Round 11: North Melbourne v Sydney Swans

[Conor_Dillon]

I agree with Meg in that it wasn't the new rule as such, more just Swallow not making any attempt at all to dispose of the ball. It was a harsh decision but technically the right call.

I'm not sure why they weren't talking about the Richards/Waite/Thomas debacle in the first quarter...one of the worst decisions you're ever likely to see.

[Meg]

[QUOTE=liz;673783]I thought it was a text book example of the new interpretation"- Swallow forged forward with his head burrowed into Goodes' chest. I think it's less to do with the traditional understanding of prior opportunity, and more an attempt to stop players doing something that could injure the neck in some circumstances.[/ QUOTE]

What the commentators are saying is that a player has to put his head down to gather a low ball and that Swallow had no chance to lift his head because of the position of Goodes. That is, that Swallow didn't deliberately lead with his head.
Even if you accepted that (and I am happy to do so) surely the well established rule (as written into the Laws of the Game) still apply. Swallow has to either correctly dispose or make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. He in fact simply clung on to the ball while driving forward.

[Ampersand]

MB you should watch the Whistleblowers segment about the new rule if you haven't yet. The Swallow free was a textbook example of a player trying to drive through a tackle using his head. That counts as prior opportunity and therefore holding the ball.

[Velour&Ruffles]

The supposed expert commentators (including Ling for whom I have a lot of regard) were making a big fuss, including in the after-game summary, about the holding-the-ball free kick to Goodes against Swallow when Swallow tried to burrow his way through with his head buried into Goodes' body. They all seemed to think the umpire was (incorrectly) applying the new ruling about leading with the head.
The way I saw it at the time, and having now watched the replay, it was a completely correct call by the umpire which had nothing to do with the new ruling on leading with the head.
Swallow gathered the ball with his head down, he was correctly tackled by Goodes, but Swallow made NO attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. Swallow simply held on to the ball and kept trying to push Goodes forward. A player with no opportunity MUST make a genuine attempt to correctly dispose of the ball. Otherwise it's 'holding the ball'.
Am I right?

Yes, you are 100% right. On the replay, at precisely the same time as those cretin commentators were saying "What ELSE was Swallow SUPPOSED to do", you see Swallow wrap his arm around Goodes' leg and burrow forward, making no attempt to actually dispose of the ball. What ELSE he was SUPPOSED to do was use that arm to handball the ball out instead of wrapping it around Goodes' leg. I thought the umpiring tonight was as bad as I've ever seen, but that was one decision they got exactly right.

[Velour&Ruffles]

The rule was made to stop players putting their heads down and leading with them to get a high contact free kick. Swallow was picking the ball up when he was tackled, his head was already down and remained in that position through the tackle. It was a stinker of an interpretation of the new rule, that is not what the rule was introduced for.

You clearly completely missed the actual reason for the free kick. Swallow used one hand to grab Goodes' leg, instead of using it to effect a handball when he easily could have. He tried to con the umpire and was unsuccessful. Correct decision, and the new interpretation of heads down had F-All to do with it.

[dimelb]

Back from Etihad, voice like Darth Vader from yelling Hurray Goodsey every time he touched the ball. A couple of times we even had a Goodesy chant going, like the long Syyydneeey. And he had a very good game. Tippett did well, Gary Rohan played very well - subbed as a precaution? Reid also made his contribution; I'd like to see him do a bit more of what we know he can.

Jetta is a marvel: takes an extra second to check then (usually) drops the ball into his team mate's arms. Buddy had a great game, Hanners kept up his current high standards despite the close attention, Parker shone, McVeigh played a fine captain's game, and Kieren wasn't far behind. Josh and Tom M worked hard, Pyke chipped in (measured against possibly the form ruck in the comp - see how Goldy goes against Mummy next week) and we were not that far behind in hitouts to advantage. Jake, Harry and Dan Robinson all did their bit.

The defence needs some attention. As a group they were good again tonight, about as stingy as ever, thanks partly to North's poor kicking for goal. Ted did well (an outrageous call notwithstanding), Reg worked hard and did some good things while Jermy seems to have become the reliable workhorse we so badly needed. Nick was good, despite a clanger or two, but of course clangers really get shown up in the backline. Rampe is frustrating, e.g. makes a brilliant intercept with a combination of timing and sheer pace, then kicks straight to an opposition player. He has the talent but lacks finesse; he'll get better. As for Rhyce, on the other hand, oh dear. I think his days are numbered, even though he has been a wonderful pickup for us over the seasons; getting run down from behind, kicking to opposition etc. it's time to call time and blood the likely replacement/s.

At the end, we won despite some strange umpiring and a determined opposition. It was a fair assessment of where we are. We can still improve as we go deeper into the season, as we need to. But I suspect Horse knows that.

[bodgie]

Laidlaw was a champ. North are a nasty petty mob.

Pyke does seem to be struggling probably with an injury that limits his jumping. My theory is he has been instructed basically to make a contest and hang in there and plug away while Kennedy aint getting enough sleep.

