Changes vs swans

[btoz_01]

Aarts or Hugo the sub?

FArts needs a full game where belongs in the VFL

 

[AngryAnt]

We know Dimma and the MC don't do a lot of changes

Pickett, Graham in (if fit)

Lynch and Lambo out

boom

 

[Tigerfan]

No surprises

 

[22nd Man]

Fist time for us at SCG since 2016 that last Round horror show. How far have we come since then.

 

[Mr T.]

I like how the AFL site is calling Swans undermanned with Hickey and Kennedy out… Lynch and Lambert goes out we are still at strength.

 

[Tigerfan]

3 on the injury list

Lynch lambert Balta

 

[JR8]

Fist time for us at SCG since 2016 that last Round horror show. How far have we come since then.

How far?

Oh I don't know...............3 Premierships later!!!!!!

 

[seven]

3 on the injury list

Lynch lambert Balta

Now thats 3 very handy players

 

[Jake]

I like how the AFL site is calling Swans undermanned with Hickey and Kennedy out… Lynch and Lambert goes out we are still at strength.

One thing Kennedy and lambo have in common, not bad with the birds, Josh a bit behind with P Medals.

 

[DavidSSS]

1968
An opponent became obliged to return ball to recipient of mark or free if the opponent had possession of the ball at the time of the umpire’s decision.
(History of Rule Changes 1858-2019)

Yeah, that's if they have possession, which apparently Shai did. But back in the old days if the ball was at your feet you didn't have to pick it up and throw it back. A more recent change or rules or change of interpretation? Who knows but they do seem more strict on this now.

I'd add that the rule change page is not comprehensive, and not very well put together.

DS

 

[davidc0055]

Yeah, that's if they have possession, which apparently Shai did. But back in the old days if the ball was at your feet you didn't have to pick it up and throw it back. A more recent change or rules or change of interpretation? Who knows but they do seem more strict on this now.

I'd add that the rule change page is not comprehensive, and not very well put together.

DS

If you don't have possession you don't have to give it back.

 

[Platinum member]

Yeah, that's if they have possession, which apparently Shai did. But back in the old days if the ball was at your feet you didn't have to pick it up and throw it back. A more recent change or rules or change of interpretation? Who knows but they do seem more strict on this now.

I'd add that the rule change page is not comprehensive, and not very well put together.

DS

You don’t have to give it back if you don’t touch it… you can’t have it then just put it on the ground like shai did

Out of all the dodgyness we cop from the umps… that wasn’t one..

 

[bricci]

FWIW: Bolton is our biggest offender re: 50's; has played on after a free against 4-5 times.

Changes as expected and completely correct I reckon.
No injuries from this game and we may have zero for round 12! (That will give us a huge advantage post bye).

 

[Harry]

Massive game. Go Tiges.

 

[seven]

How good is this.
Boys land in Sydney and meet a well know local from ch9 The Voice
Edwards and Jack with Keith Urban

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

View attachment 15525
How good is this.
Boys land in Sydney and meet a well know local from ch9 The Voice
Edwards and Jack with Keith Urban

No it's Kenny Loggins

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Shouldve stayed home.
Get the Vaseline ready massive reaming coming tommorow night.

 

[btoz_01]

Shouldve stayed home.
Get the Vaseline ready massive reaming coming tommorow night.
View attachment 15527

No need for Vaseline anymore we’ve been copping it for years

 

[TigerMasochist]

Yes, I understand the umpire's decision stands if the ARC is inconclusive.

But surely the umpire can only call it as hitting the post if there is evidence of the ball hitting the post (like a noise, deviation, alteration of the way the ball is spinning or the like). In the absence of any of that evidence I just don't get why he called it as hitting the post. Just makes no sense. Could just be a mistake which I can accept but then the ARC is meant to be able to pick up that it was a mistake. As I've said before, difficult one for the Goal Ump and the ARC should have had his back but it failed. If you assume a mistake then the goal umpire shares a little blame given how difficult it was and given his positioning was correct in the situation, the ARC takes most of the blame for simply being useless.

DS

A miniscule touch of the ball on the goal post won't cause an audible noise especially with a crowd in full voice nor would it cause a noticeable deviation.
Goal umpire called what he thought he saw n technology wasn't smart enough to over ride it.
Was a pain in the bloody arse when it happened but it's way to inconclusive to worry about.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

No need for Vaseline anymore we’ve been copping it for years

I'm expecting this Tomorrow night