Match Thread. Swans v Geelong.

[Bangalore Swans]

A simpleton view of what happened 30 years ago to say the least..... go and read some well researched history of what happened back then before you start trying to use that to suggest some idea of an 'us' vs 'them' attitude.

Ok. Please enilghten me of what happened 30 years ago. In the words of Sharon Osbourne “please educate me”.

I’m just over the Swans community constantly looking over their shoulder for some silly smoking gun that the AFL is running a conspiracy against them and that the Swans are hard done by.

As for that individual who called me pompous, well I can be some times and won’t apologise.

I’ve seen “The Bloods” very measured report on Rowbottom. I want “The Bloods” to report on two of his favourites Stephens and J-Mac

I really like J-Mac as a football. Strong kick, brilliant run and toughness.

[MattW]

I’m puzzled that several on here say that. I’d be pleased if you were right. But I’ve listened to the video repeatedly and, though very difficult to hear, it sounds like ‘not 15’ to me.

Meg, you have motivated me to re-listen and he does indeed clearly explain to Cameron, once the play has ended, that it was 'not 15'. OK.

But what is that incessant shouting going on while the ball was in mid-air? At the time, and for the first ten times on replay, it sounded like 'touched, play on' over and over. Now, I'm not so sure. I have tried to make it sound like 'not 15' but can't. Now, it mostly sounds like maniacal barracking.

Anyway. There were at least three times during the game when they called 'not 15' in mid-air, both them and us, and it seemed to me like the flight of the ball was at least 15 metres.

[Meg]

Match Thread. Swans v Geelong.

Biased as I am, the last mark to Cameron was just that. The umpire called it "not 15" way too early, as it clearly ended up traveling far enough.

That’s how it seems to me as well.

But one particular umpiring error in a match doesn’t decide the outcome. Even Chris Scott acknowledged that. This one is focused on because it occurred in the final seconds of the match. There were plenty of other debatable decisions over the course of the game.

In any case had Cameron been awarded the mark there is no guarantee he would have kicked the goal. There were six seconds on the clock. By the time he took the shot the siren would have sounded so he would not have been allowed to run off his mark. That would then have been a very difficult shot. Cameron is probably as likely as any player in the league to get the goal - but it is no certainty.

Geelong’s poor goal kicking cost them the match and in particular Tom Hawkins. So nice to see our players kick accurately - which has not always been the case.

[Mel_C]

An amazing level of self control Mel - I would well and truly have been telling them what I thought, irrespective of the occasion.

Yeah I know it was hard. But I was more excited to farewell McVeigh, Jack, Grundy and Smith ????.

[TheBloods]

I’ve seen “The Bloods” very measured report on Rowbottom. I want “The Bloods” to report on two of his favourites Stephens and J-Mac

I really like J-Mac as a football. Strong kick, brilliant run and toughness.

Jmac has smarts, gets into the right spots uses it well runs hard classy finisher. Perfect wingman. Will have quiet games but he will show himself to be a star in that role.

Stephens inside outside mid. Played more inside in SANFL. Wins a lot of the ball runs hard has elite running patterns. Always leading , presenting, creating.

BOth young stars

[Industrial Fan]

How about the call telling Hayward to play on when all he did was stand up after a mark? Because he fumbled the ball as he got up (the umpire was right there) the ump called play on.

Hayward obviously didn’t know that he had elected to play on because he clearly hadnt.

Interestingly in that case the commentary team said was only because it may have been touched off the boot. In field mics clearly pick up the umpire saying “you elected to play on”

Pretty clear contrast to the Cameron one imo.

The incident in referring to was right towards the end of the second qtr.

[mcs]

Ok. Please enilghten me of what happened 30 years ago. In the words of Sharon Osbourne “please educate me”.

I’m just over the Swans community constantly looking over their shoulder for some silly smoking gun that the AFL is running a conspiracy against them and that the Swans are hard done by.

As for that individual who called me pompous, well I can be some times and won’t apologise.

I’ve seen “The Bloods” very measured report on Rowbottom. I want “The Bloods” to report on two of his favourites Stephens and J-Mac

I really like J-Mac as a football. Strong kick, brilliant run and toughness.

I'm sure someone on here can provide a link to a good book or website that goes into much more detail around the narrative of that whole period, that explains why many on here have long memories indeed, in particular in relation to a couple of clubs, but also a few of the personalities in the game at the time.

And lol - a measured report incorporates surely more than 7 words....
- - - Updated - - -

How about the call telling Hayward to play on when all he did was stand up after a mark? Because he fumbled the ball as he got up (the umpire was right there) the ump called play on.

