Interchange fiasco

[Hartijon]

Nobody is mentioning the free 6 points that Carlton got through the interchange balls up.
IMO it changed the momentum of the game and Carlton never looked back from there on.What happened and why were we penalised for having 17 men on the field???

[goswannie14]

I agree, it was the turning point in the game. Since when has it been an interchange infringement to have 5 men on the bench?

[mcs]

It was a very poor decision and while it didn't cost us the game, it didn't help at all either as it was definitely a period in the game where we were struggling, and it gave Carlton some extra unjustified momentum. I have no problem with the rule except for the 50m part of it. If a player comes on and gets directly involved in the play, then fine a 50 metre penalty is very much warranted, but had last nights 'infringement' actually been an infringement, there is no way that was worthy of a 50 m penalty. A free kick to Carlton would have more than sufficed- it never was close to affecting play (waiting for a bounce I believe?) and had no influence on the game. Very pissed off about it- its not like the attendant has a tough job, all he had to do is count how many people are on the bench, but obviously he couldn't even manage that correctly.

[Damien]

Shocking decision by the looks, but we failed to put them away when we dominated and had no answers when they came at us. I still think we would have lost without that decision.

[Primmy]

It was the turning point of "what on earth do we have to do" and "we are getting money for nothing! so lets go blues". So is the attendant a blues fan? I sometimes wonder where aliegences lie amongst that mob. Or whether they just can't stand sydney. am I bitter and twisted this morning. yes. they could have fought back, but ...

[robamiee]

i believe it did cost us the game as it gave the blues that extra momentum and deflated the swans and especially more so in conditions like last nigght...that being said we should have been further ahead in the 2nd qtr....

[veramex]

I think I heard Jesse white was down in the rooms getting some work done at the time which is why it may have looked like we had too few on the bench.

Such a bad decision and definitely didn't help us. Lucky the loss was more than 6 otherwise there would be even more up roar

[ScottH]

According to this mornings paper, the confusion came as White was out of sight getting treatment, and the steward failed to notice this.
Champion Data who monitor the rotations supports the swans story.

Will be interesting to see what comes of this.
Ironic that White is involved again.

[ScottH]

Here is the story.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-probe-over-interchange-infringement-that-cost-sydney-a-goal/story-e6frf9jf-1226047295455

[dimelb]

The rule as it stands is stupid. The penalty is out of all proportion to the "offence", and would only be legitimate if there were deliberate intent to stack the field, which is most unlikely. A free kick is quite enough for what is almost guaranteed to be an inadvertent error.
We will hear a lot more about this, and so we should.

[GongSwan]

They just don't like Sydney, the AFL included, anyone remeber Andrew's comments from 2005? They even blame Sydney for the weather, like we caused it to rain on purpose. We're definitely up against it

[Triple B]

Here is the story.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-probe-over-interchange-infringement-that-cost-sydney-a-goal/story-e6frf9jf-1226047295455

Did you have to link that!!

I just read all the comments and I'm now crankier then I was when I woke up cranky...

[Big Al]

Well I must apologise to the Swans because when it happened I have gave them an almighty spray for screwing up but it's obvious now they didn't.

The Interchange steward should lose his job. What a joke!!

[laughingnome]

I can appreciate that a free kick is warranted as a penalty when there is an infringement on the bench, and if that side already has clean possession (from a mark or free kick, for example) then a 50m penalty awarded, but to award a Free + 50 when the ball is in dispute (like a stoppage) is a HUGE exaggeration of what the crime is. I've never liked the knee-jerk reaction the rules committee had in regards to this, and I've never seen it justified in any way by anyone from the AFL.

As to last night, the steward has to be sacked. End of story. His job is to keep track of who is off the field and who is on (just for one team, mind you), and he ballsed it up royally. No excuse.

[ugg]

Here is the story.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-probe-over-interchange-infringement-that-cost-sydney-a-goal/story-e6frf9jf-1226047295455


Longmire said the Swans actually had five players off the field, with Jesse White out of view receiving treatment.

Poor Jesse can't stay away from interchange imbroglios can he? He's not exactly a small guy either, how could you miss him!

[Margie]

Poor Jesse can't stay away from interchange imbroglios can he? He's not exactly a small guy either, how could you miss him!

I heard on Sky News that White was lying/sitting on the ground receiving treatment. Not down in the rooms.

