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

[dejavoodoo44]

haha I'm ready for it

Be strong.

[Nico]

I don't think that one was soft. I think it was a figment of the umpire's imagination. Mind you, the free to GHS that awarded him the match winning kick looked pretty dubious. If there was high contact it was minimal and incidental, and I doubt the umpire could even see anyway, given all the bodies around the ball.

On The Bounce tonight they showed one where Puopolo was tackled, held in the tackle by 3 players, wrestled his way out, fell to the ground, an Adelaide player then grabs him from behind.....free kick Hawthorn...for in the back... goal. Paul Roos called it probably the worst free kick in the history of the game. He was given half a dozen prior opportunities and still wasn't pinged.

[liz]

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.

You did say

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.

I think reaching two grand finals in three completed seasons qualifies as continuing the club's sustained success, notwithstanding the fact we lost both. And look what he's done off-field. He may not be the sole reason, but I daresay he's a major factor in the explosion in membership numbers over the past couple of seasons.

The only way the decision may turn out to be detrimental in the long term is if the list quality dives during the latter years of his contract, and the club struggles to refurbish and relaunch as it has done so successfully over the past decade. Our depth certainly has taken a bit of a hit from the combined salaries of Buddy, Tippett and a trio of highly credentialed midfielders, but we can't know for several years what the long term effect will be. If the club continues to unearth gems like AA and Papley from the lower reaches of the draft, there's no reason to expect the team to bottom out.

[Nico]

The ducking rule is a substantial improvement on previous years and is working.

As you say, the HTB one remains problematic. Was it Jones in the last quarter that got pinged for one where he was crunched at exactly the same time as getting the ball?

If the afl want to tinker and remove the prior opportunity bit then fine, but they will reap the rewards by turning the game into one where players become afraid of taking possession. As a result, I think we would see more and more games resemble wet weather footy, where players will just kick the ball forward, for fear of getting pinged for actually wanting to get the ball in a contested circumstance. It would solve congestion but ruin the game in the process.

Will soon be a squibs game.

[Ludwig]

Aussie Rules --- The Future

[annew]

+2!

+3 I too love watching Buddy each week

[Hotpotato]

I thoroughly enjoy Buddy's heroics , he's bloody sensational. However as a follower of the game , I've loved watching the brilliance of many wonderful players in other clubs over the years such as Andrew McCloud, Eddie Betts , James Hird (yep), Neil Kerley, Andrew Jarman , the Abletts, the Riolis , Chris Judd etc etc
The game attracts some incredible athletes.
Long may it continue.

[Meg]

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

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?

Ok I promise this will be my last response on this topic! But while I was very upset by the umpiring in the GF and (while less so) also upset by some decisions on Saturday, the Mills' decision is one which I think was correct.

The rule actually says it is ILLEGAL to deliberately rush a behind:

"15.8 FREE KICKS ? DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS
15.8.1
When Awarded
(a)
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team?s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one
of the attacking Team?s Goal Posts."

Then, in attempt to clarify what will be judged 'intentional', the rule says:

"In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to:
(i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball;
(ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and
(iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player."

When the rule was first introduced (after the 2008 GF when Hawthorn used the rushed behind as a deliberate tactic), rushed behinds fell considerably. But in the last couple of years (as presumably players realised they could still get sometimes get away with it) the number of times the tactic was used increased again. This led to a call by coaches last season for a tightening of the interpretation of what the umpires would view 'intentional' and hence the explanatory words and video from the beginning of this season which I posted earlier.

So is anyone in doubt about whether Mills punch of the ball over the goal line was intentional???

Had he been within the goal square (which he was) and had he been under IMMEDIATE pressure (examples of which from previous umpires' decisions would be wrestling with an opposing player for position, or running at full pace side-by-side with an opposing player, or with an opposing player immediately face-to-face with him) then the umpire might have given him the benefit of the doubt that the punch over the line was not an intentional tactic but what happened as he tried to keep the ball away from the opposing player.

We would have to be wearing very Swans-centric glasses to believe that was what happened in the Mills' example. He intentionally punched the ball over the line. That breaks law 15.8.1.

I do agree the penalty seems to be extreme. The pros/cons of that are discussed in the article below.

