#AFL Round 6, Swans vs Cats, 1:45pm 28/04 Kardinia Park #AFLCatsSwans

[Bloods05]

It's going be difficult replacing him when he retires. Mitchell would have been perfect for this. We have plenty of great mids but none who will replace him.

Heeney. Watch him.

[Beerman]

I think that's a bit of a dickhead comment from Cornes. "Raised an eyebrow", maybe, but "laughed"?

I took it positively - it was in the context of them being very inexperienced, unestablished players. I don't think he meant to deride their ability.

The previous time we beat Geelong at Kardinia Park (ages ago - way back in 2017) JPK didn't play.

It's easy to say a team is too dependent on a particular player when they've just put in a BOG performance but I reckon our team is even enough that they're not overly dependent on any individual. When someone is missing, others step up more often than not.

That's true. My comment was more driven by the fact that (a) it drives me crazy when our supposedly elite midfield gets beaten by an inferior team and we lose the game and (b) it drives me even crazier when the media talk about the swans being "too buddy-focused", or "too dependent on buddy". It's simply not true.

[Nico]

Coaches votes

Kennedy 9
Sinclair 9
Kelly 5
Lloyd 3
Stewart 3
Heeney 1

Breakdown

Kennedy Sinclair 5-4
Kelly 3-2
Lloyd Stewart 2-1 or 3-0
Heeney 1-0

Jake Lloyd! wow! Don't coaches take into account poor disposal. Out on full anyone. He was very accurate with his kicks. Excelled at hitting Geelong players on the chest.

- - - Updated - - -

So the AFL says that the goal given to Hayward in the 3rd quarter was a mistake by the person upstairs. You win some and you lose some.

[Meg]

So the AFL says that the goal given to Hayward in the 3rd quarter was a mistake by the person upstairs. You win some and you lose some.

Where did you read/hear that, please? I haven?t seen it reported (although plenty of reports of coach/fans fuming).

[Scottee]

What does the AFL know. It was Hayward's.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[707]

We've been on the wrong end of numerous score reviews, goals getting overturned on almost no real evidence etc. Nice to have one go our way :-)

[dimelb]

What does the AFL know. It was Hayward's.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

Funny, I ended up deciding it was Heeney's, assuming we have the same goal in mind. In one of the replays, apparently in line with the post and the boundary, you can see Heeney giving the ball a nudge with his heel as he goes past and turns his head to watch it go over. But I could be mistaken, and it's not surprising to see it go to Hayward who also played a fine game.

[barry]

I get the feeling the goal review is now favouring a goal unless strong evidence against it.

Heeney is the only one who could have scored, but he didn't seem to plead his case much.

[stevoswan]

What does the AFL know. It was Hayward's.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

Which he kicked after the ball had virtually crossed the line.....we had a win there (for a change!) but the score reviewers really need to lift their game and see actual reality.......it's mind boggling how many times they get reviews totally wrong. It begs the question......does the AFL train their officials to be totally frustratingly useless?

[jono2707]

Or maybe it's just people (not robots), doing their best with limited technology, trying to work out things which aren't always cut and dried.

The NRL faces the same issues, probably more so, with officials increasingly hesitant to make onfield calls when video replay is available (but not always conclusive).

[CureTheSane]

Regardless of whether it was a goal or not, it shouldn't have been awarded.
Should have been umpire's call.
But I'll take it

[bloodspirit]

It is always hard to see what everyone on the field is doing when watching on television. I couldn't see what Robinson's role was: was he running with someone? People are being quick to write him off, but continuity of games has done wonders for Towers, for example. Cunningham, too, has owned his role as linkman, perhaps thanks to getting long strings of games. I'm not necessarily a Robinson booster (I think that he probably won't get too many more games, esp with O'Riordan pressing and Dawson to make his return), but feel a bit for him.
Rohan looked very good: tackle, pressure, and that play along the wing when he handballed to himself and then screwed that inboard kick was a matchbreaker for me. Terrific stuff.
Sinclair was BOG however. Just magnificent, competing and winning the taps, roving his own ball, and clunking big marks along the wing. What a game. He looked so pumped at the end. My hero. And as for McVeigh . . . brilliant game.

Great post! Especially the balanced comments about Robinson. I have been a Robinson fan but was dismayed about his output on the weekend and I really appreciate and agree with the comments you made about him. I suspect he's been overtaken and is going to be delisted at the end of the year but we shouldn't be too quick to jump to that conclusion; he may turn it around yet as others have when they've had a better run at it. If he is delisted (getting far ahead of myself now) but I hope he gets another opportunity somewhere else (the Suns?) and makes a good go of it.

[bloodspirit]

It's going be difficult replacing him when he retires. Mitchell would have been perfect for this. We have plenty of great mids but none who will replace him.

Hewett is still young and trending very well - 5th in B&F last year, no less. Like JPK he is big bodied and a contested ball winner, albeit not at JPK's level, at this stage (but who is?). Dawson shows promise. And as another poster pointed out, we have Heeney, and probably Mills destined for our midfield in seasons to come.

[Scottee]

Funny, I ended up deciding it was Heeney's, assuming we have the same goal in mind. In one of the replays, apparently in line with the post and the boundary, you can see Heeney giving the ball a nudge with his heel as he goes past and turns his head to watch it go over. But I could be mistaken, and it's not surprising to see it go to Hayward who also played a fine game.

There was one frame in the replay in line with the goals showing Hayward's foot in contact with the ball whilst about 5% of the ball was still over the line.Over the line is still in.Dems da rules![emoji6]

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Meg]

There was one frame in the replay in line with the goals showing Hayward's foot in contact with the ball whilst about 5% of the ball was still over the line.Over the line is still in.Dems da rules![emoji6]

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

However Hayward?s foot was also over the line and I?ve read someone claiming that the foot has to be completely behind the line for it to be a goal. I don?t know if that is correct - anyone else?