[Gezball]

There was also a free kick awarded to Eddie Betts in front of goal for holding the ball which was terrible... It also helped shift momentum. I can't remember which Swan he tackled it but he definitely didn't have prior opportunity. Eddie Betts went back and slotted it through... Very annoying.

[ugg]

It was Smith (or maybe Mattner) and I think it was given because that player didn't make the token attempt at trying to get it out.

[Bas]

It was Smith (or maybe Mattner) and I think it was given because that player didn't make the token attempt at trying to get it out.

Smith

[Big Al]

Port have just conceded a goal from an Interchange infringement.

Talk about a rule that opens a nut with a sledgehammer. Just ridiculous.

[top40]

The penalty is comparable somewhat to Capital Punishment. What if the decision is wrong? You can't reverse it.

What bothered me was that almost all of the players as well as the Swans' on-ground officials were emotionally distracted by the decision. They lost their focus. And consequently, by the 4th quarter, exacerbated by the ill-effects of the bye, they became physically over-wrought. Still a hard call to say that it determined the result of the game. In the end, we will never know.

What the AFL needs to do is to IMMEDIATELY reform this rule. Make it a free kick from the centre bounce.

One last thought. Any one sense the irony that one of the reasons why the decision was so wrong, was because the officier did not notice Jesse White off the ground being attended to?

[liz]

Still a hard call to say that it determined the result of the game. In the end, we will never know.



I reckon we do know that it didn't affect the outcome, as things turned out. Even if one could attribute short term distraction by the decision, it doesn't explain why the Swans were so lethargic in the final term. And the eventual scoreline flattered us in the sense that the final two goals we scored came once the Carlton defence had packed their bags for the night.

That doesn't mean that the incident shouldn't be investigated and action taken, because it certainly might have affected the outcome given how tight the contest was at the time. Surely the interchange stewards have a better system than just counting the blokes they can see sitting on the bench?

[Doctor]

The lethargy seems to be in line with the trend of the way teams play after coming off the bye. The interchange thing is a dead set joke though. While 50/50 calls are a matter of interpretation by field umpires, in the cold light of day you can accept that they are going to make mistakes. This interchange one was an error of fact and is therefor inexcusable. If there is any doubt over it, and there clearly was, they need to hold up play while the check on it and then go one again. It's impossible to say whether or not it cost us the game but it certainly gave them a lot of momentum and caused us to drop our heads.

[dimelb]

... One last thought. Any one sense the irony that one of the reasons why the decision was so wrong, was because the officer did not notice Jesse White off the ground being attended to?
Yes, as distinct from being on the ground too soon!

[Legs Akimbo]

The lethargy seems to be in line with the trend of the way teams play after coming off the bye. The interchange thing is a dead set joke though. While 50/50 calls are a matter of interpretation by field umpires, in the cold light of day you can accept that they are going to make mistakes. This interchange one was an error of fact and is therefor inexcusable. If there is any doubt over it, and there clearly was, they need to hold up play while the check on it and then go one again. It's impossible to say whether or not it cost us the game but it certainly gave them a lot of momentum and caused us to drop our heads.

I was gobsmacked when I looked ahead through the draw and saw that there are many weeks where three teams have a bye. I am sure there is a good reason for it, but I don't get it.

[ugg]

It's because you have 17 teams with 2 byes each. If you were to allocate 1 team per round, you would only get up to 24 byes. Hence the AFL needs to schedule 5 weeks with 2 extra byes to account for the difference of 10.

[Legs Akimbo]

It's because you have 17 teams with 2 byes each. If you were to allocate 1 team per round, you would only get up to 24 byes. Hence the AFL needs to schedule 5 weeks with 2 extra byes to account for the difference of 10.

Thanks Ugg. How did it work last year with 16 teams?

[ugg]

Thanks Ugg. How did it work last year with 16 teams?
They split 1 bye across 2 weeks. I think it was 10 teams in one week and 6 the other? Or something like that.

[Cpt. Kirk]

Thanks Ugg. How did it work last year with 16 teams?

Since it was even amount of teams there was no need for a bye and there was none. There was a split round in the middle of the season for the players to recuperate.

[swansrule100]

I reckon we do know that it didn't affect the outcome, as things turned out. Even if one could attribute short term distraction by the decision, it doesn't explain why the Swans were so lethargic in the final term. And the eventual scoreline flattered us in the sense that the final two goals we scored came once the Carlton defence had packed their bags for the night.

That doesn't mean that the incident shouldn't be investigated and action taken, because it certainly might have affected the outcome given how tight the contest was at the time. Surely the interchange stewards have a better system than just counting the blokes they can see sitting on the bench?


i agree with you 100% it just seems stupid it could happen, but it didnt make a difference to the result. The problem is if we complain we wont get much sympathy as we are the reason the rule came in.

[nomae]

Reading that Herald Sun article and the comments by the ferals reminded me of that North game last year - just out of curiosity, what were our collective thoughts on that? Did we get away with one?

Ps. Rule is a joke, free kick yes, 50m no, it is way too harsh of a punishment.

Pps. DROP JETTA

[BSA5]

Reading that Herald Sun article and the comments by the ferals reminded me of that North game last year - just out of curiosity, what were our collective thoughts on that? Did we get away with one?

A couple of important details about that match are lost when people talk about it. Firstly, the 19th man was White, and he didn't touch it. Jolly was the one who touched it. Jolly then left the field, being White's rather late replacement, but White was the 19th man, Jolly was the player who had the touch. White had no impact on the play at all, so those saying the 19th man impacted the play in those 30 seconds are completely wrong.

Secondly, the Swans were robbed because Kirk had a snap shot which went through, but was called touched on the line despite being a good half a metre over. It was the last score of the game. The Swans should have won that game.

[ugg]

The umpiring department are backing their man at the moment, and so they should. However, I have heard from one of the statsmen that the Swans in fact did have 5 on the interchange for about 20 seconds before the whole thing blew up.

[stellation]

In Bay Hatley we're right behind the interchange bench, the Swans are correct. I assume that it all came down to the steward seeing Dan's stuttered entry to the ground as Goodesy ran off the field and assuming Dan was going on for Goodesy (as nobody had just come off that second for Dan to be replacing).

[Jesse Richards]

The steward could have checked. But no, self-importantly pounced, as per instructions. FFS it's not rocket science. And not having those 6 points taken off the score is atrocious. Our percentage is so bad at present could it have an impact at the end of the season?

[stellation]

The steward could have checked. But no, self-importantly pounced, as per instructions. FFS it's not rocket science. And not having those 6 points taken off the score is atrocious. Our percentage is so bad at present could it have an impact at the end of the season?

People make mistakes, but not checking when it's a dead ball situation anyway and an entire bench is pointing and saying "look! we have enough!" is what really gets me about it. If they can't overturn it once it's been called then that's a problem for the AFL to fix quickly, but if they can and the steward didn't even double check then that's pretty awful.

[Primmy]

Stella they recalled a wrong decision out at ANZ last year against.....(not us).....and the game proceeded, so yes they can definitely cancel the call. Just a twit bignoting himself.

[johnno]

IF I was Longmire, and I knew at that moment in time that we had 5 on the bench(which I'm sure somebody MUST have radio-ed it to him!!!), I would have instructed a runner to deliver a message to either Goodes or McVeigh to run to the umpire and call for a count.

Surely this could have fixed things up?

[Chilcott]

Shocking decision by the steward and the Swans interchange bench.

It may have been only 20 seconds, but why would we have 17 men on the field at a very crtical time of the match.

[robamiee]

the AFL have just released that the decision was incorrect and rang the swans to apologise....(too f#@&$^ late)....
Critical time and critical decision. gave the blues more momentum...and they say momentum is everything

[GongSwan]

Yes, as distinct from being on the ground too soon!

I would have said, who notices him when he's on the ground? other than 2 or 3 touches a game

[ScottH]

THE INTERCHANGE steward who incorrectly paid a free kick against the Sydney Swans during their loss to Carlton at the SCG on Friday night is expected to be stood down for a week.



Steward error - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112824/default.aspx)

And we get an apology. How sweet.

[ScottH]

It is a simple solution.
The Sub works with a coloured vest.

Why not have 3 batons, similar to an athletic relay?
Each of the I/C players has a baton and cannot take to the ground whilst they are holding one.
As each player comes off, a baton is exchanged.

In the Fridays instance, Hanners would've had no baton, and would've been free to enter the field.

[Big Al]

It is a simple solution.
The Sub works with a coloured vest.

Why not have 3 batons, similar to an athletic relay?
Each of the I/C players has a baton and cannot take to the ground whilst they are holding one.
As each player comes off, a baton is exchanged.

