Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

[stevoswan]

Reading the latest posts on the 'Tippett!" thread re: the MRP's assertion that Tippett's head 'did not touch the ground' in the semi vs. GWS last year, it got me thinking of how history will reflect on the recruitment of Buddy Franklin. This league obviously has it's biases and prejudices and 'stories/fairytales' it seems intent on delivering and, in turn has a canny knack at creating a 'vibe', with the help of certain Victorian journo's, that seems to permeate through all levels.....the commission, the umpires and even the MRP. Our club, obviously in the 'naughty corner', has been the victim of a lot of weird and cruel decisions on and off the field since about 2014, the year we recruited Buddy, which got us sent to the 'naughty corner' in the first place. As much as I love Buddy and absolutely love what he does and at times still pinch myself that he actually plays for us, history may reveal that, for the sake of the ongoing success of our club in an era of well over a decade of sustained strength, the recruitment of the Bud may have been the worst thing our club has ever done. The sad thing is, if we as a club and fans all had our time over again we would do nothing different.....and nor should we. Who was to know the immature anger and potential for revenge that certain league officials had in them? Yes, sure Fitzpatrick is gone now but there is no doubt his stench lingers on.......and it has had and still has huge ramifications on our clubs potential for ultimate success.

[liz]

Reading the latest posts on the 'Tippett!" thread re: the MRP's assertion that Tippett's head 'did not touch the ground' in the semi vs. GWS last year, it got me thinking of how history will reflect on the recruitment of Buddy Franklin. This league obviously has it's biases and prejudices and 'stories/fairytales' it seems intent on delivering and, in turn has a canny knack at creating a 'vibe', with the help of certain Victorian journo's, that seems to permeate through all levels.....the commission, the umpires and even the MRP. Our club, obviously in the 'naughty corner', has been the victim of a lot of weird and cruel decisions on and off the field since about 2014, the year we recruited Buddy, which got us sent to the 'naughty corner' in the first place. As much as I love Buddy and absolutely love what he does and at times still pinch myself that he actually plays for us, history may reveal that, for the sake of the ongoing success of our club in an era of well over a decade of sustained strength, the recruitment of the Bud may have been the worst thing our club has ever done. The sad thing is, if we as a club and fans all had our time over again we would do nothing different.....and nor should we. Who was to know the immature anger and potential for revenge that certain league officials had in them? Yes, sure Fitzpatrick is gone now but there is no doubt his stench lingers on.......and it has had and still has huge ramifications on our clubs potential for ultimate success.

a) It's pure speculation that the Swans are being targeted in things like umpiring decisions as punishment for the Buddy recruitment. The trade ban yes, but anything more than that has a whiff of conspiracy theory about it. Yes, we're frustrated by the inconsistency of umpiring and feel the Swans tend to get the worst of it. But fans from pretty much every club will walk away from most games believing their team got the rough end of the umpiring (even when neutral fans say otherwise).

b) We wouldn't have reached two grand finals (in order to lose two grand finals) had it not been for Buddy. His onfield contribution has been that significant IMO.

c) (Most importantly) The sheer joy I derive from watching Buddy each week during the footy season tells me that it can't possibly have been a bad decision to recruit him, let alone the worst thing our club has ever done. I like watching premierships but, for me, they are just the icing on the cake. Watching the games week in, week out, is what footy is really about for me, especially when it's in the knowledge that the club is doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and, eventually, to put itself in a position to win a premiership.

[Billericay]

a) It's pure speculation that the Swans are being targeted in things like umpiring decisions as punishment for the Buddy recruitment. The trade ban yes, but anything more than that has a whiff of conspiracy theory about it. Yes, we're frustrated by the inconsistency of umpiring and feel the Swans tend to get the worst of it. But fans from pretty much every club will walk away from most games believing their team got the rough end of the umpiring (even when neutral fans say otherwise).

b) We wouldn't have reached two grand finals (in order to lose two grand finals) had it not been for Buddy. His onfield contribution has been that significant IMO.

c) (Most importantly) The sheer joy I derive from watching Buddy each week during the footy season tells me that it can't possibly have been a bad decision to recruit him, let alone the worst thing our club has ever done. I like watching premierships but, for me, they are just the icing on the cake. Watching the games week in, week out, is what footy is really about for me, especially when it's in the knowledge that the club is doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and, eventually, to put itself in a position to win a premiership.

