Roos hits back at North's reaction

[barlow]

Roos hits back at North's reaction

Sydney coach Paul Roos believes North Melbourne may have influenced the AFL's fine

[swantastic]

Bloody oath they have,just take a listen to James Brayshaw having a big sook over it.

[Goal Sneak]

Bloody oath they have,just take a listen to James Brayshaw having a big sook over it.

From what I understand, he was only sooking about the AFL's insinuation that Nth Melbourne could have prevented the mistake by calling for a head count, which really is a bit silly.

[annew]

You've gotta love Roos saying that it really disadvantaged us.

[swantastic]

From what I understand, he was only sooking about the AFL's insinuation that Nth Melbourne could have prevented the mistake by calling for a head count, which really is a bit silly.

Isn't it strange that he only whingers after the result,so as not too look to much like a big girl.

He defenitley wanted the AFL to award the 4 points to the Roos ,is Brayshaw a total dickhead or what.

[BloodNut]

Well Mr Brayshaw thought he and the roos were gonna get the 4 points hence why no whining and as soon as they didn't Mr Brayshaw starts to cry.

Anyone else notice not one thing has been mentioned of the goal umpires stuff up in the Melbourne media?

Seriously James Brayshaw should just shut the @@@@ up already. He is annoying as it is and now this.

James "McGuire" Brayshaw

[Kanga]

You've gotta love Roos saying that it really disadvantaged us.

Not sure how having an extra player on the field advantages the opposition - especially if you man up one on one.

[Reggi]

Not sure how having an extra player on the field advantages the opposition - especially if you man up one on one.

It's probably true actually

White was wandering in the backline where the ball wasn't for the time he was on the field. Jolly coming off left Macintosh? free who marked the kick. Had White not come on Jolly stayed, most likely the mark would not have been taken,given run of play Sydney would have been likely to score

It was explained on radio last night

[swantastic]

Well Mr Brayshaw thought he and the roos were gonna get the 4 points hence why no whining and as soon as they didn't Mr Brayshaw starts to cry.

Anyone else notice not one thing has been mentioned of the goal umpires stuff up in the Melbourne media?

Seriously James Brayshaw should just shut the @@@@ up already. He is annoying as it is and now this.

James "McGuire" Brayshaw

Spot on,yeh no mention of the dodgey goal decision funny that.

[Dunger]

It's a disadvantage because the Swans had too many players on the field in the first place which could have resulted in the score being brought back to 0 and then Roos made a poor decision to drag off a player who could very well be involved in the next play.

[liz]

Although he's the president, Brayshaw has reacted as a fan. Laidley reacted as a person with experience of what happens in a football game. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting with Brayshaw, Laidley and Arroca when Brayshaw told the other two their position was "incorrect". Roos' observation that there are mixed messages is valid.

I also think Wallace's pathetic comments had some influence and I am surprised no-one seems to have challenged him on them. He seems to be saying that he'd be quite prepared to cheat if he thought he could get away with it and that the penalty wouldn't be too great if he got caught.

And the AFL's reaction also gives out very mixed signals. If

- they are happy it was completely inadvertant and that the Swans reacted as quickly as they could when they discovered it; and

- they have concluded that White was the 19th man and that he had no influence on any contest while he was the extra man

why does it matter what the state of the game was?

If the Swans had been 5 points in front - had, say, Moore converted - would the fine have been less? The game would still have been in the balance, even though Kirk's point would not have proved to be the critical score. How about if they'd been 11 points in front? And how about if we had landed up losing the game by a point instead of drawing it. Would the fine still have been more than 3 times the previous fines? The mistake made on the interchange would have been exactly the same regardless of the final score.

[BloodNut]

Although he's the president, Brayshaw has reacted as a fan. Laidley reacted as a person with experience of what happens in a football game. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the meeting with Brayshaw, Laidley and Arroca when Brayshaw told the other two their position was "incorrect". Roos' observation that there are mixed messages is valid.

I also think Wallace's pathetic comments had some influence and I am surprised no-one seems to have challenged him on them. He seems to be saying that he'd be quite prepared to cheat if he thought he could get away with it and that the penalty wouldn't be too great if he got caught.

And the AFL's reaction also gives out very mixed signals. If

- they are happy it was completely inadvertant and that the Swans reacted as quickly as they could when they discovered it; and

- they have concluded that White was the 19th man and that he had no influence on any contest while he was the extra man

why does it matter what the state of the game was?

If the Swans had been 5 points in front - had, say, Moore converted - would the fine have been less? The game would still have been in the balance, even though Kirk's point would not have proved to be the critical score. How about if they'd been 11 points in front? And how about if we had landed up losing the game by a point instead of drawing it. Would the fine still have been more than 3 times the previous fines? The mistake made on the interchange would have been exactly the same regardless of the final score.

Consistency is not one of the AFLs strongest points both in admin and in their umpiring department.

And i think the Melbourne media atm has way too much influence on how the AFL deals with things. Too many hacks masquerading as journos atm who write articles that influence the mindset of a lot of footy fans, much like how the Herald Sun has a big influence on the thinking patterns of most victorians.

i thought 50k was way too high considering two Melbourne based teams only copped a qrt of the fine we got.

It's getting a bit tiring being a swans fan in Melbourne atm. You can do your best to ignore it but @@@@ atm we are Public Enemy Number one thanks to rags like the Herald Sun and radio stations like SEN.

And BigFooty doesn't help as well. Unfortunatley BigFooty is too big of a place too ignore and to not say it reflects the behavior pattern of footy fans - because it does with over 20k members and over 1 million threads.

[Kanga]

Media beat up continues....

Couldn't agree more about the media beating this story up.

Laidley has said his piece.

Roos (sensibly) stayed stum until the penalty - then copped it.

Brayshaw seems a little ticked off by the AFL suggestion about NM not calling a head count - probably fair enough to complain but that is about it.

As for mixed messages - The great Irishman sort of suggests video replays would be good, but Roos says no as it would slow the game down....

Surely there is more to worry about? Such as whatever Todd McKenney got up to on Anzac Day?

[Legs Akimbo]

AA and the AFL lurch from crisis to crisis. This is the latest farce that they managed to create for themselves.

Let's face it, the rule is screwed. As if the captain would call out that there is 19 players on the field! It should have been fixed before hand, but of course it was never looked at.

There are two precedents where the offenders took a $7.5k fine. For reasons not adequately explained, the fine has been multipled by more than 6 times to $50k.

The goal that was a point is explained by saying the ball never crossed the line despite every replay angle showing otherwise. Even more laughable is the AFL's denial of the basic physics of momentum given where the ball hit the post.

There is no doubt whatsover in my mind that AD and his cronie AD have a personal issue with Paul Roos, which they let influence their responses to issues where Sydney Swans are involved. I would even go so far as to say that their attitude has influenced the conduct of umpires towards the Swans.

[TheMase]

If the Swans had been 5 points in front - had, say, Moore converted - would the fine have been less? The game would still have been in the balance, even though Kirk's point would not have proved to be the critical score. How about if they'd been 11 points in front? And how about if we had landed up losing the game by a point instead of drawing it. Would the fine still have been more than 3 times the previous fines? The mistake made on the interchange would have been exactly the same regardless of the final score.

I completely agree. It is amazing that two other clubs have broken the rules, for a small fine.

The AFL just gave the big fine so they could get away with not taking the points. The simply fact is, their own rules prevented them from doing so. They also knew, that if they tried to take the points and the Swans challenged them in court, they would lose.

It would be embarrassing in court. Instead they throw $50K at the team (and then half it) and try to move on.