Shots from frees

**Dpw** · 27 June 2004, 02:37 PM

Take a look at the replay I think you will feel differently most descions were there, espically holding the ball for god sake! dont dive on the footy and pretend to get it out or drag it back in (jude just loves that one) on a whole I thought the umpiring didnt effect the game

**Captain** · 27 June 2004, 03:36 PM

The push in the back decision against Leapin Leo was a joke of a decision.

I didn't see what happened with Crouchy. What was he doing? Did it relate to Roccas soft kick against Leo?

**Glenn** · 27 June 2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by port1978
The umpiring was pretty crap, but hey, at least you guys won against the Wobbles AND the umps!

Spot on Port, any win against the Wobbles is sweet, even sweeter knowing the Swans did it with no help from Goldstink and Co.

**sharpie** · 27 June 2004, 04:40 PM

I too thought the umpiring was a disgrace. The holding the ball decisions were consistent, but they were pathetically soft. What really p*ssed me off was the number of ridiculous frees the pies got within scoring range. I doubt we had a free in our forward 50 all night.

EDIT: after reading other threads, I remember we got one for Wakelin holding the ball.

The whole night I was calling out for Goldspink to have a shot himself, coz the Pies kept missing. If not for the number of goals from frees in the first quarter, the swans would have had a commanding lead at quarter time, and i suspect the pies would have dropped their intensity, leading to an easy win.

**swansrock4eva** · 27 June 2004, 04:44 PM

Must admit I thought the umpiring was pretty crap in general, but there did seem to be a relatively consistent idea regarding holding the ball - pretty much any player from either side caught dragging it back in got pinged - tough, but at at least they seemed to be somewhat consistent amongst the three of them on it. Other than that, bloody woeful.

But we still won so HA! stupid goldspink.

**Schneidergirl** · 27 June 2004, 06:18 PM

Absolutely disgraceful umpiring.

Gold-'F'ing-spink should be suspended from the AFL for a minimum of two weeks, the other 4 weren't much better (pitiful throw ins from the boundary umps).

All I ask is that the umpiring is consistent; which it was not! One of the reason we beat the Wobbles (and the Umps) last night is because their kicking was off.

It seemed that every time we got infront there was a penalty against us in their 50 to bring the margin closer again.

Commentators on channel 10 were CR@P! It's been said before, but the ammount of times Tarrent comments was made was absurd. Anyone listening (and not watching) would have thought Sydney weren't out there.

Poor bloody magpies always so hard done by..... pft!

**dimelb** · 27 June 2004, 08:50 PM

I am still getting the hang of the rules - can anyone explain why Tadhg was penalised when he blocked Fraser and the Wobbles got their first goal? At least when you watch the Rugby Union they put the reason for the penalty up on the screen - very useful when the crowd is drowning out the commentators.

**robbieando** · 27 June 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by dimelb
I am still getting the hang of the rules - can anyone explain why Tadhg was penalised when he blocked Fraser and the Wobbles got their first goal? At least when you watch the Rugby Union they put the reason for the penalty up on the screen - very useful when the crowd is drowning out the commentators.

I give you a very good reason why they don't put the ruling up is because a) the game is too fast paced and b) there isn't enough space on the scoreboards to explain free kicks.

On to the question, the reason it was paid was because Tadhg stopped Fraser from making the ruck contest, by blocking his path. However I do believe that for that rule to be paid normally, Tadhg would have had to have done the blocking more than 5m from the ball, which he was clearly within. So in all, a soft free kick.

***NMWBloods*** · 27 June 2004, 10:54 PM

I don't think 5m applies in the ruck contest - I'm fairly sure you can't block a ruckman's path to the ball.

**cos789** · 27 June 2004, 11:22 PM

The umpiring WAS terrible . I watched the game on TV and had the benefit of the replays . The commentators thought it bad enough to mention .

Never seen a player called for sheperding a mark before by backing back into an opponent . Firstly he has to have his arms out or actively blocking his opponents movements .Plenty of opportunity for his opponent to simply run around him .