After the trial in the JLT series the AFL decided to stay with the free kick penalty. So players now should know (which Mills appeared not to know) that they must make every endeavour to keep the ball in play.

New AFL rushed-behind rule could be in place for round one | Redland City Bulletin

[The Big Cat]

Ok I promise this will be my last response on this topic! But while I was very upset by the umpiring in the GF and (while less so) also upset by some decisions on Saturday, the Mills' decision is one which I think was correct.

The rule actually says it is ILLEGAL to deliberately rush a behind:

"15.8 FREE KICKS ? DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS
15.8.1
When Awarded
(a)
A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team?s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one
of the attacking Team?s Goal Posts."

Then, in attempt to clarify what will be judged 'intentional', the rule says:

"In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to:
(i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball;
(ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and
(iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player."

When the rule was first introduced (after the 2008 GF when Hawthorn used the rushed behind as a deliberate tactic), rushed behinds fell considerably. But in the last couple of years (as presumably players realised they could still get sometimes get away with it) the number of times the tactic was used increased again. This led to a call by coaches last season for a tightening of the interpretation of what the umpires would view 'intentional' and hence the explanatory words and video from the beginning of this season which I posted earlier.

So is anyone in doubt about whether Mills punch of the ball over the goal line was intentional???

Had he been within the goal square (which he was) and had he been under IMMEDIATE pressure (examples of which from previous umpires' decisions would be wrestling with an opposing player for position, or running at full pace side-by-side with an opposing player, or with an opposing player immediately face-to-face with him) then the umpire might have given him the benefit of the doubt that the punch over the line was not an intentional tactic but what happened as he tried to keep the ball away from the opposing player.

We would have to be wearing very Swans-centric glasses to believe that was what happened in the Mills' example. He intentionally punched the ball over the line. That breaks law 15.8.1.

I do agree the penalty seems to be extreme. The pros/cons of that are discussed in the article below.

After the trial in the JLT series the AFL decided to stay with the free kick penalty. So players now should know (which Mills appeared not to know) that they must make every endeavour to keep the ball in play.

New AFL rushed-behind rule could be in place for round one | Redland City Bulletin

Can't disagree with your logic Meg. The bit I have trouble with is that had it happened at the other end it would have been "all clear, one point"

I like Neil Cordy's take:

"Unfortunately for the Swans the unbalanced free kick count was entirely predictable, as it was in last year?s grand final and as it has been for virtually all non-Victorian teams when they meet the Bulldogs in Melbourne.

Last year Luke Beveridge?s team didn?t lose a free-kick count against the five interstate teams that visited Etihad Stadium ? Fremantle, Brisbane, Adelaide, West Coast and Gold Coast. The overall tally was 111-70 in their favour.

It was a different story when they played against fellow Victorian teams with supporters barracking just as loudly if not louder. In those 11 matches the Bulldogs lost the free-kick count 226-197."

Mmmmmm!

[Industrial Fan]

I think the easiest way to think of it is that for the defending side there should be little difference between rushing a behind and sending the ball oob. Mills clearly pushed it through for a behind, intentionally, which would have been paid deliberate if it were over the boundary.

But as above I have little confidence that the rule would have been paid at the other end of the ground at a critical juncture.

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory, but certainly perception bias relating to the bulldogs style of play and their 'story' - similarly with the Hawks, they were such a good team - but as far as the swans go I reckon we're still paying penance for the Roos era.

The old you won't win a flag playing like that, cortina, workman like, tempo footy. Nevermind our roster has changed completely, the style of play has changed a few times but people (read: media) still refer to us as overly defensive stoppage based team.

[Meg]

And Big Cat, that is why I think we should concentrate on demonstrable examples of free kicks the Swans should have been awarded, and free kicks against us which should not have been awarded, under the laws of the game. It damages the Swans' credibility to keep insisting we were wronged by a decision that was correct under the laws.

[Meg]

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

On The Bounce tonight they showed one where Puopolo was tackled, held in the tackle by 3 players, wrestled his way out, fell to the ground, an Adelaide player then grabs him from behind.....free kick Hawthorn...for in the back... goal. Paul Roos called it probably the worst free kick in the history of the game. He was given half a dozen prior opportunities and still wasn't pinged.

