Well done Swans...

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
About 5 Sydney players got tackled to ground, incorrect disposal and prior opportunity.

Sydney were kept in the game by poor umpiring.

And don't get me started about the timeclock.

Youy seem to be of the opinion that not getting handball or kick away whilst being tackled is supposed to be a free.

It's not. It's called tackle, unless the player has PRIOR OPPORTUNITY.

I know that that last word has four syllables in it (a syllable is a sound and you can count up how many in a word if you are very clever) but Wobbley and SCUM supporters seem to think that tackling is so unusual that you should get a free if you lay a decent one.

READ THE RULES YOU ****ING IDIOT!!!!

[sharp9]

Originally posted by lizz
Noticed a few Collingwood "throws" and drops myself too. Umpires seemed pretty consistent.

Only one I thought was a bit dodgy was when we got a deliberate out of bounds right near the end of the game when a Pies player just walked over the boundary line with the ball. Sure, it was deliberate but never ever before have I seen that paid as deliberate OOB. But the game was well and truly over by then so it was hardly consequential in the overall scheme of things.

Paid a couple times this year.

[Rob-bloods]

Look we have to be positive, Roos'y totally outcoached Mick M down here in Melbne and in the wet Saturday their plan was superior, I think we played awful, gave away a five goal start and lost by three. James and Schauble?s disposal were the worst did anyone count how many goals followed Schauble errors? He has to be treated like Dunkley?.he CANNOT kick to a man. I now realise we missed Saddington?s disposal more than his height! And you have to say, Nicks would have been a better option, on a brighter tone, I note that Doyle?y kicked a couple in the twos!

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by sharp9
Youy seem to be of the opinion that not getting handball or kick away whilst being tackled is supposed to be a free.

If you get tackled to the ground and had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball yet you incorrectly dispose of the ball it's holding the ball.

When did I seem to be of the opinon of what you stated?

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
If you get tackled to the ground and had a prior opportunity to dispose of the ball yet you incorrectly dispose of the ball it's holding the ball.

When did I seem to be of the opinon of what you stated?

By suggesting that five HTB went begging

[TheMase]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
yet you incorrectly dispose of the ball it's holding the ball.

The ball is able to be spilled in the tackle aswell ...

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by sharp9
By suggesting that five HTB went begging

Yes, 5 times Sydney players got tackled, were forced to ground with prior opportunity yet didn't dispose of it correctly.

The umpires kept you in the game but it's not relevant. We were always going to win.

[TheMase]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, 5 times Sydney players got tackled, were forced to ground with prior opportunity yet didn't dispose of it correctly.

The umpires kept you in the game but it's not relevant. We were always going to win.

I think I lost count the amount of times Collingwood should have been caught holding the ball.

The umpires were very consistant with being lenient on the night.

I hardly think the umpires kept us in the game, most of the frees we god were midfield, and very few resulted in goals.

[liz]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Yes, 5 times Sydney players got tackled, were forced to ground with prior opportunity yet didn't dispose of it correctly.

The umpires kept you in the game but it's not relevant. We were always going to win.

Would you like to describe these incidents - ie who the players were and approximately when during the game they occured. Maybe we were watching different games but I can only recall one case where I thought we might have been pinged but even that was marginal, particularly in the conditions (I'm referring to the Schauble one in the final quarter where he slipped when he took possession).

[Triple B]

There were numerous non-calls BOTH ways.

I had a problem with Meiklejohns deliberate OOB. He was tackled and rightly disposed of the ball. Unfortunately he was in the process of being slung and the ball went 10 metres to the boundary. There is no way it was a DELIBERATELY THOUGHT OUT decision by him to handball to the safety of the boundary line in an attempt to kill the ball. He was slung and the ball could have gone anywhere. In retrospect he should have just dropped the ball at his feet and let the umps call play-on as they did all night in similar situations.

BTW the deliberate against Wakelin (?) late in the game was also a joke. But the MJ one led directly to a Collingwood goal at a vital stage. The Wakelin one was in the 32 minute mark of the last quarter, 'Game Over', as the retard reminded us with his banner.

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by BBB
'Game Over', as the retard reminded us with his banner.

If he's so sure of victory, then why wait to throw the jacket on and hold the sign up ?

Why not have the balls to do it at say, three quarter time ?

Isn't waiting until the dying moments of a game before being confident enough to do it, like going to the TAB, and waiting until a horse is six in front with 25 metres left to go, then yelling out " Go you good thing " ?

Moral of the story ...

Any mug can back a winner that close to home .

[neored]

Originally posted by TheMase
I think I lost count the amount of times Collingwood should have been caught holding the ball.

The umpires were very consistant with being lenient on the night.

I hardly think the umpires kept us in the game, most of the frees we god were midfield, and very few resulted in goals.

\

As I'm not a Collingwood or Sydney fan I feel I can give an unbiased assesment on the umpirig.

There were times when Sydney players were tackled and didn't dispose of the ball correctly. Technically it's a free kick.

However the umpires have been very inconsistant on prior opportunity and incorrect disposal all year. It might also be the case that the umpires where a little less strict owing to the wet conditions.

In the end Sydney got the better of the free kicks, but not many were paid in front of goal and the game's momentum wasn't really shifted.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by daniel f
just thinking out loud mate but maybe we would be better finishing out of the four[6or7]and getting a final against maybe collingwood or essendon at the telstra dome under the roof/lol

If games go as expected, we should most likely finish 5th. This isn't such a bad outcome, as hopefully we will play Freo at home.

Sure, missing out on 2nd spot is disappointing, but that our guys froze under the spotlight is not overly surprising given what we had all been expecting this year. If we can go all the way, that would be fantastic, but still, even if we can give a good account of ourselves in the finals (particularly if we play at the MCG) then we will be set for f ew years of being a powerhouse side. Have to say, I'm looking forward to that finally happening!!

[Jason Nevins]

Originally posted by neored

In the end Sydney got the better of the free kicks,

Thankyou. The only neutral person in this arguement admitts Sydney were given a free ride.

It's a non issue, we've got the 4 points.

[Nico]

Most people are missing the point about the umpiring. Did anyone notice that it was pissing down all night, and that maybe the umpires were doing the sensible and obvious thing by letting the game go.

In these conditions players fall over easily, the ball slips from handpasses etc etc etc.

Ever since I have been following footy the umpires have let it go in wet conditions, yet the dumb supporter says they were shocking. Just like players adapting to wet weather footy, so must umpires. As a matter of fact I reckon they do a better job in wet conditions.