Review Round 6, 2016 - Brisbane Lions vs Sydney

[AFLQLD]

I really need to see a greater work ethic from McStay before I am completely sold on him as a forward. I see the potential and there are good signs of his ability to compete in marking contests but it is the second and third efforts and the defensive work I want to see him showing signs of now.

I can be patient waiting for him to turn those near misses into spectacular marks but really want to see the other less glamorous effort more right now.

 

[Skoob]

SPOT ON!!!

They are now mic-ed up and have pretty clear communication between each other - a balance of common sense due to a duty of care relating to the seriousness of the injury to the player and the relevant distance away from the play... simples?

Can you see the flaw in your plan?

 

[Matt_BL]

Tough game, hard to say if we should have won, but we would of deserved it if we did. Sydney did just have that bit more polish in finishing off the game, and regardless of the stretcher, still went down the other end and managed to kick away in the end. It had shades of the West Coast game in 2012, but we did probably lack that Green or Brown to make something from nothing in the forward line , something Josh Walker will need to develop.

Stats wise we played really well, good to see Rockliff have a good one. Hard draw this season but we've been competitive at home in all three of our matches so that's always a good sign. We'll have some decent ins next week so we're a chance to get a win against Port.

 

[Skoob]

So the umpire actually needs to use his brains here. "At the earliest opportunity" is more than open to interpretation. The rules of our game are all about interpretation, from holding the ball to deliberate out of bounds and everything in between.

Importantly, the wording IS NOT "must stop the play immediately". The wording itself yells out that it is open to the umpires sensible interpretation of the actual circumstances presented.

Common bloody sense says one umpire umpires, one umpire watches, one umpire monitors the injury scenario which is 120 metres away with the player in no danger and not facing a dangerous scenario. In the case today, the 'earliest opportunity' should be when play dictates it. A ball up was potentially seconds away, as was a ball in, as was a handball out to a free lion in the forward line with 3 mins left on the clock in an open forward line in a close game.

The best umpiring, Is umpiring you don't notice. We did not need to notice the Ump in this scenario, if they use common sense in the circumstances.

I still call tactic on the Swans runner, regardless. They know that if the game stops it is to their advantage, and the guy stood up and ran off, just as they got what they wanted.

I don't necessarily disagree, but your original post was incorrect. I'm also not happy with the situation, but merely stating that all was within the rules. If a stretcher is called, then I agree that they could have waited and because I haven't seen footage of either the trainer calling for it or the stretcher itself, we should consider the possibility that the umpire let play go on when first called. Reports suggest the stretcher actually came on, and in that instance the umpire's hand was forced. Yes you could wait after being called, but no umpire is going to let play continue with a stretcher on the ground, no matter how far away.
I too assume it was tactical (as silly as it was, because we could have had a free kick). I too think the rule is flawed, as this exact situation can be manipulated. If it happens earlier in the game, the 'injured' player must stay off for 20 minutes, but with 3 minutes to go, you could afford to play with one less on the bench.
At what point should the umpire stop the game? Wait for Hanley to take possession? That suits us, but the Swans could quite rightly use the same argument, that play is 120m from the stretcher and should be allowed to continue, in case they cause Hanley to lose the ball by tackle, bump or shank a kick/handball. Do they wait then for the ball to be closer to the player? I presume then that the Swans have either had a clearing kick or have possession of the ball, either way, the resumption of play will be closer to their goal. I think if play were allowed to continue, and the Swans won the ball and got a 50m clearing kick and mark downfield, there would be plenty of Lions supporters screaming that play should have stopped (as per rules with a stretcher on the ground) while in our forward 50, not wait for the other team to clear it.
I think the "common sense" approach becomes a bit cloudy when you consider the number of 'maybes'.

 

[Grizzly86]

Nothing to it - just a bit of a mix up. I believe Lions staff were told there would be no banners (as absurd as this sounds, the Gabba generally bans them now in the rain due to crepe paper staining the field) and passed that on to the Swans cheer squad members. A different Lions staffer who had heard a different message later told the Lions cheersquad to take theirs out, but at that stage it was too late for the Swans to get theirs out as well. Just a misunderstanding - no malice.

If the Swans want to throw shade, why were their junior mascots left waiting in the rain pre game? Surely it isn't too hard to get them under cover at the top of the race if they aren't going to let the kids get ready in the sheds.

 

[Dr Noodles]

I was really hesitant when I heard we had recruited Robbo.

I think there was a thread posted on the Lions board about naming your most disliked opposition players and he was on my list. I loved giving him stick when he played for the Blues.

He is now one of my favourite players, not just because he wears Lions colours but because how he has won me over with his fierce work ethic and his commitment to our club.

We haven't had somebody in the middle who uses their body like battering ram since Voss and it is freaking awesome viewing no matter the result.

On an unrelated topic did anybody hear Huddo mention Bay 13 during the broadcast?

 

[blynd_freddie]

On an unrelated topic did anybody hear Huddo mention Bay 13 during the broadcast?

