The King!
Chosen One
Yep but experts will tell you tom cant hit a target at all, runs like grandma and cant fit in the side with parker and kennedy
Well stuff that he can play so give him a run and ditch mcglynn
Review Round 4: Sydney Swans vs Fremantle - Match Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Punts
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yep but experts will tell you tom cant hit a target at all, runs like grandma and cant fit in the side with parker and kennedy
Well stuff that he can play so give him a run and ditch mcglynn
The King!
Chosen One
The King!
Chosen One
Who is more screwed
sydney if buddy went down or freo if fyfe went down
sydney if buddy went down or freo if fyfe went down
The Umps didn't help matters, but Sydney were their own worse enemy, and didn't apply any sort of pressure until it was too late.
Freo minus Fyfe, Sydney have shown they can win without Buddy.
The King!
Chosen One
Got within a kick with 10 minutes to go, was not too late
We actually had more of it in the first half
Maddhew
Cancelled
- Feb 9, 2007
- 4,619
- 3,351
- AFL Club
- Sydney
You just paraphrased my post
And they had to play virtually mistake free Football to get to that point, sure enough it was a turnover that stymied the comeback.
If Sydney played with the same endeavor for even a 10 minute period earlier, the result would've been different imo.
kickthething
Brownlow Medallist
It looks like good teams think you can get us by going roughhouse......most of the rushed kicks were from the pressure applied, when we reversed that the rushed kicks came form the other side. Hanners was fantastic, just wish he had of gone with his first option prior to that turnover, once he doubled back it was always going to end in tears.... I think we are better than last year and we are only going to get better, Lloyd is a gun, Rohan nearly changed it all on his own with his pace, and a few senior guys are not at their best just yet. We were too slow out of the blocks however when we turned we really turned. So, to all the chicken little's, take a breath.
Switching to the Adelaide Oval game last night it was really stark how differently the holding the ball rule is applied.....
Switching to the Adelaide Oval game last night it was really stark how differently the holding the ball rule is applied.....
SSwans2011
Hall of Famer
As bad as that first half an losing this early seems, we're still 3 and 1. Go at 3 and 1 for the whole year and we'll finish 17 and 5, which is a fine record in on itself. Take into account the fact that we won't usually have two top four teams in four games either, and I feel we're doing well. 
MarkP
That guy
Oh but don't worry. Horse apparently addressed this in the presser so it is all ok. Definitely not part of the game plan. I find it encouraging that after 2 odd years of players doing precisely that he is going to put the foot down and make changes to the side because they are not following instructions.
I mean the first half was an aberration. A one off. It was un-swans like. It won't happen again.
Cripes, if coaches made changes to sides based on not following instructions you would see a new 21 every Week.
grimlock
Hall of Famer
fox footy's review of the goal reviews
http://m.foxsports.com.au/video?v=goal-review-system-confusion_1227321318965
Big Lol at the boundary umpire who must have had Superman's X-Ray vision to conclusively rule touched
http://m.foxsports.com.au/video?v=goal-review-system-confusion_1227321318965
Big Lol at the boundary umpire who must have had Superman's X-Ray vision to conclusively rule touched
We are a better looking team with Buddy, Rohan, Heeney, Mcglynn & Reid forward with Tippett in the ruck swapping with Pyke off the bench for a rest.
Can't happen with reduced rotations & sub.
Can't happen with reduced rotations & sub.
Lakeside Swan
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #991
What happened to Heeney last night? I heard he did something to his ankle. Did it happen early and what sort of injury is it?
Yeah was subbed of early, Longmire in his press conference said was precautionary at the time. I'd say scans Monday will reveal all.
That 50 should be paid every time. If someone takes the mark and you give them a push afterwards, you're an idiot. McVeigh didn't remonstrate at all because he knew the same. The fact that it's not paid all the time doesn't mean it shouldn't have been this time.
Those frees where they're wrestling and both holding always seem pretty rough, but umpires will always be looking more at the defender in those situations. Rampe's arms often went up over Fyfe's shoulders and that is a really obvious infringement moreso than a fistful of jumper. Also, because it happened so often I tend to believe that the call was right, as Rampe was really struggling with Fyfe's strength.
I can't remember the ones you mentioned re: Mayne/Pav, but McPharlin is a very clever defender. Every defender in the history of the game has been a scragger, but timing/deception is what sets apart the really good ones.
The Shaw call seems super-harsh, but if you put your body over the ball, you are adjudged to have taken possession even if you haven't actually touched it. It works both ways, it means that no-one can kick the footy out from under you, but you can be tackled. In this era of football, all players know how to tackle and bring the ball into the tackled player so they can't get it out. So in the end, I reckon they got it right as all Shaw wanted to do was prevent the ball from coming out. A lot of times he would've gotten away with that though, so probably a bit unlucky!
Either way, the umpiring was much less influential than this board seems to believe. We got smashed in the first half fair and square.
3 holding the ball free kicks in defensive 50 in first half unfortunately, from where I was sitting looked legit, but 2 goals disallowed due to poor reviews/goal ups changing minds looked like legit goals. 50 meter free kick and goal to Freo was the softest. 20 to 10 free kick against at half time certainly gave the umps in to the game and in the end we played for only half a game still nearly won it and if we'd got a few of the 50/50s would have.
On the other review for Bird's goal, the goal umpire said "it was a goal, but check if touched". Boundary umpire came in, he was unsighted and said "it was touched" then goal umpire backflipped and said "It was touched".
Pure fraud.
Bullsh1t.
Freo got a 7-0 run at the beginning then a bunch of 50's all of which directly led to 3-4 goals. We were ahead on most stats - but kept getting turned on our heels from the run of frees.
It was disgraceful from the field umpires - then the goal and boundary umps got involved.
We were heavily outnumbered.
He's as handsy as your drunk uncle at your daughter's 21st.
Watch the replay again, and you can count on one hand the number of times Buddy was able to get two hands above his head? Why you ask?? Handsy McGrabster was "cleverly" holding one arm in every contest.
Exactly the same as Grundy and Ted (when he doesn't get burnt off on a lead). So has every good defender in the history of the game. The fullback in the team of the century was the same!
Haha. I'll never see eye-to-eye with you on umpiring, but that's ok.
The influence in the umpiring was more about a few crucial decisions that gave them back momentum at key moments. Bias in umpiring doesn't have to be overt, it can be quite covert. Just a little surreptitious sleight of hand and it can be done within the rules. Umpiring is, by it's nature, subjective. A confident 'touched' goal call from a boundary umpire to create doubt in the goal umpire's mind, a generous 50m, a technical call on a 50:50 contest. In a fair contest that subjectivity should go both ways.
Sure, we should have worked harder early but, in what was always going to be a tight game, the umpiring made just enough difference.
Sure, we should have worked harder early but, in what was always going to be a tight game, the umpiring made just enough difference.
