Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
So North are told they have one interchange left, but two come off at once - one because he is cramping, the other seemingly a regular interchange.
Am I missing something, but why didn't North interchange the cramping player and tell the other bloke to stay on the ground?
Not reading the whole thread, so apologies I'd already mentioned, but wasn't there a Nth Swans game about ten years ago when one team had 19 on the field?
To formulate and execute a plan that well would need a level of competence that hasn't been seen by NMFC for a very long time.North going the tank to make sure they are the bottom Vic club in the ND, tanking for Harley
If that happens in local football and the player count reveals an extra player on the field, you get your entire score wiped.Not reading the whole thread, so apologies I'd already mentioned, but wasn't there a Nth Swans game about ten years ago when one team had 19 on the field?
and North kicked one from a throw and one that was out of bounds.Another game full of unrewarded tackles and illegal disposal too. That umpiring crew is really bad. Swans kicked two in a row from throws.
How good was it!and North kicked one from a throw and one that was out of bounds.
Cramp is not considered an injury. Try again.This was a clear mistake by the AFL and its interchange steward.
Replacing injured players does NOT count towards the cap of 75.
North Melbourne had made 74 interchanges when 2 players approached the bench - one fit player who was replaced as the 75th interchange, and one player who is clearly incapacitated and unable to return to the game - he is allowed to be replaced as an injured player as it does not count against the cap.
I have no doubt though that this will be swept under the rug just like every other AFL controversy (eg Hawthorn racism).
Was great! As was the end result, along with the Hawks supporters taking this result harder than the Roos supporters.How good was it!
Brisbane would have got away with it. The 76th interchange would have been for a Brisbane injury within the rules of courseOnly North could lose a game like this.
I've just read section 7 of the laws of the game to work out what should happen and the issue is this: it literally just says the interchange warden should notify the AFL, not what the response should be.
View attachment 1692094
Honest question: is there any precedent for a free kick and 50 metre penalty being paid for this kind of infringement?
It just seems like the umpires decided they could make a penalty on the spot?
I don't think Hawk supporters need be too upset. From what I saw yesterday North will win a few games in the back half of the season (Just hope it's not against us). Everyone's saying how shit Sydney are but I think a bit of credit goes to North. There were some good signs.Was great! As was the end result, along with the Hawks supporters taking this result harder than the Roos supporters.
Footage from the bench
Sydney played in a controversial draw against North Melbourne at Telstra Dome in round 6 2008; it was later revealed that Sydney had nineteen men on the field for a brief period of play before, during and after the behind that tied the scores was scored.[13] As a direct consequence of this, the league amended the interchange laws in round 9, appointing interchange stewards to police the players and to signal to the field umpires if an infringement has occurred. Any infringement now results in a free kick being awarded.Not reading the whole thread, so apologies I'd already mentioned, but wasn't there a Nth Swans game about ten years ago when one team had 19 on the field?
So the thought is that North have to undo the 76th interchange, because it wasn't a legal change, so Sheil had to go back on the ground. But I haven't seen an official source confirm thatTRSF: ‘Bizarre’ vision of North bench breach, Dons’ late delight
Riley Beveridge and Kane Cornes bring you The Round So Far for round 10www.afl.com.au
6:00
North make a 77th interchange, and Sydney didn't recieve a free kick and 50 for it after the McLean goal.
Having Jesse White out there would’ve been a disadvantage for the Swans if anything.Yep, though more than 10 years ago as it was around 2008 I think, where Jesse White somehow wandered onto the field and started playing.
It is actually why the official interchange procedure came into effect as the AFL brought in some new rules to prevent 19 players being on the field again.
What about the 77th interchange a minute later?This was a clear mistake by the AFL and its interchange steward.
Replacing injured players does NOT count towards the cap of 75.
North Melbourne had made 74 interchanges when 2 players approached the bench - one fit player who was replaced as the 75th interchange, and one player who is clearly incapacitated and unable to return to the game - he is allowed to be replaced as an injured player as it does not count against the cap.
I have no doubt though that this will be swept under the rug just like every other AFL controversy (eg Hawthorn racism).
It was called at the next stoppage, which I believe is when they are told to call it (could be wrong). Other than for about 5 seconds when the ball was kicked to about 70m out, the last 50 seconds leading up to the free were played in North's defensive 50 so the free kick was always going to be taken on the goal line. It's not a conspiracy.Yeah we f’d up but the bigger issue is why’s it taking them over 30 seconds to tell the umpires… which just so happens to be on their goal line now.