2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[liz]

Many Essendoom supporters ringing SEN this morning clearly don't know the rules. The back pocket decision was correct. Hickey grabbed the ball from the ruck and was immediately wrapped up - ball up. The one up our end was a bit different as he moved a couple of steps and luckily for us it was deemed "no prior opportunity". I reckon it is a great rule that a ruckman can do this. Did they get a goal early in the game from someone plucking it out in a ruck contest?

It might have been paid HTB, not because he grabbed it out of the ruck but because he took a couple of steps before he was tackled. I've seen HTB paid with far less prior opportunity. I'm not advocating that - I'm in the camp that players shouldn't be unduly penalised for trying to take possession - but compare that to a couple of the tackles Taylor Walker received HTB frees for a fortnight ago - the Lloyd and Rampe ones. In those instances the players dropped the ball so technically were penalised for incorrect disposal but they were set up almost instantaneously and in such a way that it was impossible to legally dispose of the ball.

It remains an aspect of our game that is adjudicated inconsistently. Although I would prefer players to get some modicum of prior opportunity, I can live with any interpretation if it is applied consistently. Like so many other aspects of the game. On the whole, the umpires weren't paying 50/50 HTB decisions yesterday. If they had, I reckon we would have received at least a couple in front of our goal and a couple in defence. But probably the Bombers would have received some too.

They seemed reluctant to pay any frees last night in either 50m arc. There were probably dozens of incidents were an 'in the back' or 'high contact' free could have been plucked out. I'm glad they didn't. I would prefer only blatant frees to be paid. The one awarded to McInerney was an exception - he received only a slight brush across the top of his shoulder. But kudos to McInerney for converting with such aplomb.

Between the arcs, I thought they paid far too many soft frees. This is at least a kind of consistency, in the the umpires have been generally paying too many soft frees this season, not just in our games but in pretty much every match I've watched. Except, of course, that for every soft free paid, there are a handful of similar incidents that are let go.

[Markwebbos]

The Hun has come to our defence, talking about our unearthing another steal in JMac

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No one can argue the Academy hasn’t helped us

“However, too often ignored is just how well Beatson and co. sniff out a draft gem readily available to every other AFL club.”

[Auntie.Gerald]

wrong thread, plse ignore

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Yep they changed the rule a couple of years back I believe around prior opportunity.

Thanks, it's sometimes hard to keep up with the rule changes

[stevoswan]

I liked Logan's desperate efforts last night in the closing minutes to hold the ball in our forward line.

I also liked his 'flying the flag' when Wicks (I think it was) was unceremoniously dumped over the boundary line. He's a passionate Swan already.

[MattW]

I liked Logan's desperate efforts last night in the closing minutes to hold the ball in our forward line.

Right on. Also rucked valiantly.

[Maltopia]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

[Markwebbos]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

Except when he tried to mark the ball and dropped it and gave Tigers a goal. Interested that he’s their designated player to kick after a behind.

[Maltopia]

Except when he tried to mark the ball and dropped it and gave Tigers a goal. Interested that he’s their designated player to kick after a behind.

Wasn’t a perfect game, but plenty of times where he stopped Reiwoldt one on one or had important intercept marks.

[Blood Fever]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

Agree and good luck to him.

[SwanSand]

Wasn’t a perfect game, but plenty of times where he stopped Reiwoldt one on one or had important intercept marks.

But geez the Port Adelaide team is bereft of ideas at times. They have very good players but probably lack some game plans. Richmond defence looks different than how they did against us. They had number of players circling the kicker at around 20 m and a second circle at 30 m. They were playing Port a lot tighter too. This is the exact problem that everyone was worrying about when the stand on the mark rule came about that the defence structure will just shift a little bit and the game will be down to the defensive slog.
I think we did a lot better because we were doing both of the things well, short and long kicks against tigers. I am sure our game plan will evolve to play some running game along with the kicking game.

[stevoswan]

The Hun has come to our defence, talking about our unearthing another steal in JMac

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No one can argue the Academy hasn’t helped us

“However, too often ignored is just how well Beatson and co. sniff out a draft gem readily available to every other AFL club.”

This following article also articulates quite well how the Northern Academies help the league and the game as a whole. It is interesting to note that out of the 4 northern clubs, the Swans have the least number of their own Academy players on their list, that number being 9. The other 3 northern clubs have 10 each......so why is the Victorian 'academy whinging' always aimed at us??

This adds up to 39 Northern Academy players playing for the teams whose Academy they attended. There are 14 players from the northern academies now on the lists of the non northern clubs plus two playing for another 'northern' team, Harry Cunningham for us, who was originally part of the GWS Academy and GWS's Jack Buckley, originally from our Academy.

Academy defectors: Who's reaping rewards from your club's work?