If all fit will there be any changes

[Bear]

Originally posted by Gary
I don't rate Dempster...an ordinary player now & always.

This is why the Swans are so great, because they understand that they all have a role to play, some to kick goals and take the glory, and some to limit the effectiveness of their opponents.

[Gary]

I hear you Hood & layby but remain unconvinced re Dempster...for his size can't take a mark, can only run straight (on the rare occcasion he gets the ball), stayed close on Braun...but Braun got the ball quite a bit...just didn't use it well.
Dempster can kick (again on those rare occasions) & run a little (in a straight line only when clear), but IMO hasn't improved since first appeared.
However, no logical switch at this stage with Crouch injured.
I agree about Matthews & at least he got 15 possessions & did some nice things.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Layby
They were both fee kicks IMHO, by the current standards.

Current standards of corruption? What are you accusing the Weagles and umpires of?

More seriously, I cannot believe that more people aren't screaming for clarification of when it is and isn't a push in the back to tackle a player who is falling forward. Firstly, the terminology is all wrong: tackling someone, even if you drag them forward in the tackle, is not a 'push in the back', which is what the umpires normally pay.

Most importantly, there is no consistency whatever in its application, which is driven by a lack of a clear answer to the question, 'what rule is actually being infringed by doing this?' If you drive someone into the ground with force, then that's a valid free for unduly rough play (or whatever the technical rule is). But otherwise, why should you have a duty, when an opponent with a ball already has forward and downward momentum, to either pull him backwards or not tackle him at all? Especially when tackling him from behind (where most tackles are laid) almost invariably means you carry some forward momentum into the tackle. If you have the opponent fairly grabbed in a tackle, I cannot see what rule you are breaking in continuing to tackle him as he falls forwards onto the ground.

That's my personal bugbear about current umpiring standards. Well, one of them.

[Gary]

A good summary Simon...this has been bugging me for years. It's as if they don't want to think about the forward momentum issue because it is too hard...on the other hand we sometimes see some flexibility about players ducking into head high tackles.
The push in the back rule needs review / clarification & the outcome must include discretion for umpires. The worst decisions are those where the bloke in front consciously takes the follower with him...Barry Hall did it on Saturday night.

[dendol]

Originally posted by swantastic
I thought Benny was hard done by,after i watched the replays.

Ive also watched a replay of the game and didnt think any better of Mathews. A few of those frees were so unnecessary and silly for a player of his experience. Not sure if the "hospital ball" a few of you are talking about is the same one I saw (Malceski got crunched from behind by Chick, who then got up and limped off the ground), but, to me he always looks unsure and rushed.

[Big Al]

Didn't think we had a bad player on the weekend. I'm the furthest thing from a Matthews fan but I thought he did well on Fletcher and has earned his spot for the Prelim.

[dimelb]

Originally posted by SimonH
More seriously, I cannot believe that more people aren't screaming for clarification of when it is and isn't a push in the back to tackle a player who is falling forward.

I have saved myself a lot of grief - I have given up trying to understand "in the back". I now regard it as one more element of chance in a game of skill. And having grown up playing League and Rugby I think it is frequently as soft as.