Tweet
The onfield decisions were there. It aint the umpires fault for paying HITB. That's that @@@@ knuckle Kevin Bartlett's fault. Schit, schit rule.
As for the OOB, that really hurt.....BADLY.
As for the OOB, that really hurt.....BADLY.
-
-
Not all of them were there, but it's the ones that weren't paid that hurt us more.
Although I still have to wonder how, by out positioning someone with a hip and shoulder could be called as HITB. This happened to Bazza, as did him getting penalised for a push in the side. Neither of those were accurate interpretations of the rule.Does God believe in Atheists?Comment
-
Maybe it was from where I was sitting in my loungeroom, but as soon as the "marks" were taken I thought "Ah schit, there's a free". With regard to hip & shoulder and out postioning etc, the ball has to be within 5 metres of the contest. If it was, then the decision was wrong. Bartlett has really made this game into a farce, and should not escape public ridicule for the bastardisation of the game.Comment
-
But even if that one was more than 5m from the contest, Hall did little more than hold his ground. It is not as if the two players were standing hip-to-hip and then Michael was forced away from the contest by Hall moving his body. Hall was already in much better position to take the mark and Mal moved onto him and bounced off. Hall did little more than protect his space. For that to be a legitimate free, someone has to come up with a suggestion of what Hall could have done not to give the free away, other than for him to just let Michael come and take the mark uncontested.Comment
-
I don't see what Barry can do to change the way he is being perceived with regard to this rule. It seems that the umpires have a predetermined mindset when Barry is in a one on one (or more often two or three on one) marking contest. If his opponent goes to ground or moves forwards, sideways or backwards, it seems that the umpires only see one option - free kick against Barry.
We could all hope that eventually they see sense and start actually analysing what is happening, but I think the Swans have to do something different to change the mindset...maybe play him up the ground a bit more, on the wing or something where he isn't under such intense scrutiny everytime he attempts to win the ball. I don't know how he is coping at the moment, I am at the end of my tether just watching it.oh well, maybe next time......Comment
-
Not even the most biased performance we've seen this year - Saints was appreciably worse than this.
Frankly, we've got to learn how to deal with the new laws and that means Barry needs to learn how to mark without touching his opponent and our midfielders have to learn to hit him on the chest rather than 10m in front or behind him.Comment
-
Maybe Roos is right and he should start having the Swans review matches between Tyrone and Armagh in the 2004 Gaelic Football Championship (and Kerry in 2005) to see how to win at this type of footy!?
Ar aghaidh chun bua 2007!Comment
-
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."Comment
-
Yes, both those techniques are OK when the ball is within 5 metres. Watching from the loungeroom, I have no idea how far away the ball was....
Most defenders will "collapse" if they feel any contact (however minimal) to extentuate the infringement. This is why I hate the new interpretation so much. Always have hated it, and always will.Comment
-
I've just watched the first of the two again and I still maintain that Hall did very little more than brace himself and hold his ground. It was Michael who created the movement to get to the contest after Hall had already got himself into position. And if the ball was more than 5m away it was very very marginal.
For those who think Hall did offend, what were his other options?Comment
-
Regardless of what his options were, he's not allowed to infringe. And I guess we just have different views about the infringement. At the end of the day, the umpires paid them as frees, and to be honest, I wasn't surprised with either free kick given today's crap environment of the game.Comment
-
From the other side
The unfortunate thing about sports that have referees (ie; virtually EVERY sport), is that
alot can be decided on the blow of a whistle. Bad calls are made all the time, quite often
leading to "upset" or "controversial" results. We Bombers fans are not completely innocent of
bagging the maggots for this reason or that, it happens after nearly every loss. Every
supporter of every team is guilty of this at one stage or another. And Umpire's/Referees
are only human afterall. What are the options? One would be to do away with umpire's
altogether, and design some kind of utilitarian, unbiased, all-seeing robot drone, that will
never once make a bad call. But where would be the fun in that?
Over the past season or two, we have had some bad run in's with the maggots, and it's
actually satisfying to see some of the (bad) calls this year going our way. It's just a real
shame the Umps had such a bad night on Saturday...it has totally overshadowed a great,
deserving-of-a-win, performance from our boy's. Even P. Roos was quoted in the
Courier Mail, today, as saying we were deserved winners. Of course this has been
covered up by all of his bitching over the calls made during the game...
Some days the calls go our way, sometimes the other... Eg: What about McPhee being called for holding, right in front, when clearly one of your boy's had him by the arm??
As for the deplorable way you all reacted to Lloyd's speech...DISGUSTING! Was it Lloyd that made the bad calls? No. Would we have jeered likewise, were the shoe on the other foot? No.
But, at the end of the night, we won! And that's all that matters!!
How's it feel?Comment
Comment