Media Onslaught

[Sandrevan]

Yes it's coming. The media onslaught.

Rohan, Heeney, Papley, McGlynn, Tippett, Rampe, Mitchell, McVeigh all missing from tonight's squad.

I am not worried one bit. Yes we might suffer this year. But next year, look out with a fit and full squad.

Stuff the media. I know this club is in good hands. Collingwood only beat us by a point and they had every single player available tonight.

They are a shocking football side.

We're not going to avoid the media scrutiny. The AFL is a commercial organization that relies (to a great degree) on media ratings. The 3 powerhouse clubs of the AFL in the last 10 years are Swans, Hawthorn and Geelong. 2 of those teams are winless so far in 2017. Hawthorn are getting their share of media scrutiny as well. It's na?ve to think the media will not focus on this.

[stevoswan]

Not the case - they still got away with many many throws. Even the 7 commentators have started noting it, demonstrating how bleeding obvious it must be!

I lost count of how many times I said "there's another throw" while watching the Dogs against Freo......the umpires are completely useless.

[liz]

We're not going to avoid the media scrutiny. The AFL is a commercial organization that relies (to a great degree) on media ratings. The 3 powerhouse clubs of the AFL in the last 10 years are Swans, Hawthorn and Geelong. 2 of those teams are winless so far in 2017. Hawthorn are getting their share of media scrutiny as well. It's na?ve to think the media will not focus on this.

They will, but I doubt they will go overboard and nor should they.

Hawthorn are coming off one of the most successful eras that any club has achieved in the past few decades. They made a few brave (and somewhat surprising) decisions over the off-season that showed they understood their stalwarts could go on together. A slide backwards was inevitable (and the signs were there with their finals exit last year). Their club will be judged on how far they slide and for how long. Their performance yesterday will come in for criticism, as it should, but it's a minor thing in the overall scheme of their evolution.

Sydney's position is somewhat different due to the Buddy factor. Many want the Swans to fail due to the audacity in securing Lance the way they did. Others love seeing the best strut their stuff on the big stage and, despite their misgivings, will want to see Franklin again in the finals- soon. Plus we still have a pretty good core of other senior players and shouldn't be in a rebuilding phase. But the smart ones also understand our list composition and are fully aware of the lack of depth, and hence the huge impact of even a modest injury list. That the club has played so many younger players in the first few rounds, and that they have equipped themselves well, means the Swans can't be criticised for sticking with the tried and tested. The smart ones will also acknowledge that, while we may be winless, the team has played some good football at times this year. It's just been the odd bad quarter here and there, but we were well in both the Pies and Dogs games, and even in the Port game, it was only the second half that was really poor.

The media can scrutinise all they wish but there's not much there to dig into. A list with a lot of inexperienced players suffers a few injuries to key players, plays a healthy handful of its inexperienced players, goes down but goes down fighting.

[Sandrevan]

Speaking of media, that ungodly ranga from geelong in the commentary box made a deliberate point of high lighting every dubious free kick given to the swans. It was a attempt to discredit our umpiring complaints. And we still lost the free kick count.

I used to like Lings commentary but not anymore. It's like he has spent his Summer watching repeats of old games and listening to Bruce McAvaney. Ling is becoming a McAvaney fanboi.

[RogueSwan]

Not the case - they still got away with many many throws. Even the 7 commentators have started noting it, demonstrating how bleeding obvious it must be!

I lost count of how many times I said "there's another throw" while watching the Dogs against Freo......the umpires are completely useless.

I was listening to Schwab over the weekend and his reasoning was that if someone gets the ball and is immediately tackled ie: no prior, then the footballer being tackled still has to make an attempt to get rid of the ball. If that attempt is a throw then so be it, it is play on. This could be the reason our guys are getting pinged for HTB and Horse's legitimate questions around whether they need to change technique.

[stevoswan]

I used to like Lings commentary but not anymore. It's like he has spent his Summer watching repeats of old games and listening to Bruce McAvaney. Ling is becoming a McAvaney fanboi.

Two years, or is it three(?), in 'AFL Mouthpiece' system will do that to you........he is no longer impartial.

[Meg]

I was listening to Schwab over the weekend and his reasoning was that if someone gets the ball and is immediately tackled ie: no prior, then the footballer being tackled still has to make an attempt to get rid of the ball. If that attempt is a throw then so be it, it is play on. This could be the reason our guys are getting pinged for HTB and Horse's legitimate questions around whether they need to change technique.

Interesting comment by Schwab. What law 15.2.3 says is:

-----

a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:

(ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so;

----

I would have thought throwing the ball would not be regarded as "genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football".

But if that is what Schwab is saying is how the umpires' now interpret the law, then start throwing as soon as you feel a tackle (without prior) Swanny boys!

