Rnd 3 Brisbane vs Sydney Chat/Score updates

[Sanecow]

Saw the replay yesterday. Great last quarter. The smug-arse Lions were laughing in the third quarter after the Swans kicked a goal and were celebrating. Stupid, stupid Lions.

How ugly is Copeland.

How wrong was that umpiring decision to ping Tadhg for holding the ball when he took a bounce, was tackled and then correctly disposed of the ball.

A classic.

[stellation]

Originally posted by stellation
I have quite often thought when we have had the threads about the midfield where everyone nominates their favourite player and says "X should playing in the midfield" I have thought "they can't all play in the midfield, they won't have anyone to kick to!". Paul Roos clearly has thought police and has taken exception to the first part of my thought and is trying to prove me wrong... unfortunatley he obviously did not pay attention to the second.

Well I was proved wrong, we won a premiership with 18 people in the midfield.

[Jeffers1984]

This is a wonderful thread. Pretty much shows the agony and the ecstacy of being a swans supporter

[ScottH]

Originally posted by stellation
Well I was proved wrong, we won a premiership with 18 people in the midfield.

I thought we had 18 defenders.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by ScottH
I thought we had 18 defenders.

Nah...that's Hawthorn

[TheHood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
How ugly is Copeland.

How wrong was that umpiring decision to ping Tadhg for holding the ball when he took a bounce, was tackled and then correctly disposed of the ball.

A classic.

Copeland should have been delisted with Daryl White at the end of 2004...both poor players in 2005.

Daryl because he offers nothing now his skill and speed have abandoned him.

As for Robbie Boy, what a no talent, all-niggle mongo that bloke is. Would not make the best 22 at Optus Oval.

But Saneman, you're wrong about the Tiger decision.

However, as far as I am concerned that rule has no merit. The tackler doesn't deserve reward (he got rid of the ball in time) and the attacker deserves reward for taking them on (the disposal was correct because he didn't "drop" the ball).

However, to the letter, it was the right umpiring decision.

Might not see that given for another generation or 2 it's that rare.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by TheHood
However, to the letter, it was the right umpiring decision.

Might not see that given for another generation or 2 it's that rare.

Show me the law that you are refering to. The laws say that you are deemed to be in possession if you are bouncing the ball which is fine, but he disposed of the ball correctly so why a free kick?

[stellation]

Originally posted by ScottH
I thought we had 18 defenders.

18 defensive midfielders?

[ScottH]

Originally posted by stellation
18 defensive midfielders?

Thats better!!

[no1swan]

I love Tim Lane?s comment at the end.

?Malcolm, I recon seasons a built on wins like that?.

In hindsight, never was a truer word spoken.

[Mel]

I watched the replay too, I love that last quarter. I remember saying at the time 'if we play like this every week, we'll win this year!'. I said that a lot throughout the year though.

Copeland is a very strange looking man.

[TheHood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Show me the law that you are refering to. The laws say that you are deemed to be in possession if you are bouncing the ball which is fine, but he disposed of the ball correctly so why a free kick?

From what I understand, you are deemed to be dropping the ball.

So, if a tackler has a hand on you, the interpretation is that you are not "bouncing" the ball, you have indeed dropped it.

It would have developed because a bloke who was tackled legitimately could plea that he was in the act of bouncing the ball, "I didn't drop the ball Ump, I bounced it and then I was going to break the tackle and dispose of it".

The rules board in the 1890s (or some time in the 1960s) would have had to take the ambiguity out of it.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by TheHood
From what I understand, you are deemed to be dropping the ball.

So, if a tackler has a hand on you, the interpretation is that you are not "bouncing" the ball, you have indeed dropped it.

It would have developed because a bloke who was tackled legitimately could plea that he was in the act of bouncing the ball, "I didn't drop the ball Ump, I bounced it and then I was going to break the tackle and dispose of it".

The rules board in the 1890s (or some time in the 1960s) would have had to take the ambiguity out of it.

It was that action that caused the rule to be changed. Kevin Bartlett was the main culprit, he could bounce the ball just as he was about to be tackled and then throw his arms out and would get a free every time for holding the man. Hence the rule was changed in the 1980's to deem that bouncing the ball meant that it was still in your possession.

But I don't think that is what sanecow wanted to know.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by goswannie14
It was that action that caused the rule to be changed. Kevin Bartlett was the main culprit, he could bounce the ball just as he was about to be tackled and then throw his arms out and would get a free every time for holding the man. Hence the rule was changed in the 1980's to deem that bouncing the ball meant that it was still in your possession.

But I don't think that is what sanecow wanted to know.

Would need to watch the replay to see who & when, but a Swan bouncing the ball was very lucky not to go under that rule in the GF. I remember he was near the edge of the square and the umpire (somewhat generously) yelled, 'The tackle didn't stick!' to justify the 'play on' decision.

Not that common, but happens a few times each year. The traditional interpretation (rightly or wrongly) is that if you're grabbed, you're gone, even if the ball rapidly arrives back in your arms and you then legally dispose of it immediately.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by SimonH
The traditional interpretation (rightly or wrongly) is that if you're grabbed, you're gone, even if the ball rapidly arrives back in your arms and you then legally dispose of it immediately.

I guess bouncing the ball proves "prior opportunity" but having a handful of jumper doesn't strike me as an automatic "correct tackle".