Match Thread. Swans v Geelong.

[Bexl]

I used to refer to him as Forrest Gump when he was playing. I'm not sure much has changed. Lovely man but the Rhodes Scholarship is a way off yet.

A Rhodes scholarship is not a guaranty of a smart or decent person. Mike Fitzpatrick is one and as we ALL know he is a #$%^.

- - - Updated - - -

On the HS website, big headline alongside photo of Jeremy Cameron which reads "Were Cats robbed by controversial decision?" Beneath the photo is caption "Sydney staged a remarkable comeback in a thrilling finish, but an umpiring call in the dying seconds denied Geelong the chance to pinch the win. See the incident."
They will have egg on their faces when it's revealed they've missed umpire's touched - play on call before Cameron took that mark. I assume there'll be no mention of the favoured umpiring the Cats received all night (it's a paywall article - waste of money!)

The HS is an extremely biased paper. Ignore it.

- - - Updated - - -

On the HS website, big headline alongside photo of Jeremy Cameron which reads "Were Cats robbed by controversial decision?" Beneath the photo is caption "Sydney staged a remarkable comeback in a thrilling finish, but an umpiring call in the dying seconds denied Geelong the chance to pinch the win. See the incident."
They will have egg on their faces when it's revealed they've missed umpire's touched - play on call before Cameron took that mark. I assume there'll be no mention of the favoured umpiring the Cats received all night (it's a paywall article - waste of money!)

The HS is an extremely biased paper. Ignore it.

- - - Updated - - -

On the HS website, big headline alongside photo of Jeremy Cameron which reads "Were Cats robbed by controversial decision?" Beneath the photo is caption "Sydney staged a remarkable comeback in a thrilling finish, but an umpiring call in the dying seconds denied Geelong the chance to pinch the win. See the incident."
They will have egg on their faces when it's revealed they've missed umpire's touched - play on call before Cameron took that mark. I assume there'll be no mention of the favoured umpiring the Cats received all night (it's a paywall article - waste of money!)

The HS is an extremely biased paper. Ignore it.

- - - Updated - - -

On the HS website, big headline alongside photo of Jeremy Cameron which reads "Were Cats robbed by controversial decision?" Beneath the photo is caption "Sydney staged a remarkable comeback in a thrilling finish, but an umpiring call in the dying seconds denied Geelong the chance to pinch the win. See the incident."
They will have egg on their faces when it's revealed they've missed umpire's touched - play on call before Cameron took that mark. I assume there'll be no mention of the favoured umpiring the Cats received all night (it's a paywall article - waste of money!)

The HS is an extremely biased paper. Ignore it.

[Sandridge]

Regarding the last “mark” by Cameron, just watched the last 2 minutes, and the umpire is clearly yelling “touched, touched, play on” throughout its flight. The “not 15m” malarkey was made up by the commentators. At the ground you could hear nothing except screaming on all sides!

Have just listened to the last 30 seconds through headphones and I, too, thought I heard the umpire call out "touched." He's definitely calling out "play on" while the ball's in the air. Hopefully, this issue will be cleared up during the day! I think the Rowbottom incident right at the very end is nothing. How's he supposed to get rid of it with Selwood almost sitting on his head?

[MattW]

Have just listened to the last 30 seconds through headphones and I, too, thought I heard the umpire call out "touched." He's definitely calling out "play on" while the ball's in the air. Hopefully, this issue will be cleared up during the day! I think the Rowbottom incident right at the very end is nothing. How's he supposed to get rid of it with Selwood almost sitting on his head?

Me too - certainly sounded a lot more like 'touched' than 'not 15'. This has stemmed from Richardson's comment at the time.

Rowbottom should have gotten a free for a high tackle.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[Foreign Legion]

Epic night, epic win!

The atmosphere was amazing (except the BS music).

Clutch goals from Rowbottom and Papley on his left foot.

I know this has probably been mentioned even before your post Captain - congratulations to the Sydney crowd who were there last night.

It is one of the first games I have watched that felt like sport pre Covid. I might have to come up from Melbourne for a game I think!

[Thunder Shaker]

We won the game after being 28 points down after the first quarter. It's the biggest first-quarter deficit we have overcome since we overcame a 29-point deficit to defeat Richmond by nine points in round 13, 2017.