Yes, he linked it to bay 62 where Keays and his family sit/sat... iirc the reference suggested it was no bay 13 or something like that???

 

[POBT]

I sit in bay 64 and could see and hear the Keays fan club all game. It was great to see.

Speaking of Keays, I've got a few "old fashioned" spectators who sit near me and they were all nodding with approval at Keays' efforts. They are gonna love Matho!

 

[dlanod]

I really need to see a greater work ethic from McStay before I am completely sold on him as a forward. I see the potential and there are good signs of his ability to compete in marking contests but it is the second and third efforts and the defensive work I want to see him showing signs of now.

I can be patient waiting for him to turn those near misses into spectacular marks but really want to see the other less glamorous effort more right now.

I agree with this. Up forward he's basically Cornelius but with a little better ground game and I don't think that's enough to keep him in the team at this point.

 

[Dr Noodles]

Yes, he linked it to bay 62 where Keays and his family sit/sat... iirc the reference suggested it was no bay 13 or something like that???

Yeah that's right. I couldn't remember when it was. Perhaps Huddo is a master troll who frequents the Bay regularly?

 

[POBT]

McStay switches off too regularly. He also lacks smarts. That wild snap after he had dropped a relatively easy mark was case in point. He burned a couple of teammates for the glory play, which didn't come off. The way he was launching himself to take hangers was admirable in terms of effort but it also showed a lack of awareness of what the conditions required - which was keeping your feet and second/third efforts when the ball hit the deck.

I still like him as a forward because of the talent he brings to that role but he needs to get more disciplined first and playing in defence will teach him that.

 

[wattoxi]

Yeah that's right. I couldn't remember when it was. Perhaps Huddo is a master troll who frequents the Bay regularly?

Guessing he was talking about the actual bay 13 at the G, which I'm also guessing is where this bay got the name

 

[Dr Noodles]

Guessing he was talking about the actual bay 13 at the G, which I'm also guessing is where this bay got the name

Most likely. I still want to believe Huddo spends his free time trolling on the Bay.

 

[blackpowerlappin]

Only got to watch the game last night and was thrilled with effort, and the fact that after qtr time we essentially split the contested possessions. Really is key to us taking the next step. This effort had to be expected each week now. At least we know we can do it now.

I won't mention all the best players as we all agree but it is clear to me that Harwood, C Beams, Lester and Bewick are key ingredients for us when it comes to winning games. When these guys play well it's generally on the back of winning contested balls, and applying pressure acts in addition to the midfield doing the same. Let's hope these guys can add a consistency to their games from now on.


Great effort, now it has to be brought to the Adelaide Oval next week or yesterday's efforts will not be rewarded when they need to be.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Afl have confirmed stopping play was an error - Gerard Whateley

 

[jonnobackpocket]

The way I read it is "if a stretcher is required", a stretcher was not required. Surely this is Sydney's stuff up as they called for it so y do we get punished?

 

[adey115]

At what point should the umpire stop the game? Wait for Hanley to take possession? That suits us, but the Swans could quite rightly use the same argument, that play is 120m from the stretcher and should be allowed to continue, in case they cause Hanley to lose the ball by tackle, bump or shank a kick/handball. Do they wait then for the ball to be closer to the player? I presume then that the Swans have either had a clearing kick or have possession of the ball, either way, the resumption of play will be closer to their goal. I think if play were allowed to continue, and the Swans won the ball and got a 50m clearing kick and mark downfield, there would be plenty of Lions supporters screaming that play should have stopped (as per rules with a stretcher on the ground) while in our forward 50, not wait for the other team to clear it.
I think the "common sense" approach becomes a bit cloudy when you consider the number of 'maybes'.

I've got to disagree.

Ball is 120 metres away. Guy is not knocked out. Swans take possession then good luck to them they aren't penalised, they've cleared their defensive 50 or will clear their defensive 50 with a free kick if he stops play then. We take possession and we're going away from the 'injured' player, or we get a free kick if he stops play, so we're not being penalised. Play on until a stoppage in that area then no one is being penalised, and 'injured' player is still perfectly safe.

If the Swans cleared out, I would not be screaming or complaining that the Umps should have stopped play. That is a very long bow to draw, unless the ball is in the vicinity of the 'injured' player.

Umpires are paid to interpret, and they should be able to judge what is holding the ball, and when a game should be stopped if a stretcher is called. Even the wording of the rule lends them to interpret.

And if the Swans trainers themselves just ran onto the field without 'permission' as such. Well that just opens up a can of worms. Grand Final, 3 minutes left, up by three points, defensively under pressure.... someone hit the turf and just run on with a stretcher and deal with the consequences later?

I'd still like to know who called for the stretcher. Was it a Medico? Was it the Runner? How did they come to that diagnosis one minute, only to then see the guy healthy enough to run off a minute later? It's either a diagnosis so wrong that he shouldn't be a Medico, or changed his diagnosis from a player being so injured that he required to be stretchered to being ok to run off within a one minute window. Or it was used as a highly cynical tactic that smells.