My more adventurous defence of our clearances is more conspiratorial. Every team examines the oppositions midfield action around the bounces in minute detail as a major priority. We are lulling our opposition into believing Pyke will always tap to his feet. Late in the year, or finals, he will be doing something quite different.

Also the defence must be instructed to kick across goal if they believe they can make the switch. Otherwise you couldn't comprehend the repeated stuff ups.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Yes, you are 100% right. On the replay, at precisely the same time as those cretin commentators were saying "What ELSE was Swallow SUPPOSED to do", you see Swallow wrap his arm around Goodes' leg and burrow forward, making no attempt to actually dispose of the ball. What ELSE he was SUPPOSED to do was use that arm to handball the ball out instead of wrapping it around Goodes' leg.

I was at the game, and have also watched some of the replay since coming home. I don't know what planet some of these commentators inhabit (except BT, who I already know inhabits the planet Obese Egomaniac F-Wit). I wanted to rewatch the incident of Ziebell smashing through Hannebery from behind, because at the ground it seemed mystifying he didn't get a free. The commentators spent their time praising ZIEBELL'S courage in the contest (when he was simply charging through a completely open player from behind). Not a SINGLE mention of Hanners' courage backing into the unknown. For people who had actually played the game, and would surely appreciate the courage required to do what Hanners did (versus the literally zero courage required by Ziebell in that incident), it almost makes you wonder whether there is a deliberate decision made amongst these people to paint everything in the most negative light for the Swans they possibly can.

[Mug Punter]

A much better game by Tippett tonight, Buddy as usual presented well and produced his normal brilliance.

Laidler is quickly becoming a huge favourite of mine and I also though Cunningham was OK. Goodes continues to hold his spot very well on merit and I am loving being proved wrong by him on my thought he had gone a season too far.

Overall very please to go into the break with plenty for the team to improve but still 9-2

Hope Rampe improves his decision making over the second half

[bodgie]

Yeh commentary was a North Melbourne barrackfest. Those guys refuse to acknowledge there is a national audience.

[Velour&Ruffles]

North are a nasty petty mob.

Yes, I can rarely recall a game where there were so many cheap-ass kidney punches going on 100m off the ball. It was pretty sad. If this is Darren Crocker's contribution, I hope the real coach is back soon.

[Ludwig]

I thought we were hard done by on a number of occasions.

The 1st qtr play on call involving Ted should have been a 50 metre penalty. He marked the ball and was clearly impeded from going behind the mark. It can't be play on until the ump calls play on, be he called play on after the ball was knocked loose. I am looking forward to Whistleblowers on that one.

Hanners took the mark in the Ziebell incident as the ball was punched after the he took possession, although many of those are not called correctly as it can be difficult to tell if the mark is taken in 'real time'. Nonetheless, that was another goal that shouldn't have been.

The HTB call against Swallow was certainly correct. I think it would have been correct under the old interpretation, but with the new interpretation it becomes even clearer that he used his opportunity. Anyway it didn't cost them.


We play a lot better when we move the ball quickly and have an open forward line. Once we slow things down we tend to make mistakes and allow the defence to settle. Then we kick wildly or too no one in particular.

I hope Rampe will eventually become smarter player. His general reading of the play is excellent and except for the mental errors is playing very well atm. He's like Malceski, but without vision, but even Mal made his fair share or mistakes.

I have to repeat that I can't imagine us having a worse selection than Pyke. He simply cannot play football. I don't know how Nankervis would go in the seniors, but it can't be worse than Pyke, because at least Nanka can mark, kick and handball, which is good start. I doubt that we will drop Pyke, but I can't understand what Horse sees in him (except perhaps the memory of contributions past).

I also agree with others that it's time for Shaw to be dropped. He is not a good defender. He's a poor one on one player. He not a bad player, but we have better running around in the ressies that can help the side more and hopefully make fewer mistakes. In a game or so Benny and Heeney should return to the side, and I think Shaw should be one of the outs. I wouldn't mind seeing Hewett given a sub vest soon. And if Marsh keeps getting the votes for bests he should be given a shot as well.

[Hotpotato]

Mike has just lost his confidence a bit .
He used to be a good set shot , so it was surprising to see him not having any (looking to pass it off) and holding the ball like a hand grenade .
Take him aside Nick, and show him how to kick for goal again.
It was hilarious watching Boomer and Buddy , you felt like running out and giving Boomer a milk crate to stand on .
Horse was having quite a few WTF moments in the box , as we all did .
You never get to see the pressers after the game , was he praiseworthy ?

[barry]

You guys give rampe a hard time. He plays a superb game yet does one stuff up and is crucified. The swans switch play across goal many times. It's a risky move. Most times it pays off, occasionally it doesn't. Doesnt mean we should stop doing it.

[erica]

The Swans supporters in the crowd made so much noise - it sounded fantastic on TV. Loved seeing them giving Goodes standing ovations. Well done guys.