Breaking News - 19 players on Ground yesterday

[lwjoyner]

blame us and take points

We get blamed for everything else and I think to teach all a lesson we might be the first to loose points. After all its only Syndey Swans. The leagues says who cares as useual.

[stellation]

That's pretty funny.

[swansrule100]

roos taking flooding to a whole new level

[Kanga]

Yep, Sydney are cheats. We deliberately had 19 men on the field, even though we risked losing the game because of it.



Amazing how it's fine if a Kirk goal isn't paid, but when they hear about this we're suddenly cheats.

Dont you mean Kirk's point? Or were you closer to it than the goal umpire??

Perhaps Roos should take a leaf out of Laidley's book and take it on the chin, rather than using his 'wife' as a backhanded way to complain.

[2005]

It's not even the first time it's happened this season. Port had 19 men on the field in a game a few weeks back (not to mention - reportedly - numerous times during the practice match they played against us at Telstra).

The difference is though , Jolly was involved in the passage of play that has
lead up to the point ( OR GOAL ) that Kirky has kicked.

Does it really surprise anyone that this has happened ???
In what would of been a hectic time , it can happen with the amount of rotations that happen these days.

[ScottH]

Dont you mean Kirk's point? Or were you closer to it than the goal umpire??

Perhaps Roos should take a leaf out of Laidley's book and take it on the chin, rather than using his 'wife' as a backhanded way to complain.

You reckon Roos sent his wife to the media???
More like they asked her, and she gave an opinion.

On Laidley, I've never liked him and his whining, but he has handle this one quite admirably, I thought.

[stellation]

You reckon Roos sent his wife to the media???
More like they asked her, and she gave an opinion.

No, Roos introduced it in the post match conference by saying "my wife thought it was a goal" so he could comment on it without getting in trouble for voicing his own opinion. Similar to the Spidagate comments last year where he said he was "talking to someone, who reckoned we were hard done by".

[TheMase]

In some way I kind of hope we lose the points. (only a small way)

At least then, once and for all we can bury the line "the AFL love child".

[TheMase]

No, Roos introduced it in the post match conference by saying "my wife thought it was a goal" so he could comment on it without getting in trouble for voicing his own opinion. Similar to the Spidagate comments last year where he said he was "talking to someone, who reckoned we were hard done by".

I have noticed he is doing this a lot latey!

[Kanga]

I have noticed he is doing this a lot latey!

Agreed - next time there is some controversy Roos will say "my son reckons...."

[NMWBloods]

No, Roos introduced it in the post match conference by saying "my wife thought it was a goal" so he could comment on it without getting in trouble for voicing his own opinion. Similar to the Spidagate comments last year where he said he was "talking to someone, who reckoned we were hard done by".

Of course. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

[NMWBloods]

No we don't. There's no way to prove the Kangaroos would have won had we not had 19 men on the field at one point.

They have some argument that the player who should not have been on the field was directly involved in the chain of possessions leading to the final Swans score. If Jolly is not on the ground then there is no one in that spot where the ball went.

Still, I think the AFL will let it go - too much controversy to overturn a result in a fairly marginal case like this. Quite different to the Freo v. StK game.

[CureTheSane]

I'm pretty sure they can, actually. The AFL does have the power to change the result of matches. And honestly, I'm all for it. We made a @@@@ up that almost certainly influenced the course of the match. We deserve to lose the two points, and the Roos deserve to gain them.

Just a point of interest, however, couldn't it be argued that it was WHITE who was the extra man, and he came on early? Therefore, the extra man didn't have a role in the play.... Just being the Devil's advocate here though, I still think the result should be changed.

That's crap.
A mistake made by a coach is less worrysome than a mistake made by an umpire.
If there is no recourse for the AFL due to outdated rules, then so be it.
They should change the rules - there has certainly been recent occasions that should have brought this issue to head.

As for Jolly, the Swans are saying that he was taken of as he was the closest player when they realised.
Maybe he wasn't the player who was supposed to come off.
I think we should all be looking at what White 'did' rather than what Jolly 'did'
White was the extra man who wandered on when there were already 18 players on the field.
And he didn't impact on the game.
Footy Classified beat up.

[NMWBloods]

Just a point of interest, however, couldn't it be argued that it was WHITE who was the extra man, and he came on early? Therefore, the extra man didn't have a role in the play....

No. The way I understand the interchange system works the player wanting to come on lodges his intent with the interchange official and who he is replacing. The official notes the names and times in his record. So officially Jolly was to come off, so when White goes on Jolly should not be out there. White seemed to go on early but Jolly is the 19th man officially, and I understand that this what the record says.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

I have noticed he is doing this a lot latey!

His best call was "I know thousands & thousands of fans come to games each week to watch the umpires bounce the ball. I know they'll be mortified if they don't bounce it at games"

Roos at his sardonic sarcastic cynical self! (How about that for alliteration!! )

JF