 

[Ironmonger]

Still shattered this morning.

But I can't work up the energy to care about the whole stretcher thing. There were so many moments where we could've turned the game just by picking up the ball cleanly, or hitting a leading target, or taking a second to steady instead of attempting a flying snap shot. At worst this is just another moment like that.

Anyway, bit by bit confidence is growing among the group. It's so good to see Lester and Bewick playing with some self-belief, and the midfield working together to win more contested possession.

 

[Len S]

I don't necessarily disagree, but your original post was incorrect. I'm also not happy with the situation, but merely stating that all was within the rules. If a stretcher is called, then I agree that they could have waited and because I haven't seen footage of either the trainer calling for it or the stretcher itself, we should consider the possibility that the umpire let play go on when first called. Reports suggest the stretcher actually came on, and in that instance the umpire's hand was forced. Yes you could wait after being called, but no umpire is going to let play continue with a stretcher on the ground, no matter how far away.
I too assume it was tactical (as silly as it was, because we could have had a free kick). I too think the rule is flawed, as this exact situation can be manipulated. If it happens earlier in the game, the 'injured' player must stay off for 20 minutes, but with 3 minutes to go, you could afford to play with one less on the bench.
At what point should the umpire stop the game? Wait for Hanley to take possession? That suits us, but the Swans could quite rightly use the same argument, that play is 120m from the stretcher and should be allowed to continue, in case they cause Hanley to lose the ball by tackle, bump or shank a kick/handball. Do they wait then for the ball to be closer to the player? I presume then that the Swans have either had a clearing kick or have possession of the ball, either way, the resumption of play will be closer to their goal. I think if play were allowed to continue, and the Swans won the ball and got a 50m clearing kick and mark downfield, there would be plenty of Lions supporters screaming that play should have stopped (as per rules with a stretcher on the ground) while in our forward 50, not wait for the other team to clear it.
I think the "common sense" approach becomes a bit cloudy when you consider the number of 'maybes'.

The Afl have ruled the umpires acted wrongly. Gerard Whateley went ballistic this morning about it.The rules, as the Afl stated, are clear. ..except to Three umpires.

I agree with this. Up forward he's basically Cornelius but with a little better ground game and I don't think that's enough to keep him in the team at this point.

There is no better kick in the team..play him off half back or wing....his proper position....its not as if we are overun with class half backs.

 

[Doobies]

Just looking at what we have coming up i think we should all be quietly optimistic on recent performances. Could very easily be 6-6 come round 12 and finish off the year in the 10-12 mark.

 

[dlanod]

I think Bell's getting fewer votes because he knocked out 40% of the remaining Schache Cup competitors.

10 down to 3 (all tipped Lester) in one week!

 

[carnthemlions]

Best heartbreaking loss in some time. Probably our best performance for quite a while, full stop. For me, Sydney are the best team in the comp right now and the obvious premiership favourites. Coming so close to beating them is a huge effort, I think most of us would've been reasonably happy to get within 30 going into the game.

As for the stretcher incident- half the time umpires won't even stop play if there's a player down while the ball's actually nearby. Ridiculous to do so for Sinclair who was at the other end of the ground and could easily have been helped off without the ball coming within 100 metres of him.

McStay switches off too regularly. He also lacks smarts. That wild snap after he had dropped a relatively easy mark was case in point. He burned a couple of teammates for the glory play, which didn't come off. The way he was launching himself to take hangers was admirable in terms of effort but it also showed a lack of awareness of what the conditions required - which was keeping your feet and second/third efforts when the ball hit the deck.

I still like him as a forward because of the talent he brings to that role but he needs to get more disciplined first and playing in defence will teach him that.

I saw better defensive efforts from him yesterday. It's not a huge improvement, but it's something.

 

[Cockliff38]

Yeah wow, can't believe the umpires ballsed that up. Admittedly i thought the rule was play stops as soon as the stretcher's on the field but then again it's not my job to know the intricacies of the game's rules.

That said it's still a huge stretch to say we were robbed. Yes, the game changes considerably if the contest between Hanley and McVeigh is allowed to run on. But similarly, who's to say we don't kick a behind then Sydney take the kick-out down the other end for an over the back goal? Granted Sydney we're having trouble clearing our zone but there's too many 'ifs' and 'buts' to say the umpires single-handily cost us the game.

As I said in my review post, Sydney had a touch more class than us but I think overall we were the better team.

 

[adey115]

I can't say the Umpires cost us the game. I can say they cost us an opportunity, and cost us the chance to say that a ripping contest was decided wholly and solely by the game itself.

 

[Cockliff38]

Moving on from stretcher-related comments - best performance under Leppa?

My top 5 -
2014 v North (Brown's farewell)
2016 v Sydney
2015 v Bulldogs
2016 v GC
2015 v Port