In the Fridays instance, Hanners would've had no baton, and would've been free to enter the field.

Do we get penalised if say Jesse gets Interchanged and drops the baton or when Bevan comes off and hands the baton to the opposition.

[aardvark]

Do we get penalised if say Jesse gets Interchanged and drops the baton or when Bevan comes off and hands the baton to the opposition.

Don't we already get penalised any time either of them enter the ground ?

[Kirkari]

Shocking decision by the steward and the Swans interchange bench.

It may have been only 20 seconds, but why would we have 17 men on the field at a very crtical time of the match.

A good question!

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Poor Jesse can't stay away from interchange imbroglios can he? He's not exactly a small guy either, how could you miss him!

Quite easily, the way he plays.

JF

[Triple B]

A good question!

It was a dead ball situation after a goal. How was it a critical time????

[robamiee]

it was critical due to the conditions and time coming into 3rd qtr time...anyone who says that the decision did not have some bearing on the result is kidding themselves....when have momentumk and then to be gifted a goal in a match under those conditions...you only have to see the reaction of the blues boys to see...

[Primmy]

Jesse was sitting in the right corner at the back being unobtrusively worked on by medicals so that it wouldn't be noted by Carlton. they all do that. Junk time during goal kicking is when they come and go to the max on the bench.

The incompetent twit with, I presume, a gold card membership with Carlton (or perhaps Collingwood) got a bit defensive and wouldn't check the facts of the matter. So to our shock, we lose the momentum, the boys are distracted wondering if they had done something wrong, the staff are going off their heads, and Carlton win. All the interchange steward gets is a loss of one weeks pay. Whooptydo.

Does it make any difference to him if we miss the final eight by a few percentage points? No. It does not make one iota of difference. Does it make a difference to the Swans. By the good Lord it does. And what do the Swans get out of the fiasco? A bloody phone call to say Sorry!!!!! and a reassurance that the Naughty exchange steward gets a week off.

Not good enough. I want to know who he is. I want him outed and the rest of the teams in the AFL warned that this man cannot be trusted with the task of counting up to 4.

Wonder if the afl or the umpires will toss in for a case of beer for the team? you know. just to say oops. one day we will all laugh about this......not.

[swansrule100]

well an apology makes it all better......:rolleyes:

[ScottH]

I wonder if it were a final or even a GF, if an apology would suffice.

[royboy42]

Probably not the best time to mention this..but I reckon being the interchange steward would be a mongrel job.
At goal kicking time, the players run on and off the bench at such speed and such seeming chaos,that people can easily become confused. Oh, am i sticking up for this guy?? Nah, but I can almost sympathise.

[CJK]

Swans disappointed with interchange penalty - Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club (http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/tabid/7106/default.aspx?newsid=112864)

[ugg]

I suppose the next time one of our players bumps into an umpire, an apology will suffice.

[ernie koala]

Shocking decision by the steward and the Swans interchange bench.

It may have been only 20 seconds, but why would we have 17 men on the field at a very crtical time of the match.

On the tele, it looked like a confused Henry Playfair orchestrating things.....Showing the form we often saw during his playing days.

[Triple B]

it was critical due to the conditions and time coming into 3rd qtr time...anyone who says that the decision did not have some bearing on the result is kidding themselves....when have momentumk and then to be gifted a goal in a match under those conditions...you only have to see the reaction of the blues boys to see...

The discussion is around the Swans only having 17 players on the field for that short period of time.

It's already generally conceded that the decision by the official was critical, although not necessarily game costing.

[Mudlark]

You can't blame the steward for only 17 players being on the field! The stewards call compounded on the initial f__k up of having 5 off the field... He is the goat.

What would happen in a final or GF if the Swans only had 17 on the field? An apology from the bench? The fifth player? We needed extra warm pine due to the rain?

Nothing wrong with 19 on the field against North either in a draw!

[Frog]

Nothing wrong with 19 on the field against North either in a draw!

1 all .... time to move on.

[mcs]

Probably not the best time to mention this..but I reckon being the interchange steward would be a mongrel job.
At goal kicking time, the players run on and off the bench at such speed and such seeming chaos,that people can easily become confused. Oh, am i sticking up for this guy?? Nah, but I can almost sympathise.

Fair enough to show some sympathy, but I don't think its that hard a job.... after all you've only got to count to 4, which really isn't rocket science!

