Round 11: North Melbourne v Sydney Swans

[Plugger46]

is it just me or does Hannas get almost mortally wounded every week and come back on a few moments later seemingly unaffected?

Not just you. Happens just about every week. I've heard that the players even bag him for it!

[Ampersand]

I am not good on all the rules but I don't think that is the case. Players have to wait for an umpire to call "play on" as a player moves sideways off a mark. They can't run at them until that call is made.
And isn't Teddy allowed to pull back his handball as long as he doesn't move of his mark? Or is that just every other team apart from the Swans?

Teddy didn't move sideways nor attempt to pull back his handball. He actually did handball it and did so poorly because Waite had hold of his arm. Waite still had contact with his arm because was trying to slow Teddy getting back behind the mark and/or playing on laterally - this happens in almost every marking contest and players are allowed a limited degree of leeway in slowing down the marker, which I don't think Waite exceeded by the time Teddy elected to dispose.

Let's say in another scenario Teddy had attempted instead to kick laterally immediately after a mark and Waite tried to smother without overstepping but knocked his leg instead, causing the ball to dribble away. That's not 50 metres. That's just good defence.

Again, the lesson here is to move away from the man on the mark before attempting to dispose. It was an unnecessarily risky play by Richards.

[ScottH]

Not just you. Happens just about every week. I've heard that the players even bag him for it!

Once off the ground, he received some physio treatment on his back.
He jogged 10 metres away from the bench, and back again.
Got some more treatment.
Jogged the 10 metres again.
The physio threw the ball at his feet twice, which he picked up.
Then the physio nodded to the Docnd they all nodded.
Minutes later he was on the ground again.

[Meg]

Round 11: North Melbourne v Sydney Swans

Better than nothing but I'm not a fan of this new financial fines system (which puts me in a small minority I know). AFL players earn far too much money for these fines to make them think before carrying out an act like Firrito's.
"NORTH Melbourne's plan to rough up Sydney Swans spearhead Lance Franklin has landed Michael Firrito in strife, with the Match Review Panel offering the defender a $1500 fine for striking the star forward.

Firrito made contact with Franklin's head in a spoiling attempt in the second quarter of Saturday night's match.

The MRP deemed the incident as careless conduct with low impact to the head and was classified as a $2500 sanction. However an early plea, due to no bad record, can reduce the penalty to a $1500 fine."
Firrito, Pavlich charged by MRP for striking - AFL.com.au

[Ampersand]

Firrito cops a $1500 fine for what looked to me like a clearly deliberate punch to the back of Buddy's head. Meanwhile, it cost Kieran Jack $1000 for careless contact with an umpire in the 3rd quarter.

Seems a little inconsistent to me.

edit: or what Meg said/

[AnnieH]

What a crap game that was.
I'll take the four points, but it was by the skin of our teeth.

Clearances were appalling.
Kicks directly to the opposition in our 50 were appalling as well.

[Scottee]

Teddy didn't move sideways nor attempt to pull back his handball. He actually did handball it and did so poorly because Waite had hold of his arm. Waite still had contact with his arm because was trying to slow Teddy getting back behind the mark and/or playing on laterally - this happens in almost every marking contest and players are allowed a limited degree of leeway in slowing down the marker, which I don't think Waite exceeded by the time Teddy elected to dispose.

Let's say in another scenario Teddy had attempted instead to kick laterally immediately after a mark and Waite tried to smother without overstepping but knocked his leg instead, causing the ball to dribble away. That's not 50 metres. That's just good defence.

Again, the lesson here is to move away from the man on the mark before attempting to dispose. It was an unnecessarily risky play by Richards.

Ampersand, face it, if it was us it would have been a 50m penalty.

[Gary]

What a crap game that was.
I'll take the four points, but it was by the skin of our teeth.

Clearances were appalling.
Kicks directly to the opposition in our 50 were appalling as well.

Agreed ... even though many seem not to notice it ... so what I still can't work out how we win most of the time? A suspect backline with the best defensive record? ... don't understand that ... poor clearance results ... e.g. they just jump Kennedy these days ... poor delivery into forward line as you say ... just can't work it out apart from brilliant / inspiring contributions by Buddy on a regular basis and a few consistent around the ground contributors like Parker, McVeigh & Hanneberry ... Mitchells ball getting is offset by his disposal ... Jack is still good on occasions but is not what he was ... likewise Kennedy who's disposal has slipped badly. Still not quite sure how we mostly "get up" in the end!

[goswannies]

... Mitchells ball getting is offset by his disposal ...

Mitchell increasingly reminds me of Diesel Williams when he first arrived at Sydney. Everyone knows he's not particularly fleet of foot, he is a tenacious tackler, but his disposal (at times) might look bad because he's so quick with it (especially by hand) and his team mates aren't quite ready to accept the lightening fast give offs.
When Mitchell Snr, Healy, Murphy, Bolton & Co. eventually learned to read Diesel's play & ball delivery better, Williams' disposal was lauded by all and sundry of the footy world.
I might be optimistic ... but I hope Tom's even half as good as Greg

[WauchopeAnalyst]

Gerard Healy 'On the Couch' has a bit of a go at Sydney on the defence kicking. RAMPE, SMITH, McVEIGH and SHAW highlighted. Healy stated that Sydney would not be a top 2 team with the defence giving away too many goals. If the players make the same mistakes they would be no flag this year.

[Hotpotato]

As he (Healy ) has a soft spot for Sydney , he was saying : you need to correct these indescretions in the second half of the season because a top two team does not do this time after time if they want to unravel Hawthorn ( or Freo ) .

[WauchopeAnalyst]

I thought he was a but more straightforward not soft on Sydney.

[Gary]

Gerard Healy 'On the Couch' has a bit of a go at Sydney on the defence kicking. RAMPE, SMITH, McVEIGH and SHAW highlighted. Healy stated that Sydney would not be a top 2 team with the defence giving away too many goals. If the players make the same mistakes they would be no flag this year.

Impossible to argue with this ... when the chips are down at the end of the season ... we must be better in composure and disposal ... we look good on points scored against ... which baffles me based on this important issue ... but we would not get away with it in a grand final.

[Conor_Dillon]

You could look at any contender and pick out similar issues and say 'If team X don't improve on deficiency Y then team X won't win the flag'.

Gerard is just keeping the Swans under the radar

[ScottH]

Hawthorn bolstered their defence with Frawley.
Look where they are on the Ladder.