Autopsy Rd 13 2017: Sydney v Richmond

[Black Saab]

Ive supported the bengals since 1988, such a frustrating team that always find a way to stuff it all up.

Haha yep. Remember Boomer Esiason? QB back in the late 80s early 90s if I remember correctly. The 49ers took a super bowl win opportunity right away from the Bengals back when he was playing.

Furthermore, I just don't get how the NFL can pass off the uniform clashes that exist when certain teams play against each other. When Cleveland play Cincinnati it's nearly impossible for me to watch the action without getting confused by who is doing what to who. They both have similar coloured helmets and their uniforms are just inverted against each other. White pants, orange top vs orange pants white top.

 

[BloodRet]

Congratulations on the win and I can only imagine how happy you were but I find it a bit odd that you say you haven't screamed that loud in years though your side has won recent premierships and gone deep into finals for years on end????

Imagine it from my end. I get to cheer when my team runs through the banner. And...that's the entirety of all the good times combined for over three decades. Each to their own I guess.

Just because I'm still in my early twenties and have had the luxury of watching my team play in finals pretty much every single year, the game on the weekend felt like our season was at stake. Win and we're back in contention, lose and it's effectively over. Can't really remember the last time we've come back from a margin that wide in a few years as I said, so the last quarter had me frantically yelling and screaming. Don't get me wrong I've done my fair share of that when watching our games, but in recent years I've almost expected us to win every game we play, but it's different this season, so there's more energy from me.

 

[brad cooper]

Haha yep. Remember Boomer Esiason? QB back in the late 80s early 90s if I remember correctly. The 49ers took a super bowl win opportunity right away from the Bengals back when he was playing.

Furthermore, I just don't get how the NFL can pass off the uniform clashes that exist when certain teams play against each other. When Cleveland play Cincinnati it's nearly impossible for me to watch the action without getting confused by who is doing what to who. They both have similar coloured helmets and their uniforms are just inverted against each other. White pants, orange top vs orange pants white top.

Yer Montana threw a touchdown pass with 30 sec left to win it for 49ers pretty sure it was the 89 superbowl. We still haven't won a play off since 1991!

 

[grimlock]

Buddy fined $1k

Zak Jones 1 week for striking Butler!

 

[TheWhiteRhino]

Buddy fined $1k

Zak Jones 1 week for striking Butler!

A jumper punch?

 

[SilentHunter_]

Buddy fined $1k

Zak Jones 1 week for striking Butler!

* sake.

 

[grimlock]

A jumper punch?

Must have been. Was it an accumulation from his last one?

 

[Jack2Jack]

What a pack of spineless flogs the MRP are. Rance diving 'not excessive" .....* off. It was one of the most pathetic stages ever to happen in the sport.
The player should be ******* embarrassed.
The umpire who fell for it should be ******* embarrassed.
The AFL should be ******* embarrassed to see that s**t in the game
....but yet do nothing, again! mainly because it's one of their lover boys Rance. I bet if that was Ballantyne or Lindsey Thomas or one of the other villains they would've made a stand. A decision made with the same weakness and gutlessness that is a hallmark of the McLaughlin regime.

 

[Black Saab]

Yer Montana threw a touchdown pass with 30 sec left to win it for 49ers pretty sure it was the 89 superbowl. We still haven't won a play off since 1991!

So very Richmond hehe. Oh

 

[Banyo Bloods]

What a pack of spineless flogs the MRP are. Rance diving 'not excessive" .....**** off. It was one of the most pathetic stages ever to happen in the sport.
The player should be ******* embarrassed.
The umpire who fell for it should be ******* embarrassed.
The AFL should be ******* embarrassed to see that s**t in the game
....but yet do nothing, again! mainly because it's one of their lover boys Rance. I bet if that was Ballantyne or Lindsey Thomas or one of the other villains they would've made a stand. A decision made with the same weakness and gutlessness that is a hallmark of the McLaughlin regime.

Why do you care? All he does is taint his own integrity. I wouldn't want to see any player suspended for milking unless they weren't actually touched.

Franklin took the risk whacking him back in the same way he whacked him. Umpire is the one who should be dropped for a week for paying a free kick.

 

[connolly]

All I know that I have seen it paid shitloads of times at junior level if any player crosses the line after the umpire moves in to bounce the ball regardless of how many are in the square at the time.

Would rarely happen at AFL level as teams are more organised.

Agree the rule doesn't read very well to that point.

The rule is clear. The maximum number of players in the box is 4 before the ball is bounced. Where is the ambiguity FFS?

 

[sataris]

The rule is clear. The maximum number of players in the box is 4 before the ball is bounced. Where is the ambiguity FFS?

The ambiguity is here.

no Player (other than the 4 initial Players) or Team Official
shall enter the Centre Square from the time the field Umpire
commences their approach to the Centre Circle to bounce the
football until the football touches the ground, in the act of
bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being
thrown up;

Key word is 'initial' playes. Once the ump starts to move in, you have your 4 initial players (or 3 in our case). Buddy wasn't one of the initial 4 players in the centre square.