+1 to all of that

[Meg]

+1 to all of that

+2!

[stevoswan]

a) It's pure speculation that the Swans are being targeted in things like umpiring decisions as punishment for the Buddy recruitment. The trade ban yes, but anything more than that has a whiff of conspiracy theory about it. Yes, we're frustrated by the inconsistency of umpiring and feel the Swans tend to get the worst of it. But fans from pretty much every club will walk away from most games believing their team got the rough end of the umpiring (even when neutral fans say otherwise).

b) We wouldn't have reached two grand finals (in order to lose two grand finals) had it not been for Buddy. His onfield contribution has been that significant IMO.

c) (Most importantly) The sheer joy I derive from watching Buddy each week during the footy season tells me that it can't possibly have been a bad decision to recruit him, let alone the worst thing our club has ever done. I like watching premierships but, for me, they are just the icing on the cake. Watching the games week in, week out, is what footy is really about for me, especially when it's in the knowledge that the club is doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and, eventually, to put itself in a position to win a premiership.

I absolutely 100% agree with you on points b) and c) and I hope no one misinterpreted me as regretting Buddy's recruitment, I loved it and still do........but the jury is out on point a). I was probably wrong to make it a Buddy thing, it's probably more-so a combined Tippett/Franklin grudge against us, and it may not be a conscious conspiracy, more a 'vibe' that permeates and creates an unconscious prejudice. I believe it's there.......we see it week in, week out with the umpires. You cannot deny we were never going to be allowed to win last years flag once the 'fairytale' made the GF........that was absolutely proven on the day.

[mcs]

I agree that the ducking addition to the 'too high' adjudication is a big improvement.

Re the Jones' penalty, he wasn't penalised without consideration of prior opportunity, he was penalised because the umpire said Jones made no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball.

I haven't watched a replay but I have a reluctant suspicion that the call might be right. I think Jones was clinging on tightly to the ball at all times (with a lot of help from his 'friends' holding it to him). I don't think he made any of the usual faux punching actions.

Has anyone else looked at the incident (with an objective eye if that is possible!).

Fair enough Meg - if that is the case (which it most likely is - you have a better eye for picking these things up than I do) it is another example of how the focus on officiating is in the wrong place around HTB.

A guy gets crunched as soon as he gets the ball, but gets pinged because he doesn't make enough effort to get rid of the ball, despite there being an innately small likelihood he will be able to dispose the ball legally .

But a player in similar circumstances (obviously most times not as well tackled as Jones was) can drop the ball (as many in the competition do) and get away with it time and time again.

[Velour&Ruffles]

It's not so much the deliberate behind rule that's the problem, it's the determination of what constitutes "real pressure" that leaves too much room for interpretation. More so, the penalty is way too harsh - especially at a late time of the game when scores are close.

Exactly. It is now apparently the single worst thing you can possibly do on a football field, because it basically guarantees a goal will be kicked against you. There's no other infraction you can say that about. You could knock someone unconscious on the half back line in the most blatant act of thuggery in the history of the sport and the immediate impact for the team would be far less harsh (although there may of course be post-game consequences). Another knee-jerk, ill-thought-through, ill-communicated, pathetically implemented rule change by a pathetic, knee-jerk organisation. If you want to discourage rushed behinds, how about making the penalty a bounce 25 m out directly in front (plus the point)? Gives the attacking team a significant advantage, but not so ridiculously over the top as it currently stands.

Mills would have seen Picken was close in his peripheral vision and felt under real pressure. The only reason he wasn't, as it turned out, was because the rules incented Picken to stop and not actually contest for the ball. Surely not the outcome we want in a sport that has always been about hard contests. Mills couldn't know that Picken had stopped unless, quite literally, he had eyes in the back of his head. Scheisen rule-making.

