Rules Interchange infringement wins Sydney the game

[Slartibartfast]

Yeah, someone should have kept one of those players onfield or stopped Powell going on.

Didn't cost us the game tho. The sketchy free 30 seconds later did that.

Yeah, someone from the North footy club.

it was a clear cut free kick, nothing sketchy at all.
club got an unfair advantage by using more interchanges than allowed, a rule that has been about for years.

 

[ferball]

Was a clear ruck infringement, and very lucky to have even been a ball up after McDonald was not penalised for HTB after taking 4 steps before running into Franklin.

There were a heap of those clear ruck infringements not paid during the game, plus a bunch of others not paid either and each time they benefitted the Swans with a goal or took the mark off one of our players in front of goal.

 

[FRUMPY]

Just have to wait for tony Liberatore

Tony Liberatore

Age

58

Ht

163cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.1

5star

K

10.5

4star

HB

9.6

5star

M

1.5

2star

T

4.3

5star

No current season stats available

D

10.0

3star

K

5.2

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

1.0

1star

T

0.0

1star

to say how ratten deliberately made the interchange

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

Yeah, someone from the North footy club.

it was a clear cut free kick, nothing sketchy at all.
club got an unfair advantage by using more interchanges than allowed, a rule that has been about for years.

Yeah obviously someone from the club. I wasn't talking about that free tho. i was talking about the thing Goldy's not allowed to do but Swans rucks were all day.

 

[bird_man]

Surely the penalty needs to be changed to a club fine.

Horrible way for North to lose the game.

The rule is there for a reason

Change it to a fine and clubs will just go over the 75 roatationd in tight games and pay the money

Sucks for North but rules is rules

 

[RUNVS]

Why would it be on a league official to prevent a team from breaking a rule?

It also isn't a big problem as we have had interchange caps for a long time now and this has only happened once.

 

[TheKanga]

Watch them change the rule now in case it effects an AFL darling in a big final.

Why wasn't it a free on the wing ?
Why a free and a 50 in front of goal.
Umps were corrupt all day

 

[chickenonachain]

So if you knock someone out with a bump or sling tackle you give away a free kick but if you have one extra interchange you you get a free and fifty metres seems the punishment is a bit over the top

 

[SammyRoo]

 

[Sentinel]

Watch them change the rule now in case it effects an AFL darling in a big final.

Why wasn't it a free on the wing ?
Why a free and a 50 in front of goal.
Umps were corrupt all day

As with every free it's paid from either where the infringement is or where the ball is, whichever is the greater penalty.

You ignorantly not understanding the rules does not equate to corruption, sorry to say.

And why would they change the rule because of your club's incompetence?

 

[Steele7]

A rule like this is most likely going to happen in the last minute or so in a game. When you don’t what a 50m paid against you. Think the rule has been made or changed 3 times from unlimited to 100 to 80 to 75?

 

[FRUMPY]

View attachment 1692421

LinkedIn....

On CPH2005 using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[flamethrower]

This was a clear mistake by the AFL and its interchange steward.

Replacing injured players does NOT count towards the cap of 75.

North Melbourne had made 74 interchanges when 2 players approached the bench - one fit player who was replaced as the 75th interchange, and one player who is clearly incapacitated and unable to return to the game - he is allowed to be replaced as an injured player as it does not count against the cap.

I have no doubt though that this will be swept under the rug just like every other AFL controversy (eg Hawthorn racism).

 

[Slartibartfast]

This was a clear mistake by the AFL and its interchange steward.

Replacing injured players does NOT count towards the cap of 75.

North Melbourne had made 74 interchanges when 2 players approached the bench - one fit player who was replaced as the 75th interchange, and one player who is clearly incapacitated and unable to return to the game - he is allowed to be replaced as an injured player as it does not count against the cap.

I have no doubt though that this will be swept under the rug just like every other AFL controversy (eg Hawthorn racism).

 

[BarneyBent]

This was a clear mistake by the AFL and its interchange steward.

Replacing injured players does NOT count towards the cap of 75.

North Melbourne had made 74 interchanges when 2 players approached the bench - one fit player who was replaced as the 75th interchange, and one player who is clearly incapacitated and unable to return to the game - he is allowed to be replaced as an injured player as it does not count against the cap.

I have no doubt though that this will be swept under the rug just like every other AFL controversy (eg Hawthorn racism).

Cramp isn't injury. Otherwise clubs would claim every interchange is due to cramp.

It only doesn't count if it's blood rule, head injury assessment, etc. Basically if the umpire orders the player from the field. Cramp doesn't count.

 

[estibador]

Watch them change the rule now in case it effects an AFL darling in a big final.

Why wasn't it a free on the wing ?
Why a free and a 50 in front of goal.
Umps were corrupt all day

Why should Sydney have been disadvantaged by the ball coming back to the wing when they had it 10m from their goal already. That would open up the chance for teams to deliberately cost their opponents field position in tight games with little time left.

I'm seeing a pattern from North supporters lately:
'The AFL should save us from our own incompetence by giving us priority picks every year'
'The AFL should have saved us from our own incompetence by controlling our interchanges for us'

 

[Slartibartfast]

This was a clear mistake by the AFL and its interchange steward.

Replacing injured players does NOT count towards the cap of 75.

North Melbourne had made 74 interchanges when 2 players approached the bench - one fit player who was replaced as the 75th interchange, and one player who is clearly incapacitated and unable to return to the game - he is allowed to be replaced as an injured player as it does not count against the cap.

I have no doubt though that this will be swept under the rug just like every other AFL controversy (eg Hawthorn racism).

Player did not require medical attention, and if you watch the video he got none and did not show any concern re an injury.

 

[Foucault1989]

A theme is this thread is Hawthorn supporters very upset with the outcome of this game. I wonder why....

 

[HTPunter]

So North are told they have one interchange left, but two come off at once - one because he is cramping, the other seemingly a regular interchange.

Am I missing something, but why didn't North interchange the cramping player and tell the other bloke to stay on the ground?

Exactly.

I’m not sure of why all the uproar and controversy.

The rule was clear, the club stuffed up, it’s likely to not happen again. Why the uproar, even from neutrals?

 

[HTPunter]

Watch them change the rule now in case it effects an AFL darling in a big final.

Why wasn't it a free on the wing ?
Why a free and a 50 in front of goal.
Umps were corrupt all day

Because that’s the rule lol why would it be on the wing

 

[Dangerousfield]

Maybe it was by design

North going the tank to make sure they are the bottom Vic club in the ND, tanking for Harley

 

[RUNVS]

North going the tank to make sure they are the bottom Vic club in the ND, tanking for Harley

Do North and Hawthorn really want to be like Richmond and Carlton?

 

[Outtatym]

Cramp isn't injury. Otherwise clubs would claim every interchange is due to cramp.

It only doesn't count if it's blood rule, head injury assessment, etc. Basically if the umpire orders the player from the field. Cramp doesn't count.

Cramp was enough to activate the injury sub in years gone by...

Pathetic by the boundary staff and totally on them but why do we even have these rules in the first place? Why complicate the game and cap the changes - make it unlimited (but but the flow of the game!) Or make it 5 substitute's soccer style.
Another kick in the guts supporting this club.

 

[Madas]

The most devious bit of tanking i have ever seen.

I think we should hold off on that call till after tomorrow thanks
This is shaping up to be a tank off of epic proportions
I’ll be surprised if either team even attends the centre bounce .

 

[Madas]

A theme is this thread is Hawthorn supporters very upset with the outcome of this game. I wonder why....

Funny isn’t it