Lengthy, informative interview on SEN this morning with the coach.
Well worth a listen, follow the link on the RHS alongside the lead paragraph.
It includes a measured - but pointed - response to questions on GF umpiring.
Umpires need to work more on their craft: Longmire
John Longmire is a past master at official statements: accurate, measured, honest and avoids deflection onto hobbyhorses. If only our politicians would take note.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
Thanks for the link, great to listen to
It was corrupt umpiring without doubt and It had little to do with working on their craft, but as you cannot be critical of umpiring, what else can you say?Originally Posted by dimelb
It was very disappointing. Not just because it might or might not of cost us the flag, its the fact that this lopsided standard of umpiring was on display to millions of TV watchers throughout the world. How could a new AFL game watcher have any idea of understanding the umpiring of the game?
I just read the article on the AFL website. I'm not surprised - the umpiring was so one-sided in the gf. The Swans were never going to win with a free kick count like that. 15-4 at 3/4 time and 20-8 at full time. It's a miracle the Swans were still so close at 3/4 time. The Swans could not say anything about it in the press - the AFL would defend themselves and whack the Swans with a fine. The Melbourne centric media would also be quick to cry sour grapes.
I think of a scenario where 2 Melbourne teams were in the GF and the free kick count was 20-8 at full time. There would be an outcry but somehow it's ok for the Swans to be on the receiving end of this.
I imagine the Swans would have shown the replays of several incidents that should have been a free kick to the Swans but it was called play on. Longmires comments in the media were measured but he would not have been so 'measured' in the gf review with the AFL.
The Swans were everyone's second team when we were in the premiership drought.
People love an underdog, and that was us after being cellar dwellers for so many years.
We won in 2005 and everyone was happy.
Then we kept on making the to 8, COLA became an issue, the Goodes thing, now the academies.
We are no longer the second team for most of the people when we once were.
Other teams took our place - Bulldogs, Saints, etc
And everyone started to hate us due to the above mentioned issues.
So no outcry about the umpiring, probably many chuckles and "sucks to be the" comments.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
Thanks for posting Von.
2005 we were the team people loved?? Well once again the umpires did not share the same type of love they had for the 2016 Bulldogs. West Coast still received more free kicks than we did. However it is good to see Horse's Umpiring comments appear in several newspapers this afternoon.
I'm very happy that people are still discussing this issue and it won't rest.
I'm still pretty disgusted by the umpiring and I don't want them to get away with it clean.
At the very least we can forever remind them that it wasn't a legit flag.
Not sure what you're getting at.
Obviously the umpiring in the GF was biased.
I'm just saying that people didn't care because there is a LOT less goodwill towards the Swans than there was.
It seems that you are saying there was a bias against the Swans in the 2005 GF by the umpires due to a 12 to 13 free kick count?
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
Just sayin I did not feel in 2005 that the Swans was everyone's second team. Maybe we are more hated now, but the umps did not do us any favours,
unlike what the Bulldogs received. Was the umpiring bias in 2005? Probably not, but we certainly did not get any favours for a team that had a 72 year drought.
You don't even need to go that far - just swap the umpiring around from the GF and imagine the uproar (assuming as one can easily make a case for, we may have won in such a case) - 'Fairypuppies robbed by red and white eyed umpiring', 'Bulldogs robbed of drought breaking premiership by 21 man swans' etc etc etc.
What I find so frustrating is the first peep of any commenting on the umpiring and its potential influence on the result and one gets hounded down consistently as a 'bad sport, bad loser blah blah blah'. Now I'm not one to say it changed the result in the end - they run over the top and may well have done irrespective of the umpiring. But I do think with some even handed umpiring, that was actually reflective of the contest, when it came to 10 minutes to go, the outlook of the game may have been completely different. We will never know sadly.
We were not at our best on grand final day, but I do get exceptionally frustrated by those that suggest the umpiring didn't influence the contest - in particular through those middle 2 quarters where we had all of 1 free kick in more than an hours play was it not. There is no way that they were that much cleaner, that much better at the ball, or alternatively we were consistently breaking the laws of the game. After all, it wasn't us sliding into tackles or playing American gridiron through the legs.
Ah well, its all in the past now I guess - but that doesn't mean I won't be waiting at the fence at the SCG for any of the three green maggots at the first home game in Sydney at which they officiate in 2017 .... they will be getting the full pent up anger of a long summer break on their walk out before the game from me.... I hope I'm not the only one ready to give them a true piece of my mind.
All I can hope is that the pain will drive our players and we will build on last year's fantastic progress.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks