Match Day Thread Rnd 22 Adelaide V Sydney. Adelaide Oval 19.50 pm. Or 19.20 ACST.

[Meg]

Match Day Thread Rnd 22 Adelaide V Sydney. Adelaide Oval 19.50 pm. Or 19.20 ACST.

The media reporting of what Hayden Kennedy said about the Betts' tackle on Mills has been misleading (or at the very least the headline to articles has been misleading).

Kennedy said the ump should have called play-on and I agree with that (although looking at the replay the ump barely had time to get the words out before Betts tackled). What Kennedy did NOT say is that the 50-metre penalty was a mistake.

In my view as play-on had not been called, Betts erred in making the tackle (and he has been playing long enough to know he MUST wait for the play-on call). And therefore the 50-metre penalty was correct (if tough under the circumstances).

There is another technical point that I have been mulling over. The protected zone extends to include a 5-metre semi-circle behind the player taking the kick. Betts was not on the mark - so therefore I assume he should be classed as behind the player with the kick. While he couldn't have been expected to disappear magically in the split second it took for Mills to play on, it seems to me he should not be able to tackle as he was in the 5-metre semi-circle behind Mills. (As distinct from a player in front of Mills who could have legitimately tackled had play-on be called.)

Does anyone have an informed view? (I get a bit nerdy trying to understand the rules.)

[Matty10]

There is another technical point that I have been mulling over. The protected zone extends to include a 5-metre semi-circle behind the player taking the kick. Betts was not on the mark - so therefore I assume he should be classed as behind the player with the kick. While he couldn't have been expected to disappear magically in the split second it took for Mills to play on, it seems to me he should not be able to tackle as he was in the 5-metre semi-circle behind Mills. (As distinct from a player in front of Mills who could have legitimately tackled had play-on be called.)

Mine is not an informed view, but I was thinking the same thing - although we could be classified as apologists on this front.

The third alternative for the umpire would be to blow the whistle and just reset the players, noting that Mills was technically forward of the mark (this used to happen more frequently - although it did seem farcical at times), while Betts was indeed over it. This may not have worked in this instance, as Mills was only marginally in from of the mark - and then played on.

There probably wasn't enough time for Betts to clear the space either. If you imagine this in open play, with two players running with the flight, if the first continued running after catching the ball, the second player should reasonably be allowed to tackle his opponent without waiting for an umpire's call - even if approaching from behind.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[barry]

Imagine if the ump had penalised mills. It would be a 29-13 penalty count and a holding the ball without the play on call. Robbery.

[Mountain Man]

I recall the mark that Tippett took in the 1st qtr. By the time he had collected himself he had moved some 10 meters from the spot - a 'play on' call would have been harsh, but maybe justified

[penga]

Penga, that's not a big call. It's purely delusional! In our future, Gary Ablett will be referred to as a past Isaac Heeney!

[penga]

There is another technical point that I have been mulling over. The protected zone extends to include a 5-metre semi-circle behind the player taking the kick. Betts was not on the mark - so therefore I assume he should be classed as behind the player with the kick. While he couldn't have been expected to disappear magically in the split second it took for Mills to play on, it seems to me he should not be able to tackle as he was in the 5-metre semi-circle behind Mills. (As distinct from a player in front of Mills who could have legitimately tackled had play-on be called.)

Does anyone have an informed view? (I get a bit nerdy trying to understand the rules.)

I was pondering this, also. Where, in essence, Betts was "offside".

[swannymum]

Seems a lot of attention on Buddy's long run before the goal and the Mills incident, yet no real interest in the ridiculous imbalance in application of frees in the other 99% of the game. Why do we have to put up with this rubbish?

[111431]

don't worry about all the reasons why we may have rec'd frees - we won the game and that's all that counts

[longmile]

Seems a lot of attention on Buddy's long run before the goal and the Mills incident, yet no real interest in the ridiculous imbalance in application of frees in the other 99% of the game. Why do we have to put up with this rubbish?

Agreed

Been seeing some #freekickswans hashtags now and its completely ridiculous. We have a higher against free kick count than for and we are perpetually rubbed out of big games (or attempted to) by umpires in the last year or two. Media perpetuating a false bias and its ridiculous and in fact insulting after the GF last year with such little attention paid to that

[crackedactor]

Seems a lot of attention on Buddy's long run before the goal and the Mills incident, yet no real interest in the ridiculous imbalance in application of frees in the other 99% of the game. Why do we have to put up with this rubbish?

I would even settle for an explanation of the Charlie Cameron free kick in the 3rd quarter. I have watched it ten times and still believe it should have been a push in the back to Lloyd, but unbiased umpire said it was a Cameron free kick.
WTF?

[ugg]

A different angle of Papley's winning goal. Incredibly lucky or pure skill?!

Frame by frame. Shoulder of God. pic.twitter.com/BxMDNQZDJg

— Scott (@RestingPlayers) August 21, 2017

[RogueSwan]

A different angle of Papley's winning goal. Incredibly lucky or pure skill?!

His skill created his luck?
Skill-wise he put himself in a good position and was looking for Franklin to knock it forward to him and luck in that everyone miss judged the flight of the ball and it landed in Tom's hands (via his shoulder)

[Sandrevan]

The day we drop towers, is the day we kiss the premiership goodbye.
Horse knows it, and deep down you all know it too.

What's with the love affair with Dean Towers. He has strung some games together this year which is great. I, along with many others thought he was pretty ordinary against Adelaide and could be dropped for Newman to come back in.

Sincere question - What makes you so confident Dean won't be dropped? Do you know something none of us do? Please enlighten us.

[crackedactor]

A different angle of Papley's winning goal. Incredibly lucky or pure skill?!

Frame by frame. Shoulder of God. pic.twitter.com/BxMDNQZDJg

? Scott (@RestingPlayers) August 21, 2017

90% skill and 10% luck. Was in the right place at the right time and instincts made him push forward knowing that he may get a knock on from Buddy towards goals. Personally speaking I believe Papley is something special and will be for years to come. I am imagining we will be singing the praises of him and Haywood in future as they destroy defences.

[penga]

What's with the love affair with Dean Towers. He has strung some games together this year which is great. I, along with many others thought he was pretty ordinary against Adelaide and could be dropped for Newman to come back in.

Sincere question - What makes you so confident Dean won't be dropped? Do you know something none of us do? Please enlighten us.

He's baiting.