Autopsy Loss to Sydney - quite literally no words will adequately sum this up

Remove this Banner Ad

Trying to piece this one together as well. Same concept is mentioned in the AFL playing conditions also, and also that "a team official" has to advise the number of the player coming off before they come off:
View attachment 1692075
View attachment 1692076
So if our official has to notify of the 76th interchange before it happens (and no-one has suggested they failed to), what the hell else does "approve" mean, if not that you'd disapprove the illegal change before it happens also? It's in absolutely no-one's interests for a game to turn on a free and 50 like this if it can be proactively prevented, and the natural read of those laws seems to suggest it should be.

But as bad as the look is for the entire sport, technical restrictions may well have been breached, and the penalty might have been correct to the letter of the law. Zoning in solely on that does a disservice to a performance from our side that absolutely deserved to see them walk off winners, and that will hopefully serve as the breakout game we need to finally escape this interminable rut. It also masks how utterly pathetic the umpiring in the first half in particular was, when HTB laws changed depending on the colour of the ball-carrier's jumper, blatant throws were ignored, and medical staff were penalised for the audacity of trying to attend to the welfare of a player who'd just been whacked in the head. Whatever the right outcome was re: the interchange infringement, everyone here is wholly justified in their anger at what we had to contend with today. Hopefully that too galvanises us.


Covered in the league's playing conditions - I guess because the cap doesn't apply in lower competitions?
View attachment 1692081

Great, this was the missing piece for me and it raises just as many questions
 
Anybody know what the average age of the team we fielded today was? Must be one of the younger teams we've had for a while. Hall probably hurts it a little. I single out Hall because of our 30 + crop, he is the obvious one that is NOT apart of our future.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The sweet isn’t as sweet without the sour.

There’s only so much ****ing sour one can take though.

Feel for Clarko & the boys that we couldn’t get it done.
At least it wasn’t a 12 goal loss though.
That’s a heartbreaker.
Building resilience.
The players will take a lot from that & we have some absolute jet kids.
We will add two (possibly three with Buckets compo pick) first rounders in a few months time.

Tarryn had another 28 disposals, 8 tackles & a goal in the ressies too.

The sweet times will come.
It will turn around before you know it.
Stick fat.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Section 7 of the rules of the game don’t seem to specify what the umpire’s response should be after the interchange steward notifies them that a team has exceeded 75.
Utterly bizarre stuff.
I know you guys don't really want interlopers after a heartbreak, but the weird world of AFL rules always suckers me in...
While section 7 of the LAws doesn't list anything about the punishment, the AFL Regulations does. 12.9 C covers the cap.
It's poorly worded (like most AFL rules) but that's where the extra info is
 
Interesting Fox showed the replay and audio leading up to the free kick and there were no interchanges happening at the time...so presumably the 76th interchange happened some time before that. Would have made a difference if it was called earlier when the ball wasnt in the Swans forward line...
AFL would have instructed the interchange steward to wait until Sydney were in scoring range.

Unless it’s called when it happens, that rule is a cluster****. Conceivable the infringement was made a minute before they paid it.
 
Angry Comedy Central GIF by South Park
Hang in there brother. As frustrating as it was today we're on our way.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Loss to Sydney - quite literally no words will adequately sum this up

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top