On replay that clearly wasn't a mark and the Swan was just saying "listen to what the crowd think " .

Ball could have had "in the back" before dragging the ball in .
Buckly on one occasion knocked the ball under a Swan's player to draw holding the ball .

Unfortunately I had to listen to Walls trip down Collingwood Lane . Seemingly the Swans didn't win . No , the Pies lost .Tarrant this , Tarrant that .When the Swans took a screamer running with the flight of the ball into a packed goalsquare , all Walls could say was what Collingwood hadn't done to lead up to such an event .

**TheHood** · 28 June 2004, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by robbieando
On to the question, the reason it was paid was because Tadhg stopped Fraser from making the ruck contest, by blocking his path. However I do believe that for that rule to be paid normally, Tadhg would have had to have done the blocking more than 5m from the ball, which he was clearly within. So in all, a soft free kick.

I thought Josh milked it for all it's worth actually. He deliberately did not want to find the opening to run through but instead skirted behind Tadhg making him think he was just another rover. Josh knew that the Irishman forgot he was actually marking a F50 ruckman.

Pretty crafty from Josh given the proximity to goal.

**liz** · 28 June 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by TheHood
I thought Josh milked it for all it's worth actually. He deliberately did not want to find the opening to run through but instead skirted behind Tadhg making him think he was just another rover. Josh knew that the Irishman forgot he was actually marking a F50 ruckman.

Pretty crafty from Josh given the proximity to goal.

Pretty much agree with that. At centre bounces I think each team has to nominate who is going to contest the bounce (a development from the tactic developed a few years back by Eade and Drum where Staff would sometimes step out of the contest at the last moment, thereby leaving Mooney as the ruckman to contest, unbeknown to his opponent who was blocking his run).

The one Fraser got was probably technically there but he never got himself close to where the ball was likely to fall at the start of the contest.

Having watched the replay (a couple of times now

) the one that I still find bemusing is where Cloke crashes over the top of Crouch, thereby taking away any chance Crouch had of contesting a mark, one in which he was holding his ground with his eyes on the ball and was positioning his body so that he would be in a position to mark. The comment from the umpire that you can't take a player's run was rubbish. Crouch was not shepherding him away from the contest - he was merely staying in the contest himself. IMHO it was up there with the Bolton decision against Essendon as one that pretty obviously should have been a free in the other direction. At least this time, the free was not in front of goal and didn't have much influence over the game.

**ScottH** · 28 June 2004, 08:55 AM

I agree with you, Lizz on crouch. If you "can't take away a player's run" then why are players allowed to stand in hole between a full forward and the play as happened to Lockett and Co. all the time. There was no difference between what Crouch did and thousands have done in the past.
In any other game Crouch would have got the free for in the back.

The only thing that may have swayed the ump, was the fact Crouch had a quick look behind him. But why wouldn't he, to check if he can play on once he has taken the mark.

No wonder crouch had a go at the Umps twice. Tho' the 2nd time he was wrong. But when he cocked his ear to the crowd in the back pocket was a classic.

**Triple B** · 28 June 2004, 10:18 AM

Crouch/Cloke free defied belief.

The Fraser one was weird. Richards was way slow getting to the contest for the ball-up. He got there just as the umpire paid the free to Fraser and if anything, Nicks sort of sheparded Richards as he sprinted in to get to the contest. Richards' tardiness sort of forced Fraser to contest with Ball and Kennelly was just making a contest with his opponent, unaware that Fraser was trying to contest.

**Sanecow** · 28 June 2004, 11:14 AM

There was an occasion when two swans players buried a Collingwood player in the back over the boundary that we got away with. I enjoyed that one.

At the beginning of one of the quarters (I forget which one - get out your tapes) I saw Rocca sharing a laugh with one of the umpires. I'm not trying to create a conspiracy theory, but I don't like the umpires being too chummy with the players (and this is two recent games I've seen it).