surely the well established rule (as written into the Laws of the Game) still apply. Swallow has to either correctly dispose or make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. He in fact simply clung on to the ball while driving forward.

In fact, you can see that Swallow had one arm around Goodes' leg holding himself down. It's possible that he was trying to trip Goodes over, or was trying to steady himself, but in any event he wasn't trying to get rid of the ball.

[mcs]

Parkers side step and slipping through heavy traffick last night was incredible. The piece of play where he and Reid kept bustling and scrapping to keep the ball inside the boundary line in our forward pocket that led to Parkers snap to Goodes was possibly my favourite moment of the night.

That was a great moment of play from Parker... what a classy footballer he is.

[Beerman]

Mike has just lost his confidence a bit .
He used to be a good set shot , so it was surprising to see him not having any (looking to pass it off) and holding the ball like a hand grenade .
Take him aside Nick, and show him how to kick for goal again.

He's a good set shot, but not a very long one. That was right at the edge of his range, and he knew he was an outside chance and so looking to dish it off.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I don't think that is (or should be reportable). "Insufficient force" would be my opinion. A 50m penalty is the appropriate penalty.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

No, he didn't. He hadn't disposed of the ball or moved off his line when Waite interfered with him. That's a 50m penalty every day of the week.

[Beerman]

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.

Yes, but you can't fault him on the incident with Hannebery - it was just a good hard spoil (although I can't see that it was particularly courageous). I love it when our defenders spoil like that when the ball comes into our defensive 50 (Grundy's probably our best at it). It was bad luck that Hanners was (slightly) hurt in the contest, but it's a contact sport and bruises happen.*



* except when you play Carlton

[mcs]

Just watched the replay (Was out for much fo the game last night), a few stray thoughts:

- Cunningham had a good game, his best for quite a while - 11 marks, 21 touches, couple of tackles and a goal. We need that out of him every week however.

- The love fest about Ziebell in the commentary box was ridiculous. A good player yes, but as good as the commentators make out? He isn't a 'wrecking ball' as they crapped on, more a dirty player that likes to leave a bit in when he gets the chance. The biggest laugh was when they suggested he had a 'bit of Michael Voss' in him - he isn't even worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Voss.

- Our 2nd quarter was excellent. Shame we didn't make it 7 or 8 goals as it should have been, given the amount of entries we had. We need to find a way to play with that intensity for more than a quarter at a time - if we could turn up with 3 quarters out of 4 with that intensity and quality, and it'll take an almighty team to beat us.

- Our forward entries were inconsistent, with far too many going straight to North because it was kicking to Swans players with 2 on them, or poorly positioned. More lowering the eyes and hitting a guy would be helpful.

- Loved the long Goodesy chant after his 3rd goal, came through loud and clear - something we need more of as the season goes seeing the booing seems to be showing little likelihood of abating.

Main thing, we are in a beautiful position going into the bye - we could easily have been 10-1, and there is no excuse from here not to finish top 2.

[Ampersand]

We've got a pretty tough run home. We're facing 8 of the current top 9 teams (excluding ourselves of course) over the second half of the season plus GCS should be closer to full strength by the time we meet them in the final round.

[Ampersand]

No, he didn't. He hadn't disposed of the ball or moved off his line when Waite interfered with him. That's a 50m penalty every day of the week.

My reaction was similar to Horse's: Richards was silly not to clear the mark - especially in that position of the ground - before attempting to dispose. He was trying to handball to Jetta but Waite had a piece of his arm which meant the handball was weak and dropped onto the ground.

The act of disposing of the ball from behind the mark, however poorly, is automatic play on - the umpire doesn't necessarily need to say anything.

The lesson here is to get sufficiently clear from the player on the mark (who is completely entitled to attempt to spoil kicks and handballs provided they don't overstep) before attempting to dispose.

[Melbourne_Blood]

We've got a pretty tough run home. We're facing 8 of the current top 9 teams (excluding ourselves of course) over the second half of the season plus GCS should be closer to full strength by the time we meet them in the final round.

It's certainly not easy but I think the toughest part of our draw is over, away trips against Port, Hawks, Dockers and Kangas. At 9-2, and with a lot of improvement left, top 2 should certainly be the aim and should certainly be achievable. Danger games are the Pies ( bogey side), Tiges ( bogey side), Hawks and possibly West Coast although we have had them covered for quite some time, they look to be playing ok ( could be down to their pretty soft draw so far though). All our other games should be very winnable but you never know in this game.

[Melbournehammer]

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!

Don't know whether this was answered but I would have thought we had 20-25% of the crowd. I was actually disappointed in our numbers last night. Once the north fans left at full time I guessed at about 6000-8000 swans

At Metricon the week before it was more like 50:50 I reckon.

[mcs]

We've got a pretty tough run home. We're facing 8 of the current top 9 teams (excluding ourselves of course) over the second half of the season plus GCS should be closer to full strength by the time we meet them in the final round.

That is true, but countered by the fact we only face GWS, Geelong and West Coast out of that group away. If our home form holds up, we will finish top 2. I wouldn't be too worried about GCS in Rd 23 - they'll well and truly be on holidays drinking by the time that game comes around.

- - - Updated - - -

My reaction was similar to Horse's: Richards was silly not to clear the mark - especially in that position of the ground - before attempting to dispose. He was trying to handball to Jetta but Waite had a piece of his arm which meant the handball was weak and dropped onto the ground.

The act of disposing of the ball from behind the mark, however poorly, is automatic play on - the umpire doesn't necessarily need to say anything.

The lesson here is to get sufficiently clear from the player on the mark (who is completely entitled to attempt to spoil kicks and handballs provided they don't overstep) before attempting to dispose.

That doesn't allow Waite to keep hanging on like he did however...

[Nico]

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.

I didn't say that you said he did anything wrong. Yes I did play plenty of footy and have coached. I don't get your argument about courage in his incident. He came from behind!!! I am happy to disagree with you on what is courage.