Swans Stoppages

[hammo]

The talk about Robert Walls on another thread reminded me of something he said in commentary the other night.

He mused that the umpires would be aware of the number of stoppages in Swans matches and are therefore quicker to penalise Sydney players for holding the ball.

Is this just Walls saying something stupid again or does he have a point?

If true I hope this unfair, biased treatment won't prove too costly in the next few weeks.

Some of the Swans holding the ball decisions the other night were disgraceful - if it were an Essendon player they would have been paid for in the back or some other spurious reason.

[penga]

the holding the ball decisions that seem disgraceful are there.

we quite often have two swans almost tackle each other in order to lock it in. there is no prior opportunity, but because it is two (or more) swans on the ball all the opposition have to do is grab a jumper and put his hand up and they will be immediately (and correctly) pinged.

this is becoming more regular and yet the crowd never seem to pick up on it and go wild, where it is actually the correct call...

[barry]

Yep, The umps did a great job WRT holding the ball in the WC game.

I'm all for it, and I dont think Sydney is disadvantaged at all as we are a strong tackling side.

[liz]

I thought most of the "pack" HTB decisions against us against the Wiggles were quite reasonable. The one on Stuey after that ridiculous handpass from O'Loughlin was a bit hot but (as The Hood observed) the team deserved to get penalised for being so stoopid. There was also one late in the game against Ablett that was pretty harsh - not unlike the Benny Mathews in our D50 against the Bombers(?) a few weeks ago.

The worst - as has been already mentioned -was the non-decision in favour of O'Loughlin for his tackle on Wirrpunda, particularly given the one later paid against Maxfield.