Sydney 19 on the ground

[TheMase]

Isn't that a forfeit of match points, or does a head count have to happen during the game?

Has to happen during the game

 

[TheMase]

Give us the 4 points. Wont happen.Sydney = AFL Pets.

More likely won't happen because the AFL rules state so.

 

[Badesumofu]

What? The score shouldn't have been anything! How can you say it should have been a goal when a 19th player was directly involved in it?

 

[memberforever]

Ya shoulda manned up better........!!!!

Yeah there were four on the bench, they should have followed their man.

 

[giantroo]

If Simpson had asked for a headcount, what happens to the Sydney do they reset their score?

I think that's how it works.

 

[dmc333]

Exactly...led to that goal which was given a behind....

Sydney wins game....couldn't care less what they discover 15 days after the game....lets disect every single umpiring decision during the course of a game and reward premiership points on merit of decisions made after a review 16 weeks in...

Sydney won and were robbed....end of story

lol oops meant to say Behind

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

They got that shot at goal because they had 19 players on the field. Jolly has a possestion that led to the point that cost us 4 points.

Kirk.

/discussion.

Oh....and get over it

 

[Zvim]

lol That is pretty funny.

AFL should tell the Paul Roos to gtf back in the box and fix their sloppy bench, made mistakes twice this year already.

 

[That's deliberate]

You are a w***er

They got that shot at goal because they had 19 players on the field. Jolly has a possestion that led to the point that cost us 4 points.

They got that shot on goal because they were more desperate and better...you were not good enough to ice the game and you actually lost it...wake up

 

[Sico 17]

How can the Kangaroos interchange steward not know that Sydney put a player on the ground but didn't take one off?

 

[Captain Random]

Get angry, North. Take it to the AFL. It worked for Freo against the Saints.

 

[WatWouldCyrilDo]

Haha thats hilarious.

 

[The Teflon Dean]

How can the Kangaroos interchange steward not know that Sydney put a player on the ground but didn't take one off?

He did know, but apparently he's not allowed to mention it until the game is over.

 

[mattyh]

Silly mistake = yes, deliberate = of course NOT!!

Fine us $15,000 and lets move on.

 

[Superman_23]

I am still wondering why the guy ran onto the field when no-one came off? First game is no excuse, everyone knows you can't go on unless someone comes off.

 

[The Zebra]

Exactly...led to that goal which was given a behind....

Sydney wins game....couldn't care less what they discover 15 days after the game....lets disect every single umpiring decision during the course of a game and reward premiership points on merit of decisions made after a review 16 weeks in...

Sydney won and were robbed....end of story

You idiot.

Firstly, what angle have you seen that shows it was a goal? I have just seen the one - which is inconclusive - so based on that you definitely give the goal umpire the benefit of the doubt.

Secondly, without the 19th man - they wouldn't have even had the shot at goal.

 

[sharpie]

sydney should be appropriately fined for a breach of interchange - but that is it.

if you want the points - the north person controlling the interchanges should have got word to simpson to call a head count.

last time i remember a head count was guy mckenna - and sure enough there was 18 per side

 

[The Teflon Dean]

Sounds like it's time for the AFL Commission to overturn another match result.

Yep.

 

[theduckfan]

Kirk.

/discussion.

Oh....and get over it

Nothing will happen because its Sydney, i don't care we get 2 points but explain to me possestion by possestion how kirk got the ball

 

[giantroo]

Get angry, North. Take it to the AFL. It worked for Freo against the Saints.

Absolutely.

 

[TheMase]

Secondly, without the 19th man - they wouldn't have even had the shot at goal.

Wrong. Jolly was already on the ground. White, who came onto the field, had no possessions.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

You idiot.

Firstly, what angle have you seen that shows it was a goal? I have just seen the one - which is inconclusive - so based on that you definitely give the goal umpire the benefit of the doubt.

Secondly, without the 19th man - they wouldn't have even had the shot at goal.

Any chance you can prove that?

 

[weagles_fan]

Go back and play the game with 20 seconds to go

 

[The Zebra]

Kirk.

/discussion.

Oh....and get over it

get over it? It was revealed 15 minutes ago!!

I don't see how anyone can argue that a 19th man getting a possession from a kick out did not have an influence.

 

[The Teflon Dean]

if you want the points - the north person controlling the interchanges should have got word to simpson to call a head count.

Like I stated earlier, they interchange staff are not allowed to mention anything until the game is over.