Autopsy vs Sydney - Rd17

Remove this Banner Ad

Coaches have only themselves to blame when runners are banned. One of the 17 umpires out there should have had the stones to pay a free kick.
Spot on hilly

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
 
Meh, I find it hard to get too worked up about a SMH writer writing for a Sydney audience.

Blame Fairfax for gutting the newsroom so he's the only one they ever assign Swans games to.
He's a ****ing peanut

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Can't believe non of the umpire bashers picked up a free that wasn't given to us when there was a deliberate rushed behind. When the Swans guy kicked it backward but the ball was deemed to have been marked over the goals, the umps should have awarded a free kick against the Swans. The player (I forget who it was) was under no pressure, and had prior opportunity. The decision of whether the mark was taken or not was taken to the video review, and once it was deemed not to have been a mark a deliberate rushed behind should have been given. There is nothing in the rules that allows for leniency due to a player almost taking the ball!

FREE KICKS – DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS 15.8.1 When Awarded (a) A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to: (i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball; (ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and (iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player. 52 Laws of Australian Football 2018 15.8.2 Taking Free Kick A Free Kick awarded under Law 15.8.1 shall be taken from the middle of the Goal Square if it crossed the Goal Line or at the point where the football crossed the Behind Line.
 
Can't believe non of the umpire bashers picked up a free that wasn't given to us when there was a deliberate rushed behind. When the Swans guy kicked it backward but the ball was deemed to have been marked over the goals, the umps should have awarded a free kick against the Swans. The player (I forget who it was) was under no pressure, and had prior opportunity. The decision of whether the mark was taken or not was taken to the video review, and once it was deemed not to have been a mark a deliberate rushed behind should have been given. There is nothing in the rules that allows for leniency due to a player almost taking the ball!

FREE KICKS – DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS 15.8.1 When Awarded (a) A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to: (i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball; (ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and (iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player. 52 Laws of Australian Football 2018 15.8.2 Taking Free Kick A Free Kick awarded under Law 15.8.1 shall be taken from the middle of the Goal Square if it crossed the Goal Line or at the point where the football crossed the Behind Line.
I remember thinking that at the time, but then thought the umpires would of thought it was a mildly shanked kick...

It's another bullshit rule imo and you should be able to rush behinds (within reason) at anytime...

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Can't believe non of the umpire bashers picked up a free that wasn't given to us when there was a deliberate rushed behind. When the Swans guy kicked it backward but the ball was deemed to have been marked over the goals, the umps should have awarded a free kick against the Swans. The player (I forget who it was) was under no pressure, and had prior opportunity. The decision of whether the mark was taken or not was taken to the video review, and once it was deemed not to have been a mark a deliberate rushed behind should have been given. There is nothing in the rules that allows for leniency due to a player almost taking the ball!

FREE KICKS – DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS 15.8.1 When Awarded (a) A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to: (i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball; (ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and (iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player. 52 Laws of Australian Football 2018 15.8.2 Taking Free Kick A Free Kick awarded under Law 15.8.1 shall be taken from the middle of the Goal Square if it crossed the Goal Line or at the point where the football crossed the Behind Line.
Never even considered it. He was trying to hit a teammate across the face of goal and missed. Wasn’t trying to rush a behind.
 
Never even considered it. He was trying to hit a teammate across the face of goal and missed. Wasn’t trying to rush a behind.
it was a pretty good kick to make you think that! Its no different to trying to rush it through but it hits the point post and the umps call it deliberate out of bounds. As I stated, the law doesn't give leniency for a player being int vicinity of the kick.
 
Can't believe non of the umpire bashers picked up a free that wasn't given to us when there was a deliberate rushed behind. When the Swans guy kicked it backward but the ball was deemed to have been marked over the goals, the umps should have awarded a free kick against the Swans. The player (I forget who it was) was under no pressure, and had prior opportunity. The decision of whether the mark was taken or not was taken to the video review, and once it was deemed not to have been a mark a deliberate rushed behind should have been given. There is nothing in the rules that allows for leniency due to a player almost taking the ball!

FREE KICKS – DELIBERATE RUSHED BEHINDS 15.8.1 When Awarded (a) A Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player from the defending Team who intentionally Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the attacking Team’s Goal Line or Behind Line or onto one of the attacking Team’s Goal Posts. In assessing whether a Free Kick should be awarded under this Law, the field Umpire shall give consideration to: (i) whether the Player had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball; (ii) the distance of the Player from the Goal Line or Behind Line; and (iii) the degree of pressure being applied to the Player. 52 Laws of Australian Football 2018 15.8.2 Taking Free Kick A Free Kick awarded under Law 15.8.1 shall be taken from the middle of the Goal Square if it crossed the Goal Line or at the point where the football crossed the Behind Line.
If he kicked it clear through the goals its deliberate.
Allir got his hands to it after it passed the line therefore should have been a free kick to North from the top of the square.
Thats the rule.
Clear incompetence but its the AFL after all.
 
it was a pretty good kick to make you think that! Its no different to trying to rush it through but it hits the point post and the umps call it deliberate out of bounds. As I stated, the law doesn't give leniency for a player being int vicinity of the kick.
If you kick it along the line, there's a teammate in the vicinity and it rolls out it's not deliberate OOB (sorry, Insufficient Intent OOB). If there's noone there it is. Same.