[bodgie]

Finally got my AFL pass to work so just watched the 1st Q. Ump 16 clearly got trigger happy in favour the Bulldogs half way through very soft fleeting over the shoulders x2 plus the Allir brush of Clokes jumper while being thrown to the ground). But the dogs could have been legit a couple of goals closer if they kicked some of the easy ones.

[bodgie]

2nd Q. No16 is on fire for the bulldogs!

Just watched a run of play where 4 free kicks should've been paid to us that No16 would've paid at the other end. In the end it took Florents great rundown to get an obvious free.

I can see what everyone is on about so I'll shut up now and watch the rest of it.

[Joel Ridge]

Stop trying to lecture me on my 'lack of understanding'. I perfectly understand that Cunningham was unlikely to stop what happened. But that doesn't mean one can't be frustrated by his complete lack of awareness in the circumstance.....

So Cunningham would give away a free just by turning his head???? What would the free kick be in that circumstance? I know we are all used to the Swans getting some rather terrible umpiring decisions along the line, but I haven't seen the rule book that includes 'turning your head is punishable by a free kick'

We would have turned his head as the first action. He would have then attempted to impede Bont's run at the ball, while losing the flight of the ball. Umpire would have blown free kick as his eyes were not watching the ball.

I belive the real scrutiny in this play is Grundy losing his feet 20 seconds earlier.

[Joel Ridge]

a) It's pure speculation that the Swans are being targeted in things like umpiring decisions as punishment for the Buddy recruitment. The trade ban yes, but anything more than that has a whiff of conspiracy theory about it. Yes, we're frustrated by the inconsistency of umpiring and feel the Swans tend to get the worst of it. But fans from pretty much every club will walk away from most games believing their team got the rough end of the umpiring (even when neutral fans say otherwise).

b) We wouldn't have reached two grand finals (in order to lose two grand finals) had it not been for Buddy. His onfield contribution has been that significant IMO.

c) (Most importantly) The sheer joy I derive from watching Buddy each week during the footy season tells me that it can't possibly have been a bad decision to recruit him, let alone the worst thing our club has ever done. I like watching premierships but, for me, they are just the icing on the cake. Watching the games week in, week out, is what footy is really about for me, especially when it's in the knowledge that the club is doing everything in its power to be the best it can be, and, eventually, to put itself in a position to win a premiership.

Great point on Buddy. He tries to always get us over the line all the time. Whether it's a chase, a tackle or a 60m goal.

[dejavoodoo44]

2nd Q. No16 is on fire for the bulldogs!

Just watched a run of play where 4 free kicks should've been paid to us that No16 would've paid at the other end. In the end it took Florents great rundown to get an obvious free.

I can see what everyone is on about so I'll shut up now and watch the rest of it.

Spoiler alert: the little @@@@ doesn't get any better.

[bodgie]

Spoiler alert: the little @@@@ doesn't get any better.

haha I'm ready for it

[Ratna]

Regarding the Mills decision and the interpretation of real pressure. The difference between the real pressure and what actually happened is Picken stopping and appealing rather than continuing to chase. Unless Mills has complete disregard for the ball and focusses on Picken (or has eyes in the back of his head) he has no possible way of knowing Picken stopped. Picken's ability to pressure is right up there.

I respectfully disagree with the posters on here who agree with the interpretation in this circumstance as it was only correct based on Picken ceasing his chase and appealing for the free before Mill's got to the ball. I would love to see any of the umpires or those who don't think he was under pressure have a go at taking possession in the situation Mills was in. I reckon if Picken was fair dinkum and didn't stop he would of got about half a step before being collared.

A player can no longer draw a free by deliberately ducking their head so why should they be able to draw a free by stopping prior to the contest?

[Nico]

Ludwig, are you confident that you can always pick when the ball has been deliberately dropped as distinct from when the ball has been dislodged by the tackler? I'm not sure that I can be sure (and certainly not when watching live at the game). I suspect that quite often when my first reaction is outrage about the 'play on' call, the umpire has probably judged, with no prior opportunity, the ball has been dislodged by the tackle.

On this week's games Meg there is now no such rule as "the ball coming out in the tackle".