[dimelb]

Interesting comment by Schwab. What law 15.2.3 says is:

-----

a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:

(ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so;

----

I would have thought throwing the ball would not be regarded as "genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football".

But if that is what Schwab is saying is how the umpires' now interpret the law, then start throwing as soon as you feel a tackle (without prior) Swanny boys!

Sounds like another case of the AFL's "make it up as you go". This is exactly the sort of issue that the sport media should get their teeth into.

[Meg]

Media Onslaught

Sounds like another case of the AFL's "make it up as you go". This is exactly the sort of issue that the sport media should get their teeth into.

I thought a good tackler pins the arms so the only way the ball-holder can be seen to make a genuine attempt to dispose legally is to drop the ball and attempt to kick it (and a genuine attempt to kick it would be a play on, even if the player missed the kick).

But if a throw is deemed a genuine attempt to correctly dispose, does that mean get one hand free and throw is ok? Or is it only a two-handed throw that is ok? And if so, presumably the player is deemed to have been attempting to correctly handball even though it ends up as a throw.

Oh what a confusing game this can be ........!

[RogueSwan]

It was on the MMM Melbourne show on Sunday before the Blues Bombers game. I don't know if they record it for later streaming or not.
Link https://player.fm/series/the-rub-cat...nday-9th-april
"it doesn't have to be a legal handball when you've had no prior"

[chalbilto]

I thought a good tackler pins the arms so the only way the ball-holder can be seen to make a genuine attempt to dispose legally is to drop the ball and attempt to kick it (and a genuine attempt to kick it would be a play on, even if the player missed the kick).

But if a throw is deemed a genuine attempt to correctly dispose, does that mean get one hand free and throw is ok? Or is it only a two-handed throw that is ok? And if so, presumably the player is deemed to have been attempting to correctly handball even though it ends up as a throw.

[B]Oh what a confusing game this can be ........!

What's confusing is the continuous tinkering of interpretations. If a player has no prior opportunity to correctly dispose of the ball when tackled, then a ball up should occur. Simple logic.
If a player has had prior opportunity or takes a tackler on and does not legally dispose of the ball which includes throwing or dropping the ball, then the tackler should be rewarded with a free kick. Again simple logic.
What the powers to be should decide is to provide interpretations of prior and no prior opportunity. This would eliminate a lot of confusion.

[Sandridge]

Dogs didn't win the free kick count in this game.

Yep. Didn't get an armchair ride and didn't win the game. Lovely! (They still got away with numerous throws, though. And they didn't actually lose the free kick count, either. Breaking even with free kicks is a "getting a bad go" for them!)

[Meg]

Media Onslaught

It was on the MMM Melbourne show on Sunday before the Blues Bombers game. I don't know if they record it for later streaming or not.
Link https://player.fm/series/the-rub-cat...nday-9th-april
"it doesn't have to be a legal handball when you've had no prior"

Thanks for posting that link, really interesting and worth a listen.

What Schwab is saying is consistent with Law 15.2.3 which I posted earlier - that without prior opportunity it is sufficient for the ball-holder to have made a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so - that the attempt in itself doesn't necessarily have to be successful. *

I'm still not sure what that means in the circumstance where the ball-holder simply throws the ball without any attempt to make a correct handball action.

(* Note: this is why I think Jones got caught in the Bulldogs match, he was deemed not to have made an attempt to dispose as he kept clinging on to the ball.)

Also interesting that Schwab is asked about the below-the-knees free kick against Hannebery which Schwab agrees with (as do I) but in answering the question he alludes to the fact that Hannebery himself should have got a free in the GF for the same reason but it went the other way - an irony that was not lost on any of us.

Schwab also mentions that he had a long talk with Longmire about HTB/prior opportunity. I wish we knew what was said, it would help all of us to understand the Law and the interpretation the umpires are making. But I don't suppose we will be told what transpired between them.

It is also worth watching the 'Whistleblowers' video posted on AFL site today which includes footage and discussion of potential HTB incidents.

[56-14]

I hope Longmire ensures that what he gained from his discussion with Schwab is quickly passed on to the players.

[Nico]

Interesting comment by Schwab. What law 15.2.3 says is:

-----

a) Where the field Umpire is satisfied that a Player in possession of the football:

(ii) has not had a prior opportunity to dispose of the football, the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player if, upon being Correctly Tackled, the Player does not Correctly Dispose or genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so;

----

I would have thought throwing the ball would not be regarded as "genuinely attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football".

But if that is what Schwab is saying is how the umpires' now interpret the law, then start throwing as soon as you feel a tackle (without prior) Swanny boys!

A Freo player was tackled to the ground by his right arm. He attempted to dispose of the ball but did so by throwing it with his left hand along the ground. The camera was zoomed right on it....play on. Goes way against the rule you quoted. Looks like it is rules on the run.