Cmon mister umps-are-always-right, stick to your guns.
 
If you kick it along the line, there's a teammate in the vicinity and it rolls out it's not deliberate OOB (sorry, Insufficient Intent OOB). If there's noone there it is. Same.

Cmon mister umps-are-always-right, stick to your guns.
I only stick up for the umps when they are right. In this case they are wrong. The rule says if you intentionally kick the ball over the goal line its a free kick. The player did nothing to try and land the ball inside the field of play. If this is allowed then any payer can hand ball it through intentionally, as long as one of their players is close to the ball!
 
63 pressure acts, 6 tackles and a goal between them and Sydney ran the ball out of the back half with ease...

Meanwhile up the other end, real scoreboard pressure was being applied with ronke and Heyward- 7.3 to go with their 25 pressure acts.

Pressure acts are as useful as a chocolate teapot.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
As you said, pressure acts without scoreboard pressure only goes so far.
 
I only stick up for the umps when they are right. In this case they are wrong. The rule says if you intentionally kick the ball over the goal line its a free kick. The player did nothing to try and land the ball inside the field of play. If this is allowed then any payer can hand ball it through intentionally, as long as one of their players is close to the ball!
Well he did intentionally kick it, I'll give you that. Never looked like he was trying to rush a behind.
 
Did us for pace on the outside. The loss of Hartung and Jacobs really showed.

Anyone who says we should put the cue in the rack doesn't do football.
Like Essendon, Sydney really cut us up on the outside.

We so badly need another skilled pacy player who will run both ways. Off hand I can't think of any uncontracted players that fit that bill.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Well he did intentionally kick it, I'll give you that. Never looked like he was trying to rush a behind.
It's one of those ones that by the letter of the law its a free kick but in the spirit of the game its not. I'm more than happy for umps to referee the game and not referee the rules (does that make sense?).
 
It's one of those ones that by the letter of the law its a free kick but in the spirit of the game its not. I'm more than happy for umps to referee the game and not referee the rules (does that make sense?).
But it's not even the letter of the law. Makes it pretty clear that your intention has to be to put the ball over the line.
 
Like for the comment about Jack - immense is the word. Just an outstanding leader's game.

But I'm sick of being on the losing side of "great entertainment" games. I'm proud and happy to watch my team play fast, flowing football with forwards clunking big marks and big goals. And I want to see them get in front then lock the bloody thing down.
I went to the game , that is I caught the second half, and I can assure on what I saw, the tide will turn. If they keep the pressure on. Also, some pretty smart players in Cunnington and the two new blokes. If the pressure is good, they'll beat Collingwood.
 
Ronke is a seriously good player... shows how badly we lack a good crumbing small forward!! I don’t know how Sydney keep picking these players out of nowhere who come in & have immediate impact

I wonder if Jude Bolton had anything to do with it?
 
Carlton, who played their aging stars and ignored development and now have a list of under developed kids. There has to be a balance.

I reckon you are biased and just want to see Hayden play.:)

(And that's cool/understandable - its all good.)

We are developing our kids. 2 of them played in the guts yesterday.
 
I saw Goldy winning a lot of taps in the last qtr and Sydney winning numerous clearances. So many times a North mid wasn't in sight.

I noticed that in the last quarter but would put it down to those younger players (LDU/Ahern specifically) still building their fitness base. Its the last when things like that really show up.

There is a bit of a double bind about this because by playing those two they are developing and will be better in the future but it costs us in games like yesterday's. I'm not saying they are the reason for the loss either, we had our chances, and both of them played really well.
 
Wouldn’t ever play Morgan again? It was his first game FFS... I thought he was ok considering how fierce a contest it was. Would be disappointed if he were dropped next week

He had nearly 20 possessions off the backline and rarely ****ed them up i thought. Took nine marks made a few tackles and plenty of spoils and provided us with some run off the backline that we've been missing since Hartung got hurt. Not a bad first game. He might not be in our best side but he didn't spud things up imo.
 
Why **** around looking at players when there's a finals spot on the line. Murphy didn't deserve to be dropped. campaigner is composed.

I think he did. In his last senior game (against *) he was poor/cooked. He is a composed tho. Has alot going for him.
 
What Scott says in a mandatory post-match presser and behind a closed doors conference might be two different things.

Was pretty much the same apparently, didn't lose his shit at all, think he's pretty happy with how we're tracking and it is hard to argue against. Just need a topliner to say yeah **** it I'll join North and we're balls deep into 2019 flag contention.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy vs Sydney - Rd17

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top