Swans v Blues Live Match thread

[Markwebbos]

Bag the umpires all you want, but the Swans players gave away some ill-disciplined 50-metre penalties. 50-metre penalties don't usually happen with good discipline and self-control.

There was only really the one by Mills that had any impact. I wouldn’t call it I’ll disciplined, but it did come after the bizarre Betts free (and 50 that made little difference)

[Agent 86]

Warner is a great talent but occasionally has a rush of blood and makes decisions that backfire

I'd prefer that he keeps backing himself. More often than not can break tackles & sets up some good movement. Difficult to do from a standing start tho… & that one was dumb. Reckon he'll only get better

[Agent 86]

Bag the umpires all you want, but the Swans players gave away some ill-disciplined 50-metre penalties. 50-metre penalties don't usually happen with good discipline and self-control.

Maybe – but there were quite a few perplexing decisions. We even had a little run of decisions our way, which ended in a soft free to Buddy. Evened things up somewhat, but would be better if they just paid the obvious ones. 50 free kicks in a game is too many no matter which way they go.

[Faunac8]

I'd prefer that he keeps backing himself. More often than not can break tackles & sets up some good movement. Difficult to do from a standing start tho… & that one was dumb. Reckon he'll only get better

Totally agree and I love his enthusiasm and willingness to have a go as well.
Taking the right option comes with experience which can only be gained by playing games and doing the odd thing wrong

[707]

Maybe – but there were quite a few perplexing decisions. We even had a little run of decisions our way, which ended in a soft free to Buddy. Evened things up somewhat, but would be better if they just paid the obvious ones. 50 free kicks in a game is too many no matter which way they go.

Way too many soft frees are paid that can alter momentum or change a result, less is better when it comes to the whistle. We have the benefit of the replay but some of the soft ones paid that on replay really weren't there give me the you know whats!

Posters are way too quick to pot players. Harry does a very good job most weeks, yesterday outstanding but there are often calls for him to be dropped which shows some posters look at stats to value players. Lloyd is a very good player, I've got no idea why some on here under rate him.

Thought Brand looked ok yesterday and as a mature 198cm negating FB, there's a place him in our side. Dawson keeps growing in influence every week, we must re-sign. Heeney was superb and switched, loved seeing the O'Loughlin kids out there and interactions with them by the players. Stephens has a way to go and McLean has regressed after a break out game two/three weeks ago. Sinkers did ok but we missed Hickey's influence.

Very good win yesterday, always nice to beat sides like Carlton and perpetuate their misery of another wasted year :-) Now to finally put an end to the Saints season.

[Thunder Shaker]

Maybe – but there were quite a few perplexing decisions. We even had a little run of decisions our way, which ended in a soft free to Buddy. Evened things up somewhat, but would be better if they just paid the obvious ones. 50 free kicks in a game is too many no matter which way they go.

I agree that the umpiring decisions were inconsistent. However, 50-metre penalties are not usually paid for any reason other than ill discipline. No matter how crap the original free was, it's best to pretend that the decision was fair and stand on the mark without bagging the umpire.

* If the focus of any critical language was shifted to the player ("What did I do wrong?") rather than abusing the umpire ("Your decision was rubbish!") then there won't be 50-metre penalties awarded for dissent (17.12(h)).
* If players stood the mark correctly where directed by the umpire (18.2(a)), did not encroach incorrectly on the protected area (18.2(d)), or returned the ball promptly and correctly to the opponent (18.2(e)) and so on, those 50-metre penalties would also not be awarded.
* And then there was Rampe climbing the goal post at the end of a close game against Essendon (17.11). Rampe was very lucky not to give away another 50-metre penalty there.

Numbers in parentheses are references to the Laws of Australian Football.

A little guidance and self-discipline can go a long way to reducing these unnecessary 50-metre penalties.

[111431]

Bag the umpires all you want, but the Swans players gave away some ill-disciplined 50-metre penalties. 50-metre penalties don't usually happen with good discipline and self-control.

i agree with this. We played some really dumb and undisciplined footy at times yesterday. it probably explained why Horse coached from the bench so he could give some very direct feedback when he dragged a few of them

[Nico]

I agree that the umpiring decisions were inconsistent. However, 50-metre penalties are not usually paid for any reason other than ill discipline. No matter how crap the original free was, it's best to pretend that the decision was fair and stand on the mark without bagging the umpire.

* If the focus of any critical language was shifted to the player ("What did I do wrong?") rather than abusing the umpire ("Your decision was rubbish!") then there won't be 50-metre penalties awarded for dissent (17.12(h)).
* If players stood the mark correctly where directed by the umpire (18.2(a)), did not encroach incorrectly on the protected area (18.2(d)), or returned the ball promptly and correctly to the opponent (18.2(e)) and so on, those 50-metre penalties would also not be awarded.
* And then there was Rampe climbing the goal post at the end of a close game against Essendon (17.11). Rampe was very lucky not to give away another 50-metre penalty there.

Numbers in parentheses are references to the Laws of Australian Football.

A little guidance and self-discipline can go a long way to reducing these unnecessary 50-metre penalties.

I am perplexed by this "protected zone" issue this year. What has happened to the rule of the player running past within 5 metres of the player taking the kick?

Does this rule still exist, for if it doesn't it has pretty much taken away the spirit of the "Stand" rule. If it is still a rule then why isn't being being adjudicated as such by the umpires? Players are running past within a metre of the player with the ball which negates the the Stand Rule, as it prevents the moving on of the ball quickly. It seems to happen a lot between the 2 arcs. And many times they are not following an opposition player.

[Ludwig]

i agree with this. We played some really dumb and undisciplined footy at times yesterday. it probably explained why Horse coached from the bench so he could give some very direct feedback when he dragged a few of them

Didn't Longmire coach from the bench from the beginning of the game? So he would have anticipated that we were going to play some really dumb and undisciplined footy going into the game. That's pretty clever of him.

[stevoswan]

Wow! Thanks for posting stevo! Was unaware of Riles' work but will follow closely from now on. Much better than the official AFL highlights packages because you don't have to put up with those annoying goals from opposition teams! GO BLOODS!

Exactly! We should all subscribe to Riles youtube channel! NB: I have no affiliation (apart from following the Swans).

[stevoswan]

McCartin had another pretty ordinary day on a tough opponent. It's interesting the leeway he gets on here, had Melican played that game most posters on here would be torching him.

FWIW I thought Brand played pretty well and should've had the job on McKay as he is more physically suited to the big boys

Yes, I thought McKay smashed Tom McC yesterday.....it wasn't his best day and lucky for him and the Swans, Harry's radar was off. Yesterday was a learning day for Tom.

[TheBloods]

Anyone defending that one sided umpiring yesterday needs to get their @@@@@@@ eyes checked ! They were out to get us the minute we hit the front

[stevoswan]

Bag the umpires all you want, but the Swans players gave away some ill-disciplined 50-metre penalties. 50-metre penalties don't usually happen with good discipline and self-control.

Taking a short step sideways and breaking the stupid 'standing' rule is ill disciplined? Sheese.

[Ludwig]

If the umpire calls 'stand' in the 300 millisecond time frame between the time the player has neurologically committed to moving and actually moves, the player is screwed, as he cannot prevent from moving off the mark. There also should be some accounting for the milliseconds it takes for the sound waves of the umpire's call reach the player's ear and processed by his brain. The stand rule is fatally flawed. It also discriminates against the hearing impaired and should be challenged in the courts.

The rules of the game need to be modified so they don't require whistles or verbalisations from the umpires. Without the background crowd noise, the constant whistle blowing is both annoying and makes the game seem puerile.

[Go Swannies]

If the umpire calls 'stand' in the 300 millisecond time frame between the time the player has neurologically committed to moving and actually moves, the player is screwed, as he cannot prevent from moving off the mark. There also should be some accounting for the milliseconds it takes for the sound waves of the umpire's call reach the player's ear and processed by his brain. The stand rule is fatally flawed. It also discriminates against the hearing impaired and should be challenged in the courts.

The rules of the game need to be modified so they don't require whistles or verbalisations from the umpires. Without the background crowd noise, the constant whistle blowing is both annoying and makes the game seem puerile.

Agree. So is the call of touched. There were at least three cases when the ball was called touched and the player didn't clearly hear it - Luke Parker's was the most obvious. Imagine if that was in the noise of a GF.