Look I hate to sound like an umpires' apologist ...... but under the interpretations of the laws that the AFL put out at the beginning of the year, they said (in protecting the player with the ball) umpires would be instructed to "award free kicks against any player who lies on an opponent's back".

It could be argued that Puopolo had prior opportunity (took on the tackler) and/or made no genuine attempt to dispose of the ball before he got dumped on the ground, and therefore a free kick should have been awarded against him for HTB. But given the umpire had not blown the whistle, Mackay had to complete the tackle legally. Instead he ended up sitting on Puopolo's back - and was penalised for it.

Roos isn't always right.

[stevoswan]

You did say





I think reaching two grand finals in three completed seasons qualifies as continuing the club's sustained success, notwithstanding the fact we lost both. And look what he's done off-field. He may not be the sole reason, but I daresay he's a major factor in the explosion in membership numbers over the past couple of seasons.

The only way the decision may turn out to be detrimental in the long term is if the list quality dives during the latter years of his contract, and the club struggles to refurbish and relaunch as it has done so successfully over the past decade. Our depth certainly has taken a bit of a hit from the combined salaries of Buddy, Tippett and a trio of highly credentialed midfielders, but we can't know for several years what the long term effect will be. If the club continues to unearth gems like AA and Papley from the lower reaches of the draft, there's no reason to expect the team to bottom out.

I think some people should read my post again to see I have nothing against Buddy or the recruitment of Buddy, and that I, like all of us, love Buddy and the way he goes about his footy, but I measure success not in membership numbers but in premierships, and certainly not in heartbreaking GF losses due to incredibly frustrating and dubious circumstances of outside interference and basically, the corruption of prejudice. My point was that it is unfortunate that the genius recruitment of the biggest star in the game, whose choice was to come to us, making his recruitment an obvious one ie; any club would have done the same, has, due to people like Mike Fitzpatrick, cost us well deserved reward when it counts......late September, and possible future success due to thinning stocks. Like you say, the future still looks bright and our club is great at getting the most out of what's available, but it shouldn't have to feel like they're 'pushing @@@@@ uphill' all the time. For the effort everyone involved puts in, our club deserves better, Buddy deserves better and all of us Swans fans deserve better. I am angry at the forces that seek to hinder our club, certainly not at Buddy or those that recruited him.

[Hotpotato]

Can't disagree with your logic Meg. The bit I have trouble with is that had it happened at the other end it would have been "all clear, one point"

I like Neil Cordy's take:

"Unfortunately for the Swans the unbalanced free kick count was entirely predictable, as it was in last year?s grand final and as it has been for virtually all non-Victorian teams when they meet the Bulldogs in Melbourne.

Last year Luke Beveridge?s team didn?t lose a free-kick count against the five interstate teams that visited Etihad Stadium ? Fremantle, Brisbane, Adelaide, West Coast and Gold Coast. The overall tally was 111-70 in their favour.

It was a different story when they played against fellow Victorian teams with supporters barracking just as loudly if not louder. In those 11 matches the Bulldogs lost the free-kick count 226-197."

Mmmmmm!

Yep, these stats were highlighted last year , but I'd forgottten the numbers .
So every time an interstate team travels to take on the Fairytale Pups in The old Epicentre of Aussie Rules they run onto the ground up against an average 37% free kick differential against based on the 2016 figures.
Wow, that's staggering . That's an uneven playing field . Maybe The Swans should have retained their name old name South Melbourne.

[ScottH]

Great Game.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Buddy and Sam were Great.
@@@@ the Umpires
Young Will and Nic showed they have what it takes, as did Ollie.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Jack is probably past his "Best Before Date" Set up 2 goals to get us back in the game but was pretty quiet for the rest of the game.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Kennedy had some major brain farts out there late in the game.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Tippett injured again??? Unreal. His Cost per games played must be staggeringly high.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Aliir Aliir is a freak!! Love watching him. Highly unlucky with the @@@@ the Umpires.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Harry, Harry, Harry. I think he might be joining Towers in the 2's for a while.
@@@@ the Umpires.
Jake seems to be finding his place in the team. Had a great game.
@@@@ the Umpires.