Interchange fiasco

[Margie]

Poor Jesse can't stay away from interchange imbroglios can he? He's not exactly a small guy either, how could you miss him!

I heard on Sky News that White was lying/sitting on the ground receiving treatment. Not down in the rooms.

[Gezball]

There was also a free kick awarded to Eddie Betts in front of goal for holding the ball which was terrible... It also helped shift momentum. I can't remember which Swan he tackled it but he definitely didn't have prior opportunity. Eddie Betts went back and slotted it through... Very annoying.

[ugg]

It was Smith (or maybe Mattner) and I think it was given because that player didn't make the token attempt at trying to get it out.

[Bas]

It was Smith (or maybe Mattner) and I think it was given because that player didn't make the token attempt at trying to get it out.

Smith

[Big Al]

Port have just conceded a goal from an Interchange infringement.

Talk about a rule that opens a nut with a sledgehammer. Just ridiculous.

[top40]

The penalty is comparable somewhat to Capital Punishment. What if the decision is wrong? You can't reverse it.

What bothered me was that almost all of the players as well as the Swans' on-ground officials were emotionally distracted by the decision. They lost their focus. And consequently, by the 4th quarter, exacerbated by the ill-effects of the bye, they became physically over-wrought. Still a hard call to say that it determined the result of the game. In the end, we will never know.

What the AFL needs to do is to IMMEDIATELY reform this rule. Make it a free kick from the centre bounce.

One last thought. Any one sense the irony that one of the reasons why the decision was so wrong, was because the officier did not notice Jesse White off the ground being attended to?

[liz]

Still a hard call to say that it determined the result of the game. In the end, we will never know.

I reckon we do know that it didn't affect the outcome, as things turned out. Even if one could attribute short term distraction by the decision, it doesn't explain why the Swans were so lethargic in the final term. And the eventual scoreline flattered us in the sense that the final two goals we scored came once the Carlton defence had packed their bags for the night.

That doesn't mean that the incident shouldn't be investigated and action taken, because it certainly might have affected the outcome given how tight the contest was at the time. Surely the interchange stewards have a better system than just counting the blokes they can see sitting on the bench?

[Doctor]

The lethargy seems to be in line with the trend of the way teams play after coming off the bye. The interchange thing is a dead set joke though. While 50/50 calls are a matter of interpretation by field umpires, in the cold light of day you can accept that they are going to make mistakes. This interchange one was an error of fact and is therefor inexcusable. If there is any doubt over it, and there clearly was, they need to hold up play while the check on it and then go one again. It's impossible to say whether or not it cost us the game but it certainly gave them a lot of momentum and caused us to drop our heads.

[dimelb]

... One last thought. Any one sense the irony that one of the reasons why the decision was so wrong, was because the officer did not notice Jesse White off the ground being attended to?

Yes, as distinct from being on the ground too soon!

[Legs Akimbo]

The lethargy seems to be in line with the trend of the way teams play after coming off the bye. The interchange thing is a dead set joke though. While 50/50 calls are a matter of interpretation by field umpires, in the cold light of day you can accept that they are going to make mistakes. This interchange one was an error of fact and is therefor inexcusable. If there is any doubt over it, and there clearly was, they need to hold up play while the check on it and then go one again. It's impossible to say whether or not it cost us the game but it certainly gave them a lot of momentum and caused us to drop our heads.

I was gobsmacked when I looked ahead through the draw and saw that there are many weeks where three teams have a bye. I am sure there is a good reason for it, but I don't get it.

[ugg]

It's because you have 17 teams with 2 byes each. If you were to allocate 1 team per round, you would only get up to 24 byes. Hence the AFL needs to schedule 5 weeks with 2 extra byes to account for the difference of 10.

[Legs Akimbo]

It's because you have 17 teams with 2 byes each. If you were to allocate 1 team per round, you would only get up to 24 byes. Hence the AFL needs to schedule 5 weeks with 2 extra byes to account for the difference of 10.

Thanks Ugg. How did it work last year with 16 teams?

[ugg]

Thanks Ugg. How did it work last year with 16 teams?

They split 1 bye across 2 weeks. I think it was 10 teams in one week and 6 the other? Or something like that.

[Cpt. Kirk]

Thanks Ugg. How did it work last year with 16 teams?

Since it was even amount of teams there was no need for a bye and there was none. There was a split round in the middle of the season for the players to recuperate.

[swansrule100]

I reckon we do know that it didn't affect the outcome, as things turned out. Even if one could attribute short term distraction by the decision, it doesn't explain why the Swans were so lethargic in the final term. And the eventual scoreline flattered us in the sense that the final two goals we scored came once the Carlton defence had packed their bags for the night.

That doesn't mean that the incident shouldn't be investigated and action taken, because it certainly might have affected the outcome given how tight the contest was at the time. Surely the interchange stewards have a better system than just counting the blokes they can see sitting on the bench?

i agree with you 100% it just seems stupid it could happen, but it didnt make a difference to the result. The problem is if we complain we wont get much sympathy as we are the reason the rule came in.