Hayward obviously didn’t know that he had elected to play on because he clearly hadnt.

Interestingly in that case the commentary team said was only because it may have been touched off the boot. In field mics clearly pick up the umpire saying “you elected to play on”

Pretty clear contrast to the Cameron one imo.

The incident in referring to was right towards the end of the second qtr.

That Hayward one was utterly absurd - had forgotten about that one lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I know it was hard. But I was more excited to farewell McVeigh, Jack, Grundy and Smith ????.

Very true- that was a grand retiring class from our perspective. Interesting to note three of the four came from very, very humble beginnings, and at least 2 of them looked for an extended period that they'd never be much more then fringe dwellers. Useful reminder of how early signs are far from the be all and end all.

[

[giant]

Biased as I am, the last mark to Cameron was just that. The umpire called it "not 15" way too early, as it clearly ended up traveling far enough.

Also, they then missed a clear free on Selwood collecting RB high. And then of course he whinged about a HTB, but lets just call that two missed frees.

To be fair to ump, the ball seemed to float on after - was clearly over 15m but. OTOH may be the only decision that bald prat has given in our favour in the last decade.

Ripping win, great team performance, can't quite believe I wasn't there...the SCG looked AMAZING on TV.

[barry]

"outsiders", "on the couch" and "footy classified" (Monday only) are the only decent anaylsis shows, but they just repeat the same stuff in all 3.

What id like to see on kayo is a once a week 1/2 hour show doing an AFL360 analysis of just swans and giants. 15 mins each.

[Matty10]

Match Thread. Swans v Geelong.

That Hayward one was utterly absurd - had forgotten about that one lol.

I was more aggrieved with the non-decision on Papley’s tackle with just over a minute to go in the third quarter (particularly with the context of how they were paying holding the ball - e.g. the ridiculous decision against Heeney on the wing in the first quarter). That missed decision plus the one against Lloyd in a marking contest directly cost us two goals. Geelong have nothing to complain about.

[Blood Fever]

I was more aggrieved with the non-decision on Papley’s tackle with just over a minute to go in the third quarter (particularly with the context of how they were paying holding the ball - e.g. the ridiculous decision against Heeney on the wing in the first quarter). That missed decision plus the one against Lloyd in a marking contest directly cost us two goals. Geelong have nothing to complain about.

Agree. Lions were robbed at Cats home ground earlier in the year after a clear holding the ball was not paid in the goal square. Swings and roundabouts.

[mcs]

Agree. Lions were robbed at Cats home ground earlier in the year after a clear holding the ball was not paid in the goal square. Swings and roundabouts.

Precisely. And that's without thinking about the cushy ones they got all night otherwise last night.

As always, a nice write up from these guys of the game - always pretty balanced.

https://themongrelpunt.com/afl-season-2021/2021/05/02/sydney-v-geelong-the-mongrel-review/

[Bexl]

I was more aggrieved with the non-decision on Papley’s tackle with just over a minute to go in the third quarter (particularly with the context of how they were paying holding the ball - e.g. the ridiculous decision against Heeney on the wing in the first quarter). That missed decision plus the one against Lloyd in a marking contest directly cost us two goals. Geelong have nothing to complain about.

Yep totally right.

[crackedactor 01]

That’s how it seems to me as well.

But one particular umpiring error in a match doesn’t decide the outcome. Even Chris Scott acknowledged that. This one is focused on because it occurred in the final seconds of the match. There were plenty of other debatable decisions over the course of the game.

In any case had Cameron been awarded the mark there is no guarantee he would have kicked the goal. There were six seconds on the clock. By the time he took the shot the siren would have sounded so he would not have been allowed to run off his mark. That would then have been a very difficult shot. Cameron is probably as likely as any player in the league to get the goal - but it is no certainty.

Geelong’s poor goal kicking cost them the match and in particular Tom Hawkins. So nice to see our players kick accurately - which has not always been the case.

Excellent point made. If he had been awarded the mark he would have kicked from the point post on the boundary line with the inability to play on after the siren. It would almost be an impossible goal.

[Thunder Shaker]

Geelong should stop being so salty, learn to kick straight and get a better conversion rate in front of goal. 12.16 is pretty poor from 65 inside 50s (18% of inside 50s resulting in goals). The opposition scored 14.6 from 39 inside 50s (36%). Scrutiny should be placed on Geelong's forwards and the delivery to them, not the umpires.