Swans vs Essendon Match Thread

[wyatt]

Barry Hall: Frees against 27
Matthew Lloyd: Frees against 17
(http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=sta...=FREES_AGAINST)
Both similar players - both leading forwards. Obviously BBH has to learn to stop leading from behind

[Nico]

Originally posted by cruiser
I am convinced that the umps use a completely different set of rules for lloyd as they do for Hall. Lloyd is almost intouchable. Not that I give too much of a **** cause we WON! Finally, that hoodoo is behind us and we ended, once and for all, any slim hope they had of September action. Woo-hoo!!!

Bring on the Lions.

Leo was holding him all night. Deserved the frees he got against him.

[Wardy]

When Hird got his soft free later in the game you should have heard the MMM guys just go right off - they all screamed that HIrd is untouchable - like Lloyd - it is so obvious that is embarrassing.
Thankfully Barry H held his own and despite the raw deal with frees we still won. Luffy said at half time "where's Benny Matthews - its like he isnt even on the field" well he was spot on with that comment.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Nico
Leo was holding him all night. Deserved the frees he got against him.

That's not my point. My point is that Hall is often held and rarely receives a free. And its not just holding either.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Nico
Leo was holding him all night. Deserved the frees he got against him.

I agree with Cruiser, the issue is not so much whether his frees were deserved - and most were soft but probably there. It's consistency - apparently Hall never gets held in our forward 50.

They had 5 goals from frees and missed a few. We had 0 so, according to the umpires, Essendon have a defence that never infringes. Sheeds must be happy with that

BTW, even taking Lloyd out of the picture they had incorrect frees given to Lucas & Monfries in our defensive 50.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Nico
Leo was holding him all night. Deserved the frees he got against him.

Not all of them, there was a contest in the first quarter on the goal line where it was just a fair physical contest and Lloyd milked it worse than Wanganeen.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Sean
It's consistency - apparently Hall never gets held in our forward 50.

Apparently, yes. It's only what the umpires see.

I was sitting at the Coventry end about level with the 50 metre arc. I had a clear view in the second (or fourth?) quarter of an obvious infringement against Hall where he was leading the chase to the loose ball 20 metres out from goal and an Essendon defender was holding him back by the arm to stop him getting to the ball first. If it had been Lloyd, he would have gone down like a sack of spuds and got the free.

I thought the Crouch 50 metre penalty was ridiculous too. The Essendon player looked like he was playing on, he did take two or three steps. The best thing the ump should have done was to pay the mark and give Crouchy the benefit of the doubt.

I did let the umps know my displeasure after that one....

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Apparently, yes. It's only what the umpires see.

I was sitting at the Coventry end about level with the 50 metre arc. I had a clear view in the second (or fourth?) quarter of an obvious infringement against Hall where he was leading the chase to the loose ball 20 metres out from goal and an Essendon defender was holding him back by the arm to stop him getting to the ball first. If it had been Lloyd, he would have gone down like a sack of spuds and got the free.

I recall the incident. It was in the 4th quarter and I let fly about it.

[Glenn]

You weren't alone cruiser, considering the Essendon player had taken 3 steps off the mark, and he hasn't played on WTF???

[giant]

Towards the end of the game it was noticeable the umpires ccouldnt get the whistle to their mouths fast enuff if there was a chance of a Bombers free kick - when Kirk got pinged for HTB, it was probably there but I've seen it not paid when no prior opp plenty of times - this time the free was paid w/in milliseconds of the infringement.

[liz]

Originally posted by giant
when Kirk got pinged for HTB, it was probably there but I've seen it not paid when no prior opp plenty of times -

I think that one was paid for incorrect disposal - he clearly threw the ball - rather than HTB.

The worst decision by far is the one Lucas got at the death of Q3. It's one thing when the umpires don't see an incident and let it go, or are obscured slightly in their view and pay one that isn't there. But to actually call out that the free was for a "knee in the back" indicates that the umpire saw the incident properly but just doesn't know the rules.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
Towards the end of the game it was noticeable the umpires ccouldnt get the whistle to their mouths fast enuff if there was a chance of a Bombers free kick - when Kirk got pinged for HTB, it was probably there but I've seen it not paid when no prior opp plenty of times - this time the free was paid w/in milliseconds of the infringement.

That was a clear free kick - incorrect disposal.

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
That was a clear free kick - incorrect disposal.

Giants point was that although it was technically there, for most of the season if the ball gets jared loose in the tackle, its play on.

A 50/50 that went against us. Story of our year w.r.t umpies.

[Snowy]

The Lucas one on 3/4 time was clearly wrong but the Crouch one shows the flaw in the 50 metre rule, the opponent trying to stop a bloke from playing on who clearly looked like he was, should get the benefit of the doubt.

[cruiser]

From todays Herald Sun online:

And when Henry Slattery and Scott Lucas fashioned Bomber goals at precisely the same times in the third quarter, they were suddenly in front by a point at the last change, with most of the 41,629 crowd roaring their approval.

Most of the crowd? I suppose it depends on ones definition of most. I reckon about 45% of the crowd were Swans supporters.