I found it very hard to hear what the umpire actually said in the final seconds before Cameron's non-mark due to the crowd noise. The umpire was very insistent though!

As for Rowbottom being tackled on the siren, the player tackling him on the ground was gripping him in a headlock with both knees. There is no way that was a legal tackle. Rowbottom should have got a free for contact over the shoulders. Isn't the head meant to be protected?

[Wardy]

On the HS website, big headline alongside photo of Jeremy Cameron which reads "Were Cats robbed by controversial decision?" Beneath the photo is caption "Sydney staged a remarkable comeback in a thrilling finish, but an umpiring call in the dying seconds denied Geelong the chance to pinch the win. See the incident."
They will have egg on their faces when it's revealed they've missed umpire's touched - play on call before Cameron took that mark. I assume there'll be no mention of the favoured umpiring the Cats received all night (it's a paywall article - waste of money!)

Interesting to hear what Whately says on 360 tomorrow night (being a Geelong man and Selwood devotee and all) I do hope that it’s acknowledged that the ump yelled “touched,touched” etc - won’t be holding my breathe though.

[Roadrunner]

Indeed!

A great night at the footy. The SCG crowd are really into it this year. Don't know if it's because we missed it so much last year, but they are really vocal. Good to see.

I'm not one for harping on about umpiring but by my reckoning Geelong got a goal after an obvious HTB not paid, casually threw one over the line without getting called deliberate and of course, the ludicrous deliberate against us that wasn't, near the end. So I don't reckon they have much to complain about on that score.

Hickey is so good to watch. Almost seems like the teams fortunes swing depending on whether he's on the field. They had a dip when he went off with a facial cut tonight, started scoring again as soon as he came back! McLean was really good tonight too.

Thought we were headed for a blowout after Q1, just a great fight back. Should give them plenty of confidence for Melbourne next week.

Spot on! We were awful in the 1st but fought back. The scoreboard flattered us a bit as we w ere mostly outplayed in Mho, but Hickey kept us in the game. The umpiring was terrible- I thought Geelong got all the close ones and we were a bit lucky towards the end. Great experience for our young boys, but I’m not getting carried away. Our midfield isn’t consistent yet and I suppose Mills had to be moved to help out our defence. I thought Mellican did his job but I don’t know why Lloyd doesn’t tighten up more on small forwards- he may be credited with a lot of possessions but is only average in my opinion. Overall we battled hard and that’s what won us the game.

[Thunder Shaker]

Further to my remarks about the free not paid to Rowbottom in the last seconds for high contact, the Laws of Australian Football are quite clear:

17.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT
...
17.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal;
...
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;

---

Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled:
a tackle by a Player where:
(a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees.

---

Holding a player by the head with both knees is not a legal tackle. Rowbottom could have received a free kick for either 17.3.2 (a) or 17.3.2 (c).

[dejavoodoo44]

I find the Cameron catch controversy, an interesting example, of just how prone to groupthink much of the AFL media is. I'm not sure if it's Victoria-centric bias or a natural tendency to go for controversy, rather than more mundane reality? Maybe a bit of both? For instance, there's probably a belief that Victorian fans make up the majority of the media market, so generating a controversy to pander to their bias, is more likely to get clicks and views.

But I still find it strange, that after the live callers mistakenly called it 'not 15', seemingly everybody else went with that. As far as I know, nobody pointed out that an umpire could be heard yelling, "touched play on, touched play on".

Hopefully the AFL will do a review of the incident and point that out. Although, on the other hand, there's a part of me that it would find it amusingly ironic, if Nicholls got demoted for making the correct decision, when for years, he's been driving fans crazy, with a relentless array of bewilderingly poor decisions.

[Wardy]

Further to my remarks about the free not paid to Rowbottom in the last seconds for high contact, the Laws of Australian Football are quite clear:

17.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT
...
17.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal;
...
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body;

---

Legal Tackle or Legally Tackled:
a tackle by a Player where:
(a) the Player being tackled is in possession of the football; and
(b) that Player is tackled below the shoulders and above the knees.

---

Holding a player by the head with both knees is not a legal tackle. Rowbottom could have received a free kick for either 17.3.2 (a) or 17.3.2 (c).

Add to that the clip across the head selwood gave him as well. But will that be acknowledged??? Not likely.

[Bangalore Swans]

I find the Cameron catch controversy, an interesting example, of just how prone to groupthink much of the AFL media is. I'm not sure if it's Victoria-centric bias or a natural tendency to go for controversy, rather than more mundane reality? Maybe a bit of both? For instance, there's probably a belief that Victorian fans make up the majority of the media market, so generating a controversy to pander to their bias, is more likely to get clicks and views.

But I still find it strange, that after the live callers mistakenly called it 'not 15', seemingly everybody else went with that. As far as I know, nobody pointed out that an umpire could be heard yelling, "touched play on, touched play on".

Hopefully the AFL will do a review of the incident and point that out. Although, on the other hand, there's a part of me that it would find it amusingly ironic, if Nicholls got demoted for making the correct decision, when for years, he's been driving fans crazy, with a relentless array of bewilderingly poor decisions.

My personal view is that many Swans supporters are becoming too AFL focused and are fostering this mentality that the Victorian AFL clubs and the AFL are against them. The AFL gave the Swans Ron Barassi and a chance to keep operating in the early 90s when crowds were empty, sponsorship was low and the team was losing 20 games in a row.

In the words of John Rambo or Frozen

“Let it go”. “Let it go”

Now back to the football. Brilliant that the Swans hung in there. Geelong were moving the ball better and had the stronger bodies.

I was watching a match up in the Cats backline where it was Gulden v Tom Stewart and McLean V Henderson. Steward and Henderson are very strong and hardened AFL footballers. I thought our guys would struggle to win a one on one. Suddenly McLean starts taking pack marks and beating Henderson one on one.

In football, if you keep competing with intensity then you are a chance.

[dejavoodoo44]

My personal view is that many Swans supporters are becoming too AFL focused and are fostering this mentality that the Victorian AFL clubs and the AFL are against them. The AFL gave the Swans Ron Barassi and a chance to keep operating in the early 90s when crowds were empty, sponsorship was low and the team was losing 20 games in a row.

In the words of John Rambo or Frozen

“Let it go”. “Let it go”

Now back to the football. Brilliant that the Swans hung in there. Geelong were moving the ball better and had the stronger bodies.

I was watching a match up in the Cats backline where it was Gulden v Tom Stewart and McLean V Henderson. Steward and Henderson are very strong and hardened AFL footballers. I thought our guys would struggle to win a one on one. Suddenly McLean starts taking pack marks and beating Henderson one on one.

In football, if you keep competing with intensity then you are a chance.

What happened thirty years ago is entirely irrelevant, when trying to work out why seemingly the entire AFL media got it wrong last night.

[Markwebbos]

The ABC also made the mistake of saying the umpire had called “play on, not 15” and they are meant to be accurate (I work for them).

It all comes back to Richo who got it half right.

If the umpire called play on as soon as it was kicked (which he did) then it was never going to be a mark.

End of the matter.

What do people make of that result? We were slaughtered statistically. In the second quarter I think we had 8 inside 50s for 5 goals 1. We only really got on top in Q3.

Getting some more players back (especially the Great Dane) would help against the Dees.

Was Mills playing back because of his defending or his leadership? I’m hoping return of Rampe would release him back to the midfield.

Can we all admit Hickey has exceeded our expectations by 1000%. Think the club needs to sell Wild Man Wigs.

According to the AFL, Cats benched Stanley as Hickey was destroying him and had to move Blicavs into the ruck

Hickey v Gawn should be quite the battle.

[Goal Sneak]

In the final seconds RB was very lucky and seemed to be assuming he would get a free for the high shot. Ump didn't see it that way.

If the siren hadn't sounded when it did, I think the ump may have paid holding the ball, mainly due to there being no attempt to clear it out. 1 or 2 more seconds and I'm sure he would've been pinged for holding the ball.

[stevoswan]

Me too - certainly sounded a lot more like 'touched' than 'not 15'. This has stemmed from Richardson's comment at the time.

Rowbottom should have gotten a free for a high tackle.

My thoughts exactly.....and as for the apparent 'howler' that the media is banging on about, I was disappointed to see on The Offsiders on the usually factual ABC this morning that they too were banging on about whether the kick went 15 metres! Do your effing research Offsiders and deal with facts! The ball (and the call) was 'touched'. Frustrating that so many want to diminish our teams achievement.