Match Day Rnd 14 Sydney V Essendon. SCG 19.50 pm.
Collapse
X
-
There was a quick shot of Nick in the coach's box just after the game. He seemed almost overcome with emotion. Whether he had been caught in the rollercoaster of the game, or whether his mind was flooded with 2005, I don't knowComment
-
Comment
-
But you know what ?? WE WON!!! as I keep saying here week in week out - we only have to win by 1 point!! Sure it strains your heart, you age 10 years each game and we need the percentage but how bloody good was that??
And I now feel that if we can keep this up, we will be there in September!! (And I will have to have a serious talk with my extended family member who's wedding is on Grand final day !) this season is totally nuts - anything is possible!!I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure..................
Chickens drink - but they don't pee!
AGE IS ONLY IMPORTANT FOR TWO THINGS - WINE & CHEESE!Comment
-
Comment
-
Interesting how Talking Footy tonight mostly ignored our game against Essendon. There was more discussion about media & their interaction with clubs (ie BT being snubbed by the Swans).Comment
-
Luke Parker, Sydney Swans, has been charged with striking Mark Baguley, Essendon, during the first quarter of the Round 14 match between the Sydney Swans and Essendon, played at the SCG on Friday June 23, 2017.
In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Essendon Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the body. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction.
Dane Rampe, Sydney Swans, has been charged with a first offence for wrestling against Joe Daniher, Essendon, during the second quarter of the Round 14 match between the Sydney Swans and Essendon, played at the SCG on Friday June 23, 2017.
In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
A first offence for wrestling is a $1500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to a accept a $1000 sanction. .
Joe Daniher, Essendon, has been charged with a first offence for wrestling against Dane Rampe, Sydney Swans, during the second quarter of the Round 14 match between Essendon and the Sydney Swans, played at the SCG on Friday June 23, 2017.
In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.
A first offence for wrestling is a $1500 sanction. An early plea enables the player to a accept a $1000 sanction.
--------------
Luke retaliated to Baguley with a forearm jab in a little push-and-shove off the ball . In the light of Schofield's suspension (West Coast) for a similar strike to Oliver (Melb) Luke is fortunate that his jab wasn't a little higher or that Baguley didn't fall to the ground (as did Oliver). I fully empathise with the urge to retaliate when provoked but so often it is the one that retaliates who gets the penalty.Comment
-
... Luke retaliated to Baguley with a forearm jab in a little push-and-shove off the ball . In the light of Schofield's suspension (West Coast) for a similar strike to Oliver (Melb) Luke is fortunate that his jab wasn't a little higher or that Baguley didn't fall to the ground (as did Oliver). I fully empathise with the urge to retaliate when provoked but so often it is the one that retaliates who gets the penalty.He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
Yeah, having seen the vision, I am somewhat surprised that it was assessed as contact to the body. I thought he got him high (and might be in danger of missing a week).Comment
-
I think Luke, the Swans and we have dodged a bullet. Hope Luke realises that. It was very out-of-character for Luke - but then I think so was Bachar's strike on Lamb when Bachar was pretty clearly trying to shake off Lamb when Lamb was holding on to him. Now Bachar is facing several weeks suspension. Players need to have very calm heads under a lot of pressure - not easy.Comment
-
Comment
-
The problem with the 2 goal reviews was that it wasn't clear whether the ball had fully crossed the line before it was touched. And "the line" includes the goal post padding. I can't tell with Jack's one but Buddy's definitely looked like it was a goal. But also the goal umpire's initial call was touched for both so because it wasn't clear it would have been umpires call. Surely there is technology that can display a line between the posts to make it clear??
In the replay, the ball clearly went behind the defender's hand.
It was very incorrectly called.
Another example of the umpires having it in for us.Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
I dont think the umpires were unfair to us on goal review. There simple wasnt conclusive evidence to over turn the goal umpires call.
If the goal ump said goal first, they would have been goals.
The problem is the rule and implementation. They simply need high speed camera's to get rid of the bluring. That will enable the reviewer to make a clear call.Comment
-
That is not correct. Not at home, but tonight I'm going to work out how to pull video from my new pvr and settle this once and for all.Comment
Comment