My disappoinment is in that the AFL haven't taken the chance to reconsider the rule.... i.e. to make sure the punishment fits the bill. If a 19th player is directly involved in the play, then fine a 50m penalty and a free kick is more than fair. But if it was like it was on Saturday (i.e. between goals, ball not in play- the 'extra' player never even close to being involved)- how does that warrant anything more than a free kick? What happened on Saturday will quickly be forgotten by all and sundry.... but what if there is a dodgy call that decides a finals game or heaven forbid a grand final.

[nomae]

Fair enough to show some sympathy, but I don't think its that hard a job.... after all you've only got to count to 4, which really isn't rocket science!

My disappoinment is in that the AFL haven't taken the chance to reconsider the rule.... i.e. to make sure the punishment fits the bill.

Couldn't agree more... why do they give a free kick in the middle of the ground then always give them 50? Why not just give a free kick from right in front of the goals, because that's basically whats happening anyway, it's like they can't admit it's going to cost the offending team a goal.

But anyway, it wouldn't be the easiest area to umpire but gee it was a crucial, crucial mistake. Richmond had to deal with this as well if anyone remembers, when McGuane was incorrectly penalised for deliberate rushed behind, a decision subsequently labelled by the AFL to be incorrect. The difference is the Tigers didn't lose.

[laughingnome]

If a wingman is standing on the edge of the square at a restart and puts a toe over the line, he gives away a free kick. Seems to me the logical thing would be the same penalty for the 19th man to put a toe over the boundary line. But the 50m penalty is ridiculous.

[Big Al]

Couldn't agree more... why do they give a free kick in the middle of the ground then always give them 50? Why not just give a free kick from right in front of the goals, because that's basically whats happening anyway, it's like they can't admit it's going to cost the offending team a goal.

.

The free kick is given where the ball is at the time and then 50m. Port had an infringement paid against them against North. Cornes had the ball on the wing which was taken off him and then the 50 given.

Agree the 50m penalty is too harsh a penalty for this offence.

[goswannie14]

It is a simple solution.
The Sub works with a coloured vest.

Why not have 3 batons, similar to an athletic relay?
Each of the I/C players has a baton and cannot take to the ground whilst they are holding one.
As each player comes off, a baton is exchanged.

In the Fridays instance, Hanners would've had no baton, and would've been free to enter the field.Even simpler solution, teach the interchange "stupid" to count to four. Then tell him, "there are meant to be 4 players on the bench."

[Cheer_Cheer]

I can't help but wonder if it had been Collingwood instead of us.. How would it have been handled..

[dimelb]

And today in The Age:
Rule sledgehammer cracks innocent walnut (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/rule-sledgehammer-cracks-innocent-walnut-20110502-1e54m.html)

[Untamed Snark]

Even simpler solution, teach the interchange "stupid" to count to four. Then tell him, "there are meant to be 4 players on the bench."

With patience they should have it down pat for next season


I can't help but wonder if it had been Collingwood instead of us.. How would it have been handled..

I've been wondering about this too, probably a huge apology and the beheading-or at least firing of the offending interchange official

[ScottH]

I'm sure this would make clubs a bit happier.


Given there has never been an allegation levelled at a player that he deliberately tried to enter the field early, ditching the 50m penalty and just paying a free kick might be a good way to make the punishment better fit the crime.

Lessons learned from error - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112896/default.aspx)

[Triple B]

And today in The Age:
Rule sledgehammer cracks innocent walnut (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/rule-sledgehammer-cracks-innocent-walnut-20110502-1e54m.html)

"It came to a head one afternoon at Docklands when North Melbourne was found momentarily to have 19 on the field late in a match against Sydney, which finished as a draw."

So they had 19 on the field as well!! Dirty bludgers have been blaming us ever since....

[giant]

"It came to a head one afternoon at Docklands when North Melbourne was found momentarily to have 19 on the field late in a match against Sydney, which finished as a draw."

So they had 19 on the field as well!! Dirty bludgers have been blaming us ever since....

And yet the media tried to portray US as the bad guys? Bloody southerners!

[Lucky Knickers]

I'm sure this would make clubs a bit happier.




Lessons learned from error - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/112896/default.aspx)
That article cracked me.....North and Swans game was Round 6...to allude that deducting our two points would have allowed North to host a home final ignores the spectularly poor form Norths showed in the back half of the season. Not sure why I should expect better from journo's...