After McLean's goal in the North Sydney game, North Melbourne made yet another interchange. Why was there no free kick and 50 paid at the next centre bounce? Umpires cutting North every break yet again.
Roast Sydney robbed of interchange free kick
- Thread starter maskmcgee
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Sep 10, 2006
- 19,760
- 19,558
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
So they've literally just been penalised for their 76th interchange, still have a chance to win the game and they choose to make a 77th interchange while the ball is going back to the centre of the ground.
The first screw up was bad enough but how does that happen?
The first screw up was bad enough but how does that happen?
RocketBooster
Debutant
Could have led to another goal and a percentage boost to decide the bottom 4 teams at end of the season
Last edited:
Sounds like the rules were being correctly followed by the umps
- Thread starter
- #6
So why did a different player come back on?
Doesn't say anything about which player is able to replace them (or even if any player can replace them). So technically we should have been playing with 17 for the rest of the game according to that
The 76th interchange was Phillips off for Powell. I think that means Phillips could have returned to the field (because he couldn't technically be interchanged off) and Powell would have had to come off immediately.Doesn't say anything about which player is able to replace them (or even if any player can replace them). So technically we should have been playing with 17 for the rest of the game according to that
Who were the players on and off in the 77th interchange?
- Sep 10, 2006
- 19,760
- 19,558
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,085
- 34,335
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
2 possibilities...
Either the Kangas are tanking for draft picks... Or like Kane Cornes suggested, North have some volunteer nuffy as their interchange steward who stuffed things up with the 76th interchange and he then tried to reverse his mistake by recalling Tom Powell to the bench and sending Liam Shiels back on. (even though Shiels was the 75th interchange)
The AFL puts a limit on how many football staff each club can employ (by way of a salary cap and luxury tax)
...and this is the end result.
Games being decided by a technical free kick because some 65 year old retiree club stalwart got a bit confused in the heat of the moment.
The AFL probably employs more people than all 18 clubs put together. They even have their own officials down between the team benches who count the number of interchanges and let both teams know when they have 10 remaining.
But for some unknown reason, these AFL officials don't get off their arses and prevent a team from exceeding the interchange limit.
They just sit back, wait for the clubs to make a mistake and then relay the infringement to the umpires and decide the match that way.
Awesome stuff by the AFL.
- Apr 29, 2009
- 2,382
- 2,598
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Waterford GAA, Glenorchy, Hob (BBL)
This Fox Footy clip seems to advise Phillips is 75th off and Shiels 76th - I know that's not the order they physically came off the ground, but per the AFL regulations teams advise of who's coming off before it happens, so likely Phillips off (and Greenwood on) officially 'happened' first and Shiels off for Powell counts as the 76th. In which case, Powell back off and Shiels back on is pretty clearly a reversal in line with the regulation grimface_87 posted upthread.
- Aug 15, 2014
- 10,398
- 21,449
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Chicago Bulls
They were clearly trying to reverse the 76th interchange (potentially at the instruction of the umpires/interchange steward following the free kick) and just stuffed up. It was in the heat of the moment and the players themselves probably didn’t even know the order of who came off and on in real time.
- Thread starter
- #14
Why? And what's clear about it? Nobody told him to come off the ground. There's no runner out there. He just instantly knew he'd been caught and headed back to the bench?
The only thing clear is North didn't want to risk winning the clearance in the middle and winning the game, so they were trying to get the Swans another goal to keep tanking and remove any chance of a win.
I think the reason is obvious.. the guy who's job it is to count the interchanges on behalf of the AFL would've been creaming himself and waiting for them to exceed it, yearning for relevance. It's like a parking inspector standing by a meter with 6 mins left on it.But for some unknown reason, these AFL officials don't get off their arses and prevent a team from exceeding the interchange limit.
They just sit back, wait for the clubs to make a mistake and then relay the infringement to the umpires and decide the match that way.
Awesome stuff by the AFL.
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
and here in lies the problem for footballers. The warnings come in at 10 interchanges left, then five, then one.
this forces footballers to count down from 10, rather than count up. It is hard enough for footballers to count to 10, let alone count down, especially if you're jumping from 10 to 5 to 1.
Last edited:
Umps probably relayed it via mics. While it’s not clear North got it exactly right at the “reversal”, for you to keep up this line means you think Phillips came on for what 30 seconds and then decided to come off again for tanking purposes. And the umps didn’t see it so why not do a 78/79/80th interchange?
you don’t think it is that the rules state the interchange has to be reversed, that the reversal was based off the paperwork and not the exact order they got to the bench when running off, and there’s a multitude of ways that information could have been relayed.
- Aug 6, 2021
- 5,819
- 10,511
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think this is a bit harsh. The rules say that the clubs are warned at certain numbers, as long as that process is followed what more is the interchange steward supposed to do?
Also, do the clubs really want some random AFL employee (who btw is often just a person with a normal job who does this as a side gig on weekends), stepping in and interfering with what they’re doing on the bench?
North ****ed up, simple as that, it’s disappointing that the very first time this has happened it’s decided a game, but they’ve only got themselves to blame.
- Thread starter
- #21
North don't want to beat Sydney. Pulled the same tanking move back in 2002.
I don't think there's any way for us to tell if North stuffed up again based on the info we have. Would depend entirely on the specifics of the paperwork. AFL are looking into it, but either way it hasn't impacted the result.
Similar threads
