Oppo Camp Other Games Rolling Thread (2023)

[Tarkyn_24]

Lol norf

 

[swoop42]

When was the last time we saw an interchange infringement in terms of breaching the maximum amount allowed?

Has it even happened before?

 

[joff]

Wouldn't mind seeing the cats drop this game to Freo

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

When was the last time we saw an interchange infringement in terms of breaching the maximum amount allowed?

Has it even happened before?

Probably never happened. Takes some sort of incompetence to occur. The football gods deemeD the first time it happened to be a cruel game changer.

 

[sr36]

The rule is there so fair enough. But I agree, I think they need to look at it. That’s a bloody harsh penalty. But then obviously it could only happen to north, 20m out from goal, 3 pts up, after 7 losses

It seems pretty simple to me. Interchange stewards should be telling clubs when they're close to the limit, so that it doesn't happen.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It seems pretty simple to me. Interchange stewards should be telling clubs when they're close to the limit, so that it doesn't happen.

Agree and if it does happen it should be considered an umpiring mistake, not a team error anD free kick.

 

[windchimes]

It seems pretty simple to me. Interchange stewards should be telling clubs when they're close to the limit, so that it doesn't happen.

I'm just dumbfounded at how this occured? There surely is no way they let that one slip through their fingers?

How can the interchange stewards either not have count of interchanges made, or have them and not flag to the coaches when they've reached within five or so interchanges? Let alone one or two? They have one job!

 

[MooreTreloar]

If my memory is correct didn’t Sydney beat North Melbourne in a close game in 2008 by having 19 players on the field for a short time? Game was at Docklands as well I’m sure.

Actually just checked the game. It was a draw.

 

[Doc1763]

It seems pretty simple to me. Interchange stewards should be telling clubs when they're close to the limit, so that it doesn't happen.

The interchange stewards are from the clubs. This is not an Umpire error, or AFL error, its a basket case of a club error.

 

[76woodenspooners]

What do you suggest they do? Ignore the rulebook??

Shouldn’t have the rule in the first place.

But if they’re going to have it, and it affect the result in this way, they should at least have a sign board next to the bench showing the interchange count so everybody has visibility of what’s going on.

 

[Doc1763]

If my memory is correct didn’t Sydney beat North Melbourne in a close game in 2008 by having 19 players on the field for a short time? Game was at Docklands as well I’m sure.

Thats when the rule came it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If my memory is correct didn’t Sydney beat North Melbourne in a close game in 2008 by having 19 players on the field for a short time? Game was at Docklands as well I’m sure.

Back in ye olde days, that would be a forfeit.

 

[nahnah]

Kittens well looked after week after week, year after year

 

[sr36]

The interchange stewards are from the clubs. This is not an Umpire error, or AFL error, its a basket case of a club error.

I might have used the wrong term. Whoever is counting the interchanges for the AFL should have it illuminated on a big sign or in some other way inform a club when they're getting close, to dramatically reduce the chance of a club ****ing it up. And yes, North have ****ed up, but even the best cricket umpires in the world **** up their count to 6 from time to time. No-one wants a game decided by a mis-count.

Then again it may have simply been a clever way for the Roos to stay in contention for the Harley Reid cup.

 

[Jen2310]

Carn Freo! They are a decent chance here.

 

[sr36]

Back in ye olde days, that would be a forfeit.

It used to be a team's score getting reset to zero

 

[Pies_10]

It's the rules, how ever it's weird they don't get notified that they've used all 75, instead they just wait until they use 76 then pay a free

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Shouldn’t have the rule in the first place.

But if they’re going to have it, and it affect the result in this way, they should at least have a sign board next to the bench showing the interchange count so everybody has visibility of what’s going on.

None of which is the umpires fault which is the post I responded to.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Cats are in danger of being walloped here.







( ducks for cover)

 

[Doc1763]

It's the rules, how ever it's weird they don't get notified that they've used all 75, instead they just wait until they use 76 then pay a free

its never happened before - I'm sure the clubs know exactly how many interchanges that've had - they just stuffed up.

 

[Gabbo64]

On the other hand, it’s a fundamental rule for clubs to observe closely and manage, and always have enough spare interchanges left up their sleeves at the end of the game.

But so is the 6-6-6 rule. But a warning is given for that. If they want to enforce the rule properly then I think a first offence should be a warning

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

its never happened before - I'm sure the clubs know exactly how many interchanges that've had - they just stuffed up.

Apparently they get warned when they have 10, then five, then one remaining. The steward couldn’t warn them about the last one because the last change they did was two at once. This is all on the north steward.

 

[Doc1763]

But so is the 6-6-6 rule. But a warning is given for that. If they want to enforce the rule properly then I think a first offence should be a warning

There should be no warnings for for the 6-6-6 rule - its been in for long enough. Start paying a free for the first offence and see how few infringements there will be. When was the last time there was a free for an interchange infringement?

 

[Chameleon75]

It's the rules, how ever it's weird they don't get notified that they've used all 75, instead they just wait until they use 76 then pay a free

they get notified when there’s 10 changes left, again at 5 and again at 1, north just stuffed up

It’s just a shame this didn’t happen to Richmond, the melts would’ve been spectacular

 

[BillyElliott]

But so is the 6-6-6 rule. But a warning is given for that. If they want to enforce the rule properly then I think a first offence should be a warning

They do only seem to give warnings for the 6-6-6 rule..which is a bit strange. How long does a rule have to be in place before they enforce it? Was it the 6-6-6 rule we got 1, maybe 2 frees paid against us in the Lions game?