Page 37 of 40 FirstFirst ... 273334353637383940 LastLast
Results 433 to 444 of 470

Thread: Match Day Thread Rnd 22 Adelaide V Sydney. Adelaide Oval 19.50 pm. Or 19.20 ACST.

  1. #433
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    9,310
    Quote Originally Posted by AnnieH View Post
    Agreed.
    Towers does whatever job it is that Horse is asking of him.
    Horse must have asked him to be a decoy, but for what, I don't know.

  2. #434
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,096
    Quote Originally Posted by crackedactor View Post
    Guess he is lucky then, because if he is doing what Horse asks of him, it must be very little, because he has done very little over the past 3 games.
    I feel that since we have started playing 2 rucks again it has affected the output of Towers. He isn't getting the ball as much. As others have said he must be playing a role that is asked of him otherwise he would be dropped.

    PS. Am watching the replay at the moment and Tex just rode Grundy like a horse but of course no in the back free.

  3. #435
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,889
    In the Team of the Week on the Swans site:

    A trio of Sydney Swans stars have been named in the AFL.com.au Team of the Week for their outstanding performance against Adelaide on Friday night.

    Dame Rampe, Lance Franklin and Josh Kennedy have been acknowledged for their important roles in the thrilling win over the Crows.



    We're now recruiting from the AFLW?
    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)

  4. #436
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717

    Match Day Thread Rnd 22 Adelaide V Sydney. Adelaide Oval 19.50 pm. Or 19.20 ACST.

    The media reporting of what Hayden Kennedy said about the Betts' tackle on Mills has been misleading (or at the very least the headline to articles has been misleading).

    Kennedy said the ump should have called play-on and I agree with that (although looking at the replay the ump barely had time to get the words out before Betts tackled). What Kennedy did NOT say is that the 50-metre penalty was a mistake.

    In my view as play-on had not been called, Betts erred in making the tackle (and he has been playing long enough to know he MUST wait for the play-on call). And therefore the 50-metre penalty was correct (if tough under the circumstances).

    There is another technical point that I have been mulling over. The protected zone extends to include a 5-metre semi-circle behind the player taking the kick. Betts was not on the mark - so therefore I assume he should be classed as behind the player with the kick. While he couldn't have been expected to disappear magically in the split second it took for Mills to play on, it seems to me he should not be able to tackle as he was in the 5-metre semi-circle behind Mills. (As distinct from a player in front of Mills who could have legitimately tackled had play-on be called.)

    Does anyone have an informed view? (I get a bit nerdy trying to understand the rules.)

  5. #437
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    There is another technical point that I have been mulling over. The protected zone extends to include a 5-metre semi-circle behind the player taking the kick. Betts was not on the mark - so therefore I assume he should be classed as behind the player with the kick. While he couldn't have been expected to disappear magically in the split second it took for Mills to play on, it seems to me he should not be able to tackle as he was in the 5-metre semi-circle behind Mills. (As distinct from a player in front of Mills who could have legitimately tackled had play-on be called.)
    Mine is not an informed view, but I was thinking the same thing - although we could be classified as apologists on this front.

    The third alternative for the umpire would be to blow the whistle and just reset the players, noting that Mills was technically forward of the mark (this used to happen more frequently - although it did seem farcical at times), while Betts was indeed over it. This may not have worked in this instance, as Mills was only marginally in from of the mark - and then played on.

    There probably wasn't enough time for Betts to clear the space either. If you imagine this in open play, with two players running with the flight, if the first continued running after catching the ball, the second player should reasonably be allowed to tackle his opponent without waiting for an umpire's call - even if approaching from behind.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #438
    Imagine if the ump had penalised mills. It would be a 29-13 penalty count and a holding the ball without the play on call. Robbery.

  7. #439
    I recall the mark that Tippett took in the 1st qtr. By the time he had collected himself he had moved some 10 meters from the spot - a 'play on' call would have been harsh, but maybe justified

  8. #440
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Terrigal (SCG - Bay 32)
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by 09183305 View Post
    Penga, that's not a big call. It's purely delusional! In our future, Gary Ablett will be referred to as a past Isaac Heeney!
    C'mon Chels!

  9. #441
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Terrigal (SCG - Bay 32)
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    There is another technical point that I have been mulling over. The protected zone extends to include a 5-metre semi-circle behind the player taking the kick. Betts was not on the mark - so therefore I assume he should be classed as behind the player with the kick. While he couldn't have been expected to disappear magically in the split second it took for Mills to play on, it seems to me he should not be able to tackle as he was in the 5-metre semi-circle behind Mills. (As distinct from a player in front of Mills who could have legitimately tackled had play-on be called.)

    Does anyone have an informed view? (I get a bit nerdy trying to understand the rules.)
    I was pondering this, also. Where, in essence, Betts was "offside".
    C'mon Chels!

  10. #442
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    An hour from Melbourne
    Posts
    151
    Seems a lot of attention on Buddy's long run before the goal and the Mills incident, yet no real interest in the ridiculous imbalance in application of frees in the other 99% of the game. Why do we have to put up with this rubbish?

  11. #443
    don't worry about all the reasons why we may have rec'd frees - we won the game and that's all that counts

  12. #444
    Quote Originally Posted by swannymum View Post
    Seems a lot of attention on Buddy's long run before the goal and the Mills incident, yet no real interest in the ridiculous imbalance in application of frees in the other 99% of the game. Why do we have to put up with this rubbish?
    Agreed

    Been seeing some #freekickswans hashtags now and its completely ridiculous. We have a higher against free kick count than for and we are perpetually rubbed out of big games (or attempted to) by umpires in the last year or two. Media perpetuating a false bias and its ridiculous and in fact insulting after the GF last year with such little attention paid to that

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO