Yes, ok. Buddy and Warner might be in eagle territory.Originally Posted by AB Swannie
I thought Lloyd had his best game of the year and Colin's second half was as good as he's played. Gulden was down on possessions, but effort was excellent.
I still would like Fox in the team to provide an option to play the role Mills did last night.
Perhaps they should give Campbell another shot forward, instead of Wicks, for example.
Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
The Mongrel Punt review is out and as always is well worth a read.
Sydney v Richmond - The Big Questions - The Mongrel Punt
I thought the umpiring of HTB was a disgrace, particularly in the second quarter, this is what they noted:
I’m paraphrasing them as it’s too much to paste:
In the first half, Richmond had 30 tackles to the Swans’ 29, but they got 7 HTB free kicks (nearly 25% success rate, average is 5%). We got one…
This is the line that stood out for me
“it became painfully obvious that even blatant holding-the-ball free kicks were not going to be paid to them [Swans]”
And they cite the Lloyd tackle on Bolton as one such example (Bolton fends off = prior, they didn’t pay HTB, Lloyd then gets pinged for dissent)
I was aggrieved by one of the HTBs paid against Campbell in the goal square where he dropped the ball before being tackled. Should have been play on.
No one else shut me up . I dont see what others see in the Irishman either
Some really are desperate to dig all the way to China before they'll admit anything it seems.
Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Apparently umpire Horwarth was suggesting a 50 but was overruled by Stevic and the other ump.....correctly. How can you waste time when the siren has already gone? There is no time left to waste. That is common sense and we don't see it near enough in this over officiated game these days. It was refreshing to see.
No, I actually meant frantic and as a compliment. Will is never going to be a high possession player, by the nature of his role and his some of his limits as a player. But he can be high impact, and he was last night through his endeavour.
His willingness to cover a lot of territory using his speed and running ability, and crash in defensively was first class. Even when he gave the free away to Hugo whatshisname, he closed the gap from 30m away on a bloke running into our defensive 50. He also worked hard up the wings offensively and provided some good marking contests.
If he does what he did last night and jags a goal or two a game, he’s the perfect definition of a great role player.
'Delicious' is a fun word to say
The game is going to end up being played by robots with the way the rules are adjudicated now and what the focus is on
Instead of fixing rules where interpretation is totally broken (holding the ball), way too worried about making players stand like statues on the mark, can't have a player even vent the tiniest part of frustration at howler calls without giving up 50 (noting genuine abuse should be stamped out - but players are human) and now the media desperate that in some way that 50 should have been paid because a young bloke was excited about winning a footy game - even though the action had zero genuine impact on the contest (the reason that rule exists).
It is madness.
Sent from my CPH2009 using Tapatalk
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
It's just not funny TB. You have to bite the bullet at some stage.....but nobody's holding their breath. He who you refuse to acknowledge was fantastic last night....it would show some maturity to admit it.
You must want the conversation to go south , honestly . I said that i wouldnt say anything about you know who unless it was something positive . Just be happy i am staying silent on it for all your sakeIt's just not funny TB. You have to bite the bullet at some stage.....but nobody's holding their breath. He who you refuse to acknowledge was fantastic last night....it would show some maturity to admit it.
His goal was great
1. I think we need to stop describing the non-50 as common sense. It was the correct decision, as confirmed by the AFL. Time to move on, but the media won’t.
2. If appealing to an umpire before a decision is paid (HTB, deliberate etc) is allowed, then why can a player not say (politely) that they bounced the ball, or there was a fend off or whatever?
The whole dissent crackdown seems like a smokescreen for other problems with umpiring.
I don’t mind the stand except where a player is kicking for goal
No not at all, I like robust conversation.....just don't appreciate belligerent stubbornness in the face of 'uncomfortable' or 'embarrassing' reality.
The consequence of all of this is that you are forever implying that you know better than our coaching panel. Are you/do you?
Whately on SEN this morning said empahtically that the correct decision was made not to pay the 50m according to the rules of the game. Here are his 2 reasons:
1/ 50m is paid if kicking the ball away after free kick had already been paid is further delaying game time. Game had officially ended when Warner had kicked ball so no further time was being delayed. He also emphasised Warner's was a celebratory kick done split second after the whistle/siren & not the usual during play where they're normally paid for deliberate wasting time.
2/ It was a distant umpire who blew the whistle and no way known Warner could've heard it, which deemed it not deliberate.
Whately effectively shut Brereton down who was (like many others in media) going on about it being technically a 50m penalty reckoning the game isn't dead when the siren sounds.
Last edited by KSAS; 28th May 2022 at 03:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks