Were we actually robbed?

[gokangas]

Heard a discussion on the wireless over night suggesting we were robbed. According to them you can have another interchange after 75 for an injury. I forget the player that left the field but he had cramp - was that considered an injury? Some people were saying it isn't an injury others saying it is. Has this been discussed anywhere else yet? Is that right about being able to replace an injured player? Not sure which wireless station I was listening to in the early hours.

 

[Its a Process]

It has to be discussed and investigated. Do all interchanges up to that point that are a result of injury count to the 75? I.e George’s head knock etc.?

 

[Engimal v3]

No. A cramp isn't an injury.

 

[koshari]

Iam with Ratts,

We need to improve, either souva, sheez or wardlaw converts one of those easy shots and we were home,

 

[muttley45]

My nephew tells me Will Phillips coming off for blood rule may have been judged as an interchange, any of our experts have an opinion ?

 

[Reagan Smash]

Convert the easy shots and we wouldn’t be talking about it this morning

 

[DaveyBoy123]

Didn't matter guys... Somehow we decided to make a 77th interchange after all of that... And it's actually the poor Swans who were robbed of another free kick & 50 metre penalty..

Powell came on (for Phillips) for all of 1 minute and then came straight back off (for Shiels).

Inexplicable!

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Didn't matter guys... Somehow we decided to make a 77th interchange after all of that... And it's actually the poor Swans who were robbed of another free kick & 50 metre penalty..

Powell came on (for Phillips) for all of 1 minute and then came straight back off (for Shiels).

Inexplicable!

It was a reversal of the 76th interchange.

 

[DarkPhoenix]

Yes we were robbed.

Just not by that call specifically.

 

[gokangas]

No. A cramp isn't an injury.

That was the main debate and opinion was divided. If it makes you unable to play and can result in serious damage then it's an injury. Interesting debate.

 

[desie]

Didn't matter guys... Somehow we decided to make a 77th interchange after all of that... And it's actually the poor Swans who were robbed of another free kick & 50 metre penalty..

Powell came on (for Phillips) for all of 1 minute and then came straight back off (for Shiels).

Inexplicable!

Yep, and us chucking all that rubbish on the field at the end was literally illegal disposal and only the Swans can do that, so they were robbed again.

 

[tales129]

Sheez kicks the sealer and we aren’t even worrying about the interchange infringement

 

[gokangas]

Sheez kicks the sealer and we aren’t even worrying about the interchange infringement

Yep. Or CCJ uses his body to protect his position on the wing and marks the ball instead of letting a player drop in front of him. Maybe same.

 

[Passmore]

No. A cramp isn't an injury.

Unless you're the one cramping....

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[Ashley B]

Please 77 changes AFL covering their asses . But regardless of this when we were on top we need to keep going and it wouldn’t be an issue . Everyone knows the AFL have the Swans back . Must be great barracking for them knowing this . Wonder what it would be like only thing is we would have to go to the Gold Coast to find out.

 

[Val Keating]

I reckon the full on footy nuffies will love investigating this one.

First step would be to go over the tape and count every interchange and check if the number is correct.

Find out if the interchange official is supposed to inform the team that they have reached the threshold.

Look into what qualifies technically by the rules as an interchange. It’s it simply a the swaps of players from the bench to the ground no matter what the reason, blood rule, injury.

Because of the way our season is going I can’t find myself caring too much either way.

It has to be investigated though, because I’d hate for an important game to be decided wrongly in the future.

 

[giantroo]

 

[scottywiper]

They'd want tp be pretty certain they got it right. Having no margin for error seems risky. Its only just over 1%

 

[giantroo]

 

[hcd199]

Doesn't really cover cramp - 'medical assessment' means the 'can't return for 20 minutes' level, and has to be advised:

 

[gokangas]

View attachment 1692748
Doesn't really cover cramp - 'medical assessment' means the 'can't return for 20 minutes' level, and has to be advised:
View attachment 1692750

Thanks for that. I suppose it doesn't necessarily say whether cramp is considered an injury.

 

[hcd199]

Thanks for that. I suppose it doesn't necessarily say whether cramp is considered an injury.

Don't believe it specifies what is/isn't an injury anywhere - so in theory cramp could be considered one. There are further protocols around 'medical assessments' though, so wouldn't be as simple as just declaring one:

 

[JGreezy]

I think that we were the better side on the day but didn't get the points because of a technicality that had no impact on the game. It is what it is. I'm happy with our performance but we didn't get the points.

 

[TheKanga]

Yes
Bullshit rule that they would never apply in a big game with 80k+ in attendance.

A hefty fine would be sufficient.
Ruined a really good game.

 

[Boner Spirit]

Nobody is denying the interchange bungle more than the convenient application and placement of Sydney's free kick. Why not a free from the centre square?