Footy Show

[dawson]

Can you believe the irony of this??

The Footy Show ran footage of a tape sent to the umpires earlier in the year, trying to demonstrate to them examples of holding the ball.

Lo and behold, 90% of them were paid against us.

We just can't win.

[Dpw]

Re: Footy Show

Originally posted by dawson
Can you believe the irony of this??

The Footy Show ran footage of a tape sent to the umpires earlier in the year, trying to demonstrate to them examples of holding the ball.

Lo and behold, 90% of them were paid against us.

We just can't win.

Thats because we are one of the worst for it, have a look at the likes of JBolton who will dive on top of a ball on the deck and make no attempt of trying to knock it out for crying out loud you think he could pretend to atleast be trying to get it out, Iam not singling him out hes just the first one to come to mind, I think its a Eade thing where the Swans were encourged to dive on it in numbers to kill the ball and make it look like a pack had formed.

[dread and might]

Re: Re: Footy Show

Originally posted by Dpw
Thats because we are one of the worst for it, have a look at the likes of JBolton who will dive on top of a ball on the deck and make no attempt of trying to knock it out for crying out loud you think he could pretend to atleast be trying to get it out, Iam not singling him out hes just the first one to come to mind, I think its a Eade thing where the Swans were encourged to dive on it in numbers to kill the ball and make it look like a pack had formed.

i do agree but i don't know if we are worse than anyone else... my feeling is we get a few too due to our hard tackling style.

[CureTheSane]

Would tend to agree.

If we are being called for holding the ball, or any other offence, much more than other side, then you'd ahve to look at the training of the players.

As for what they showed on the footy show, well I was astounded that they are the benchmarks.

I am surprised we have a flowing game at all with what potentially players can be pinned for...

[Thunder Shaker]

If those ones shown are holding the ball decisions, then why can't we win such decisions more often in our forward line?

[dawson]

The Schneider decision against Port was only the half of it. When Hardwick took the free kick from there he chipped across to Stuart Cochrane.

From 20 metres out, Tadgh penned him into the boundary line where he just threw the ball away.

That was not paid holding the ball.

[Maureenjenkin]

Re: Footy Show

Originally posted by dawson
Can you believe the irony of this??

The Footy Show ran footage of a tape sent to the umpires earlier in the year, trying to demonstrate to them examples of holding the ball.

Lo and behold, 90% of them were paid against us.

We just can't win.

It was very obvious to me that last week that Paul Roos had instructed the players to hit the ball straight away out whenever they dived on to the ball. It seemed to me that they hit the ball out of the pack more than I have seen by any team in any game this year. Im sure it would have been something they concentrated on at training last week given the umpiring decisions in the week prior. Did anyone notice or is it just me?

[NMWBloods]

Schneider's was a little harsh, but he did make no real effort to get rid of the ball. Bolton's seemed like an obvious free kick.

This is one of the problems I have with our game - we do dive on it a lot, which forces lots of stoppages.

However, I also think this rule and its interpretation from week to week are terrible. Needs a drastic change.

[liz]

If the Schneider decision was "correct" then I think the rules committee is pretty much saying a player is not entitled to take possession of the ball unless he is on his feet. In IR you actually aren't allowed to - you have to knock it on. The Schneider decision suggests that you will be given no prior opportunity if you take the ball while on the ground. If he had been on his feet, taken the ball and then tackled as quickly as he was, he would not have been pinged.

Did anyone else think that the way McGuire structured that section on TFS was an unfair dig at Colless' outburst? He picked one aspect of the umpiring about which there has been discussion recently, concluded that the umpires were being unfairly criticised over their policing of this particular rule, and then suggested that this was something recent criticisers of the umpires should think about. He named Colless and the Swans specifically.

Does anyone in their right minds think that Colless' comments last week had the first thing to do with umpires' interpretations of the HTB issue?+

[dawson]

Originally posted by liz
If the Schneider decision was "correct" then I think the rules committee is pretty much saying a player is not entitled to take possession of the ball unless he is on his feet. In IR you actually aren't allowed to - you have to knock it on. The Schneider decision suggests that you will be given no prior opportunity if you take the ball while on the ground. If he had been on his feet, taken the ball and then tackled as quickly as he was, he would not have been pinged.

Did anyone else think that the way McGuire structured that section on TFS was an unfair dig at Colless' outburst? He picked one aspect of the umpiring about which there has been discussion recently, concluded that the umpires were being unfairly criticised over their policing of this particular rule, and then suggested that this was something recent criticisers of the umpires should think about. He named Colless and the Swans specifically.

Does anyone in their right minds think that Colless' comments last week had the first thing to do with umpires' interpretations of the HTB issue?+

Liz,

Only someone who has watched every Swans match this year would know what Colless is on about.

Terry Wallace is probably the best person to comment - he apparently watches every single match of every single round.

[Rob-bloods]

Well whoopee doo, Eddie bending the facts/presentation to suit his own agenda......are you guys really surprised?

That's all he ever does!

[Snowy]

I didn't see it as a dig at Colless, I thought it was more a campaign to get the rules committee to alter some of the rules. It has been pointed out ad nauseam this week that the umpires are making correct interpretations, it is the rules which stink. Most critics seem to have come to this conclusion at this point in time. And remember Malthouse was a recent critic so he would be seen to be implicating him as well.

[CureTheSane]

I didn't see it as a dig at Colless either.
And I would love to be able to, because well, it's Eddie we're talking about :lol

[dimelb]

My impression from watching games over the last couple of weeks is that the umps' stricter interpretation of the holding rule is working i.e. the game is getting faster and more open. And I'm in favour of that, provided the rulings are CONSISTENT!