(swans) holding the ball

[agro]

Bit off topic here but kind of related... As well as the lop sided umpiring did anyone listen to the commentary on the TV coverage? Bloody awful. I ended up watching it with the sound off.

The AFL are trying to expand the game in Sydney but this sort of parochial laugh track from C grade commentators really screws up the AFL's hard work as first time Sydney viewers turn on, see the biased umpiring, hear the commentators basically barracking for the other team on the airwaves and make the determination that, "Yep, AFL is still just a Parochial Victorian boys club". No offence intended here to the Swans' many Victorian Members and fans but that is exactly what happened last night when I was trying to introduce AFL to two mates! I doubt they will be coming back to give AFL another go after watching last nights game.

[Jesse Richards]

Bit off topic here but kind of related... As well as the lop sided umpiring did anyone listen to the commentary on the TV coverage? Bloody awful. I ended up watching it with the sound off.

.

The lazy commentators who said "the umpire just explained it - we don't have to" then silence while I'm wondering what the hell just happened - I didn't always hear the umpires and often what I did hear didn't make sense. Isn't it the commentators' job to commentate?

But I don't need the umpires miked or commentators to imagine what was said amongst the umpires at half time: "Come on boys, Port are supposed to win this one or at least be very close (gotta protect TV rights and keep the viewers on the edge of their seats) how are we going get Port back on top? HTB and head contact - any sort will do, even if a Swans player is standing still and a Port player bangs into his legs with his head."

[agro]

"...any sort will do, even if a Swans player is standing still and a Port player bangs into his legs with his head."

That actually happened at least once! You could imagine an umpire's explanation to a Sydney player; "You hit his boot with your face; 50 Metres". I was forced to try to explain to a couple of non AFL guys why it was a fair, just, and sportsman-like rule/decision. They said it was "Un-Australian", LOL, and called it the "Un-Australian Football League". I found it hard to disagree.

And what did Kennelly say to the ump to give away 50 metres, anyway? It just looked like he asked the ump what the free was for and then bang, Port get a freebie.

Still, with all these things stacked against them the Swanies managed to use Port to mop up their own home ground.

[KirkysSocks]

I don't know but i keep getting the impression that the AFL are adamant that the swans keep their loyal diehards but any thought of the swans doing well, even finals or a GF would see the GWS not attract the publicity it needs too hence any new AFL fans would be seen in red and white, afterall the general consensus is that sydney sporting audience are bandwagoners.

Imagine that the AFL pour money into a new team only too see support go to this new teams rivals after a good successfully year..with only two years out until they, the new team, start playing.

Does anyone think this maybe has some legs? I cannot explain some of the very daft decisions, including the mummy suspension and the countless biased frees towards our oppositions.

[Jesse Richards]

I don't know but i keep getting the impression that the AFL are adamant that the swans keep their loyal diehards but any thought of the swans doing well, even finals or a GF would see the GWS not attract the publicity it needs too hence any new AFL fans would be seen in red and white, afterall the general consensus is that sydney sporting audience are bandwagoners.

Imagine that the AFL pour money into a new team only too see support go to this new teams rivals after a good successfully year..with only two years out until they, the new team, start playing.

Does anyone think this maybe has some legs? I cannot explain some of the very daft decisions, including the mummy suspension and the countless biased frees towards our oppositions.

Yes. Throw in gambling sponsorship and Andy D's pathological hatred of the Swans (2005 and 2006), his megalomania, empire building re TV rights and pseudoreligious zeal to convert NRL fans. KirkysSocks, you can see the king has no clothes on.

[agro]

I am not big on conspiracy theories but it is entirely probable, KirkysSocks. Money talks. But surely the AFL can see that at the moment the Swans are the ONLY team or "brand" (management buzzword alert!) in Sydney, therefore their performance, and their success or failure and the way the swans are treated within the competition is what Sydneysiders, west or east, are going to use to base their opinion or stance on AFL and GWS at this very crucial time in AFL development? The AFL hierarchy and "toad of toad hall" (Andrew D) surely can't be that one eyed and that consumed with hatred for Sydney, can they?

Just a thought, but how does all this anti-Sydney umpiring affect the Brownlow voting? Mummy, who is arguably in near Brownlow form, got two weeks for daring to lay a perfectly legitimate tackle the Golden Child (soon to be Goldcoast Child) so it is obvious the umps don't want Mummy to win a Brownlow! But say, for example, could Goodesey be robbed of a Brownlow vote or medal because the ump's favoritism for the other team?

[dimelb]

Conspiracy theories are great fun, but having seen a few non-Swan games this season (we don't have Foxy neighbours any more) I have decided that umpires make mistakes, sometimes gross mistakes, and the best policy for a player is to bite your tongue and get on with the job. Mind you, as a spectator I still think it is my duty to give the umps a bit of feedback now and then, especially booing loudly when they ping our blokes who are jumped on if they bump the ball.

[Rod_]

Whilst this rule and the interpretation of it ,have annoyed me to distraction and total frustration, the Swans have exploited it for a few years. Playing for stopages and resetting up our attack or defence.. I believe that the umpires have been directed to adjudicate harshly against the teams that lock in in the ball looking for a stopage.

We (the team) have to adapt quickly or remain frustrated.

Cheers

Rod_

[Goal Sneak]

Whilst this rule and the interpretation of it ,have annoyed me to distraction and total frustration, the Swans have exploited it for a few years. Playing for stopages and resetting up our attack or defence.. I believe that the umpires have been directed to adjudicate harshly against the teams that lock in in the ball looking for a stopage.

While this makes much more sense than any conspiracy theories, I don't believe the Swans were trying to exploit the rule against Port.

It seems the Swans are being targeted no matter what type of football they are playing, based on a perception amongst umpires and administrators that's been built up over a number of years.

[sharp9]

There is an official new ruling that states that the player "must look as if he is trying to dispose of the ball....even if he has no possibility of doing so."...not those exact words but that is the directive. every other team has changed accordingly. we have not. After you get tackled without prior opportunity you must now APPEAR to do everything to dispose of the footy. In other words, never, ever, ever, EVER play dead fish. we do this ALL THE TIME. it is a stupid and incorrect interpretation but there it is (like hands in the back, even without pushing). Who is in charge of teaching our players what to do so we don't get pinged so often.

ON the other thing...Port received 7 incorrect free kicks for high tackles (and at least another three were not paid) when they deliberately banged their heads into Swans players who could not avoid it. This is not a new directive, this is some teams (Geelong and Port for sure) who deliberately do this because, for some unknown reason the umpires are paying these incorrect free kicks. According to the rules they should not be paid. I can't understand it. It is a joke.

I would desperately love to see free kicks paid not just for diving, but also for ACCENTUATING contact, that is to say going to ground in anyway harder than how you were actually touched...EVEN IF YOU WERE TOUCHED ILLEGALLY. New rule...play the game as hard as you can and to the whistle or no frees will be paid.

Free kick for appealing for arm chopping when a free is not paid. Play the bloody game and get on with it!