- Sep 10, 2006
- 19,764
- 19,558
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
Also a game between us where one of our staff members died of a heart attack metres away from the bench.
Our games have a weird history with the interchange.
Rules Interchange infringement wins Sydney the game
- Thread starter Veer Right
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Our games have a weird history with the interchange.
That's even stupider. So if the game finished without said stoppage would they have got a shot after the siren?
No idea, I'm not certain if it being called at the next stoppage is a thing or not, I just read it somewhere yesterday but not off a rule book.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
It's covered in the AFL regulations - 12.9(c)(x)(A):
Not explicitly provided for anywhere that I can see. Procedures around a similar infringement (not going through the interchange area) say the field umpire should "stop play at the first available opportunity", but don't specify any timeframes for the steward to notify the field umpire, and there's nothing timing-related for the cap infringement specifically. As you say, hardly likely to make a difference yesterday (best case for North is the set shot is 20m out rather than in the square) - but very possible in theory for when the notification is given to materially affect where the free gets taken, which is a significant problem with the rule, especially given you can't call it straight away when there are some allowable excess interchanges you'd have to be sure it wasn't before calling it. And what if time has already been called seconds before it's notified? As I understand it, unless the umpire noticed a free kick/mark before play ended, there's no scope for restarting play - so do you just get away with it, apart from the fine?
Ugly enough having a game decided like this, even if all protocols were properly followed. But the rule as it stands is not at all well-designed, and needs serious tweaking.
To me there are 2 standout issues
1) why the * do north have to make an interchange at that time for a non hobbled player?? Play out the ******* game and leave that 1 interchange for someone cramping (like Shiels).
2) people do not know the rules. It’s why all fans whinging about umps every second of every match need to get a grip - I bet these fans don’t know a lot of the rules and procedures, and interpretations.
1) why the * do north have to make an interchange at that time for a non hobbled player?? Play out the ******* game and leave that 1 interchange for someone cramping (like Shiels).
2) people do not know the rules. It’s why all fans whinging about umps every second of every match need to get a grip - I bet these fans don’t know a lot of the rules and procedures, and interpretations.
Yep just immediately send the runner out and get him off the field quickly.
Absolute joke that it decided a game and just makes people hate AFL as a product.
Imagine the umps doing this at a Collingwood home game with 80k plus fans there.Brisbane would have got away with it. The 76th interchange would have been for a Brisbane injury within the rules of course
They wouldn't do it
Engimal v3
**** m**nl*nd*rs
Shiels was cramping with 2 minutes to go - I guess he didn't think he could run it out. Not sure if he benched himself or what the go was.
So why did they not pay the second free and 50 when you made the 77th interchange afterwards?
That's speculation
Officially the stats say 76/75
Punishment is to severe and not fitting
Just give teams at 20k fine and tell them to fix it.
Imagine a grand final decided like that.
What with a team making 77 interchanges while the other obeyed the rules and only took 75, won the game by 3 points and only got a $20,000 fine? What a stupid suggestion.
For those saying it should have been paid immediately and it would have made a difference - at 1 minute 40 North had just taken a mark in their back pocket. Next kick was also another mark in defensive 50. Would have been a shot from the goal line either way.
Who was coach when North and Sydney drew that time? Was it Brad Scott or D Laidley? Just wanting to know as I was panicking in the last 7 seconds thinking we would suffer the same fate.
Grand Uncle Horace
Shake down the thunder
Imo the title should be “North infringement loses the game”.
What I’m saying is the penalty is to great for the infringement
It has to be in game. Perhapos not 50m, just a free and no reversal. The player who should not be on the field comes off, no replacement, play with 17. (No confusion over whether trying to reverse it results in the correct reversal or not as with the supposed "77th interchange")
I mean, personally, I would go with only subs and no interchange; but that's an entirely different argument.
Veer Right
Premium Platinum
- May 11, 2019
- 4,955
- 9,129
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #221
Oh yeah, that's real game changing getting in that extra rotation. Got to be a goal minimum hey! Look in the mirror and think before calling other peoples opinions stupid.
Mind boggles more then normal reading the general opinions.
Is this guy so dumb he's never seen a game of football? Given he claims to be a Saints supporter makes sense he wouldn't know this, St Kilda's always such a joke they never have had any player who's actually good and would make a difference by them being on the ground compared to being on the bench.
So I'm guessing if West Coast had Judd, Cousins, Kerr and Cox stuck on the bench for the last 5 minutes of the 2006 grand final it wouldn't have made any difference right?
What a complete moron.
Clearly Veer Right did. Good observation. Explains his blind rage. But what sort of fool would of taken taken such appauling odds you would of got for Sydney -8.5? Would of been like $1.005
He participated in the chain of possessions - a handball, I think - that led to the game-tying score.
So yeah, having 19 on the field actually helped a lot.
Similar threads
