2 things that ticked me off last night

[wyatt]

Aside from being lousy for most of the game and losing to the Saints, there were 2 things that annoyed me no end last night.

1. Why were the Saints allowed to wear black shorts? I realise the time-honoured tradition of wearing white shorts whilst playing away has long since died, but there has to be some common sense about this. In the pouring rain, when the play was at the opposite end of the ground, it was nearly impossible to tell teams apart, especially with their backs turned to you.

2. Why does the umpire have to throw the ball up so quickly when deciding to throw it up rather than ball it up? When the ball is bounced there is usually a 5-10 second gap while the ump prepares and goes through his action. With the throw up, this is reduced to mere seconds. Why the inequity?

[garethb83]

Not to mention the inconsistency in the rulings between the individual umpires on the field, particularly the 'In the Back' and being held without the ball, made the game even more frustrating than it already was due to the weather conditions.

Surely they could all be on the same page as to when a player is allowed to be touched not in possession and when they are? (remembering a moment where Brett Kirk was dumped to the ground despite not being in possession, leading directly to a StK goal?)

[Bear]

What ticked me off was the STANDING ovation that the vast majority of supporters in the brewongle (where I sit) gave the players at the end of the game.

[timbo]

Why were the Saints allowed to wear black shorts?

suprisingly, black is the opposite of white. White is what the swans wear with red.

saints minus the black = red and white.

[RogueSwan]

Originally posted by garethb83
(remembering a moment where Brett Kirk was dumped to the ground despite not being in possession, leading directly to a StK goal?)

I could not believe they put their whistle away for that one. It really @@@@ted me when they actually scored from that!

[ScottH]

Originally posted by RogueSwan
I could not believe they put their whistle away for that one. It really @@@@ted me when they actually scored from that!

Yep, that led to Montanga's goal.

Hall was dumped earlier the same way without the ball.

[garethb83]

Originally posted by RogueSwan
I could not believe they put their whistle away for that one. It really @@@@ted me when they actually scored from that!

Good to see i wasn't the only one who got peeved by it. The people around me seemed to miss it, thus being the only one screaming like a turkey!

[nomae]

Originally posted by garethb83
(remembering a moment where Brett Kirk was dumped to the ground despite not being in possession, leading directly to a StK goal?)

yeah that really sh@@@ed me as well, but i reckon the umpires were pretty good for us in the last quarter when the game was on the line, gave us a fair amount of free kicks.
but maybe they were just evening it up for the previous three quarters

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by nomae
yeah that really sh@@@ed me as well, but i reckon the umpires were pretty good for us in the last quarter when the game was on the line, gave us a fair amount of free kicks.
but maybe they were just evening it up for the previous three quarters

But the one they didn't give us would have won us the game. With a ball coming in to the goal square (and this happened more than once) Hall was clearly being held onto and prevented from contesting the ball. All of the carry on about just how good a game Maguire had ignores the fact that he (unlike Leo Barry) had a free ride from the umps all night.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But the one they didn't give us would have won us the game. With a ball coming in to the goal square (and this happened more than once) Hall was clearly being held onto and prevented from contesting the ball. All of the carry on about just how good a game Maguire had ignores the fact that he (unlike Leo Barry) had a free ride from the umps all night.

Perhaps Baz needs to work on his acting ability.

[liz]

The reason the Swans kept getting frees in the final term was because they were - finally - attacking the ball. The two deliberate OOB's were maybe tough on the Saints, given the conditions and the fact that none had been paid for the first three quarters, but the rest were there.

There were two clear frees to Hall that were missed in the final term.

That said, the Saints were the better team on the night and deserved to win.

(As did Carlton yesterday. )

[LittleSchneider]

Originally posted by ScottH
Yep, that led to Montanga's goal.

Hall was dumped earlier the same way without the ball.

I said something similiar, or maybe yelled it, at Jeff during the game. Consistency with their interpretations of the rules is all we ask - is that too much these days?

[swantastic]

Dont you people watch the swans games?When does bazza get free kicks,hardley ever he needs to ask loydy on how to win em.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But the one they didn't give us would have won us the game. With a ball coming in to the goal square (and this happened more than once) Hall was clearly being held onto and prevented from contesting the ball. All of the carry on about just how good a game Maguire had ignores the fact that he (unlike Leo Barry) had a free ride from the umps all night.

one incidenmt they replayed on TV in the last qtr, looked like Hall was leaning back into Macguire, playing for a free kick, rather than trying to mark the ball.

Macguire played much better than Hall. He read the ball better. He marked the ball better. He outplayed Hall.

[swannieserin]

Originally posted by swantastic
Dont you people watch the swans games?

I knew I was missing something here ....