Autopsy AFL 2021 Round 13 - Swans v Hawks Fri June 11th 7:50pm EST (SCG)

[Leeda]

The game s hocking and Gilligan. Have created, follow the Sportsbet money

Love leed if. You are squimi..no squirmish."?.
damn televisions
rage amongst toete..ljumteen

 

[hk89]

A lot of the responsibility for the angst around the free kick count lays at the feet of the commentators. The commentators all thought Sydney were going to win, and the narrative all night was driven by that. When they were not winning, the commentators were constantly looking for reasons why their expectations were so badly wrong. Carey spent the entire evening talking about free kicks for Sydney he thought were missed, while largely ignoring the significant number we could have also received but didn't. I'm not surprised Swans fans feel hardly done by after watching the broadcast, even if they were not aware of the free kick count difference, given how often the umpires were being questioned. For example , in the Papley abuse situation , they even questioned Day's handball with bullshit like "You really need to get a very clear handball if you take the tackler on". No you don't. You need to get your fist to the ball, and yes, the knuckle is part of the fist. Hodge should be ashamed for attempting to justify Carey's pitiful attempts at making excuses for his incorrect tip.

You could see the same pre-determined expectation bias play out in the commentary around the JOM "bump" on Haywood that saw Haywood leave the ground with concussion. After multiple slow-mo replies there is no mention from the commentary team about the obvious fact that JOM doesn't actually make contact with Haywood's head at all, and the head contact is in fact between Haywood and Morris. "I think he'll be ok because he was going for the ball" was the best they could do. How about even one of the commentary team go with "I think he'll be ok because he made no contract at all with Haywood's head, and the head clash was between two other players".

 

[SunshineBoy]

A lot of the responsibility for the angst around the free kick count lays at the feet of the commentators. The commentators all thought Sydney were going to win, and the narrative all night was driven by that. When they were not winning, the commentators were constantly looking for reasons why their expectations were so badly wrong. Carey spent the entire evening talking about free kicks for Sydney he thought were missed, while largely ignoring the significant number we could have also received but didn't. I'm not surprised Swans fans feel hardly done by after watching the broadcast, even if they were not aware of the free kick count difference, given how often the umpires were being questioned. For example , in the Papley abuse situation , they even questioned Day's handball with bullshit like "You really need to get a very clear handball if you take the tackler on". No you don't. You need to get your fist to the ball, and yes, the knuckle is part of the fist. Hodge should be ashamed for attempting to justify Carey's pitiful attempts at making excuses for his incorrect tip.

You could see the same pre-determined expectation bias play out in the commentary around the JOM "bump" on Haywood that saw Haywood leave the ground with concussion. After multiple slow-mo replies there is no mention from the commentary team about the obvious fact that JOM doesn't actually make contract with Haywood's head at all, and the head contact is in fact between Haywood and Morris. "I think he'll be ok because he was going for the ball" was the best they could do. How about even one of the commentary team go with "I think he'll be ok because he made no contract at all with Haywood's head, and the head clash was between two other players".

Follow the money

 

[SunshineBoy]

And=d we have AFL media telling us how the scoring has increased compared to the shortened games last year……follow the money

 

[lordbob]

We got away with a few certainly, sometimes in a game you get away with more than in other games but if you think it was all one way then thats is rarely the case and wasnt in this game. THere could have been more paid against the swans (and against the hawks) eg how long from being asked to come back 2 meters does a player have before a 50m penalty is paid? 3 seconds? 5 seconds? 7? 9? 15?

at 12:05 to go in the 4th qtr, Kozi takes a mark on he wing and the ump says "back 2 meters" to the swans player twice, blows his whistle 3 times and calls out his name 3 times to get his attention from about 20 meters away. This happens over a 9 second period where the swans player doesnt move (and 11 seconds from the mark being taken to being kicked). How long should a player get before a 50m penalty is paid for not moving back to the mark? 9 seconds is almost play on for the kicker.

Or does the stand the mark rule now add enough confusion fro the umpires calls and whistling to allow a player standing the mark to not have to move back?

Its definitely a tougher situation for the players now, if they look at the umpire to hear him/her/them better then their man could play on, if they dont hear the ump clearly they assume he is blowing the whistle to stand as taht happens more than the come back call. But if both rules are to be left in place they need to be enforced or communicated better to players so that any possible confusion is removed and that infringements are enforced where necessary.

There were also examples of players movign their legs after being told to stand, but thank god the strict interpretation of that isnt being enforced anymroe.