footy classified

[No1SwansFan]

This is the best line I've read so far about the whole brouhaha

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/afl/fanforce/index.php/heraldsun/comments/19_men_brilliant/



HAHAHA

 

[Liesha]

As I've said, the 19th man on would be the one who entered the field early, as he wasn't supposed to be on the ground until Jolly came off, so Jolly wasn't the 19th man on, the 19th man on didn't even affect play.

This is a very good point (one that has been lost on me until just now out of sheer disgust towards some of the North posters).

 

[No1SwansFan]

That just tells us that the log was wrong. Nothing to do with who is "supposed" to be on the ground.

I agree with this call to. What from what understand from watching the interchange steward. He is given a slip of paper saying who is coming off and who is going on it is his job once the interchange has taken place to write it all up. He has obviously not followed the protocols and White just made a silly error which had no bearing on the game.

 

[snake08]

That was my thinking too. I wasnt Jolly at fault and it White(?) had no influence on the play.

white did have an influence because it meant someone manned him up instead of jolly allowing him to link up and get the ball into the foward line............plus whetther or not it was delibrate(i personally dont think it was) it happed and it played some contribution however big or small in creating a scoring chance for kirk

face the facts if the shoe was on the other foot i wonder if the discussion of no influence would be happening??

 

[Liesha]

white did have an influence because it meant someone manned him up instead of jolly allowing him to link up and get the ball into the foward line............plus whetther or not it was delibrate(i personally dont think it was) it happed and it played some contribution however big or small in creating a scoring chance for kirk

face the facts if the shoe was on the other foot i wonder if the discussion of no influence would be happening??

Is there any footage of anyone marking White?

 

[No1SwansFan]

white did have an influence because it meant someone manned him up instead of jolly allowing him to link up and get the ball into the foward line............plus whetther or not it was delibrate(i personally dont think it was) it happed and it played some contribution however big or small in creating a scoring chance for kirk

face the facts if the shoe was on the other foot i wonder if the discussion of no influence would be happening??

Actually most level headed supporters would follow the sameline of thought. There really wasnt any influence on the game. Perhaps you should blame Jolly's direct opponent for not drawing attention to it sooner. FFS it was all of about 20 seconds. It was also only one possession. Build a bridge

 

[snake08]

Is there any footage of anyone marking White?

i believe there is mcintosh was standing next too (in the vacinity of him)

i am not trying to say it is the reason we lost 2 points or anything like that im just saying that mistakes happen and if the shoe was on the other foot i personally dont think syndney fans would show as much ignorance to the fact and might think it needs to be treated a little more severly than it probably will be

 

[jpdixon]

Is there any footage of anyone marking White?

I find it very hard to believe that anyone would be marking him given that NM were in possession. There would be a better argument that his presence caused the fullback to kick to a different area of the field, but it doesn't sound like that's what happened.

 

[snake08]

Actually most level headed supporters would follow the sameline of thought. There really wasnt any influence on the game. Perhaps you should blame Jolly's direct opponent for not drawing attention to it sooner. FFS it was all of about 20 seconds. It was also only one possession. Build a bridge

the same sort of bride built by most sydney fans over the goal umpiring decision and in fact umpires in general and the 50 meter count and whateva else i hear them bitching about?? is that the sorta bridge i should build?? please elaborate

 

[Liesha]

i believe there is mcintosh was standing next too (in the vacinity of him)

i am not trying to say it is the reason we lost 2 points or anything like that im just saying that mistakes happen and if the shoe was on the other foot i personally dont think syndney fans would show as much ignorance to the fact and might think it needs to be treated a little more severly than it probably will be

This is different to marking someone closely.

If the shoe was on the other foot I would be happy with the 2 points because both teams played like shite for most of the game and it deserved a draw. But that's just me

 

[Rick18]

Actually most level headed supporters would follow the sameline of thought. There really wasnt any influence on the game. Perhaps you should blame Jolly's direct opponent for not drawing attention to it sooner. FFS it was all of about 20 seconds. It was also only one possession. Build a bridge

1. Try to man up 19 on 18. Jolly's opponent was on White.

2. The one possession led to the match drawing point.

Do you get it?

 

[western swan]

considering this is the first im hearing about the 19th man incident im not worried at all about the loss of points
because it wont happen
i no perth is eaglecentric but its clearly only news in melbourne and sydney so it cant be serious enough that they would strip points off us

suck it up

 

[Liesha]

Jeez.... imagine what we would be copping if Kirk's point had been called a goal????

 

[Hot off the press]

there were two controverial incidents, one which if adjudged correctly wouldve had sydney winning, one which if adjudged correctly wouldve had north winning.

final siren sounded. it was a draw.

 

[western swan]

there were two controverial incidents, one which if adjudged correctly wouldve had sydney winning, one which if adjudged correctly wouldve had north winning.

final siren sounded. it was a draw.

very true

 

[SouthSwans]

there were two controverial incidents, one which if adjudged correctly wouldve had sydney winning, one which if adjudged correctly wouldve had north winning.

final siren sounded. it was a draw.

Exactly right , I don't think anything more needs to be said.

 

[Rick18]

Exactly right , I don't think anything more needs to be said.

Now that it's a dead topic, not much use talking about it for much longer, but:

If the first mistake was rectified (i.e. extra man on the ground) the second mistake never would have happened (goal being called a point)

Get it?

 

[western swan]

Now that it's a dead topic, not much use talking about it for much longer, but:

If the first mistake was rectified (i.e. extra man on the ground) the second mistake never would have happened (goal being called a point)

Get it?

no-one cares rick18

 

[rancidpants13]

Now that it's a dead topic, not much use talking about it for much longer, but:

If the first mistake was rectified (i.e. extra man on the ground) the second mistake never would have happened (goal being called a point)

Get it?

so you're prepared to concede it was a mistake, rather than any kind of cheating, as so many of your swan-hating colleagues had been saying???
and it's as much a mistake by the interchange steward as by the swans or jesse white

 

[bedford]

50,000 fine, half suspended for 2 years
NOW GO AWAY GOLD COASTERS

 

[bedford]

1. Try to man up 19 on 18. Jolly's opponent was on White.

2. The one possession led to the match drawing point.

Do you get it?

GO AND WATCH THE VICTORY YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOOTY

 

[Rick18]

so you're prepared to concede it was a mistake, rather than any kind of cheating, as so many of your swan-hating colleagues had been saying???
and it's as much a mistake by the interchange steward as by the swans or jesse white

Yeah, it's a mistake. However, when the mistake is as big as this, it deserves punishment. Obviously, it's been handed out, and again, not what I wanted, but it's done.

 

[Rick18]

GO AND WATCH THE VICTORY YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOOTY

Oh, the irony.

 

[western swan]

50,000 fine, half suspended for 2 years
NOW GO AWAY GOLD COASTERS

what do you mean "half suspended"
half of what?
ahaha or do u mean hall?

 

[.Shotties.]

If the first mistake was rectified (i.e. extra man on the ground) the second mistake never would have happened (goal being called a point)

No, it wouldn't. White would have gotten tha ball, beaten two tacklers and bombed through the winner before winning the ruck contest and pinning the ball in the Swans forward 50 for the nexst 60 seconds.

Prove the scenario of the Kangas winning is more likely than mine.