 

[Neverwas]

Buddy fined $1k

Zak Jones 1 week for striking Butler!

Where is the footage! Is it the same as the footage we didn't see for the Jack goal?

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

 

[SwansProudly]

I think it's one of those "interpretations" that are applied for the convenience of umpires. The one paying the free pays it on the basis that a players has entered and doesn't account for the numbers (or lack thereof) already there. The rule is clear. The bolded excuses the 4th (Buddy) for entering.

11.3.4
Permitted Numbers at the Centre Bounce
When the football is bounced to start a quarter or recommence play
after a Goal has been scored, the following shall apply:
(a)
a maximum of 4 Players from each Team are permitted in the
Centre Square;
(b)
Of the 4 Players, one player from each Team is permitted to be
within the 10 meter circle;
(c)
no Player (other than the 4 initial Players) or Team Official
shall enter the Centre Square from the time the field Umpire
commences their approach to the Centre Circle to bounce the
football until the football touches the ground, in the act of
bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being
thrown up;

I'd love to know if it has ever been paid this year or *ever* (other than against Franklin)

 

[Jack2Jack]

Why do you care? All he does is taint his own integrity. I wouldn't want to see any player suspended for milking unless they weren't actually touched.

Franklin took the risk whacking him back in the same way he whacked him. Umpire is the one who should be dropped for a week for paying a free kick.

Because it's an absolute blight on the sport and creates the opportunity for umpire insipidness. They should be fined, it's in the rules they are supposed to get fined. We had Boekhurst kick a goal against from a free from pathetic staged head throw last year, but maybe next time we (or whichever club happens to be on the receiving end) won't be 50 points ahead and it will actually matter.
Suspend players for doing it and it will stop bloody quickly, the AFL is failing the umpires enough as it is without needing to let this garbage continue to make their jobs even harder.

 

[Tuco]

Yer Montana threw a touchdown pass with 30 sec left to win it for 49ers pretty sure it was the 89 superbowl. We still haven't won a play off since 1991!

I watched that niners game! I think ch10 aired it live. Can't remember the year. But I sure as hell remember that drive!

Goosebumps.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I'd love to know if it has ever been paid this year or *ever* (other than against Franklin)

I doubt it. But that would only be because teams are mostly pretty organised. Centre square infringements though are paid every week.

The question is whether it has ever been reversed on the understanding that there were only 3 originally in the square in the first place, and again the answer would be "no" although it should be yes and should have been on Saturday, going by the rule.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I didn't even know Zak was in trouble.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[connolly]

The ambiguity is here.

no Player (other than the 4 initial Players) or Team Official
shall enter the Centre Square from the time the field Umpire
commences their approach to the Centre Circle to bounce the
football until the football touches the ground, in the act of
bouncing, or leaves the field Umpire’s hand, in the act of being
thrown up;

Key word is 'initial' playes. Once the ump starts to move in, you have your 4 initial players (or 3 in our case). Buddy wasn't one of the initial 4 players in the centre square.

That is wrong. The key word is 4. The rule simply assumes that there will be the maximum of 4 players in the square before the umpires moves in to bounce the ball. If the rule was meant to say that NO PLAYER SHALL ENTER THE CENTRE SQUARE AFTER THE UMPIRE MOVES IRRESPECTIVE of the numbers it would have said that clearly. You have to read the rule according to its purpose and context which is to set a maximum number of players that can be in the centre square.

 

[SlingshotFooty]

Come on be honest you were thinking what everyone else was we were 6 goals down and playing terribly.

I thought we were in trouble, but I kept watching! A sign enough that I still believed!

 

[The Swans Blog]

Zak Jones and the club will cop the week. There's footage on the AFL website that clearly shows him striking Butler. Dumb * thing to do and I hope he eliminates it from his game.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Zak Jones and the club will cop the week. There's footage on the AFL website that clearly shows him striking Butler. Dumb **** thing to do and I hope he eliminates it from his game.

Actually the footage doesn't show anything more than what is shown in the Mitchell incident. It must be down to the Richmond medical report.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Zak Jones, Sydney Swans, has been charged with striking Dan Butler, Richmond, during the third quarter of the Round 13 match between the Sydney Swans and Richmond, played at the MCG on Saturday June 17, 2017.


In summary, he can accept a one-match sanction with an early plea.


Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Richmond Football Club, the incident was assessed as intentional conduct with low impact to the head. The incident was classified as a two-match sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a one-match sanction.

How does Jones have no applicable record. He was fined for striking only 3 weeks ago!!

 

[BloodySwan]

Alright footage is here
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-06-20/jones-strike-dees-react-jong-devastated

Pretty straight forward, swing to the face. Clear as day

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Alright footage is here
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-06-20/jones-strike-dees-react-jong-devastated

Pretty straight forward, swing to the face. Clear as day

Yeah but you can't see the impact. You're relying on Butler's reaction. I'm not disputing it. He should go just for taking the swing. But it pisses me off that Jones goes on that vision and Selwood walks on his vision.