The umps have been put on notice not to play pets.
We're not going to avoid the media scrutiny. The AFL is a commercial organization that relies (to a great degree) on media ratings. The 3 powerhouse clubs of the AFL in the last 10 years are Swans, Hawthorn and Geelong. 2 of those teams are winless so far in 2017. Hawthorn are getting their share of media scrutiny as well. It's na�ve to think the media will not focus on this.
They will, but I doubt they will go overboard and nor should they.
Hawthorn are coming off one of the most successful eras that any club has achieved in the past few decades. They made a few brave (and somewhat surprising) decisions over the off-season that showed they understood their stalwarts could go on together. A slide backwards was inevitable (and the signs were there with their finals exit last year). Their club will be judged on how far they slide and for how long. Their performance yesterday will come in for criticism, as it should, but it's a minor thing in the overall scheme of their evolution.
Sydney's position is somewhat different due to the Buddy factor. Many want the Swans to fail due to the audacity in securing Lance the way they did. Others love seeing the best strut their stuff on the big stage and, despite their misgivings, will want to see Franklin again in the finals- soon. Plus we still have a pretty good core of other senior players and shouldn't be in a rebuilding phase. But the smart ones also understand our list composition and are fully aware of the lack of depth, and hence the huge impact of even a modest injury list. That the club has played so many younger players in the first few rounds, and that they have equipped themselves well, means the Swans can't be criticised for sticking with the tried and tested. The smart ones will also acknowledge that, while we may be winless, the team has played some good football at times this year. It's just been the odd bad quarter here and there, but we were well in both the Pies and Dogs games, and even in the Port game, it was only the second half that was really poor.
The media can scrutinise all they wish but there's not much there to dig into. A list with a lot of inexperienced players suffers a few injuries to key players, plays a healthy handful of its inexperienced players, goes down but goes down fighting.
I was listening to Schwab over the weekend and his reasoning was that if someone gets the ball and is immediately tackled ie: no prior, then the footballer being tackled still has to make an attempt to get rid of the ball. If that attempt is a throw then so be it, it is play on. This could be the reason our guys are getting pinged for HTB and Horse's legitimate questions around whether they need to change technique.
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017
Interesting comment by Schwab. What law 15.2.3 says is:
-----
a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:
(ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so;
----
I would have thought throwing the ball would not be regarded as "genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football".
But if that is what Schwab is saying is how the umpires' now interpret the law, then start throwing as soon as you feel a tackle (without prior) Swanny boys!
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)
I thought a good tackler pins the arms so the only way the ball-holder can be seen to make a genuine attempt to dispose legally is to drop the ball and attempt to kick it (and a genuine attempt to kick it would be a play on, even if the player missed the kick).
But if a throw is deemed a genuine attempt to correctly dispose, does that mean get one hand free and throw is ok? Or is it only a two-handed throw that is ok? And if so, presumably the player is deemed to have been attempting to correctly handball even though it ends up as a throw.
Oh what a confusing game this can be ........!
Bookmarks