That interchange free

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

No doubt it was the correct technical decision to make, as Callan crossed the wrong side of the line.
My concern is that the reason the interchange infraction free was brought in, was to prevent team fielding more than the 18 players on the field. At no stage did we have more than 18 on the field tonight, yet we still incurred the most severe on field penalty that can be paid against a side. Given Higgins was about to shoot for goal when the decision was paid, it could've been a 12 point turnaround
Why should such a heavy price be paid for effectively what is such a minor infraction that has no bearing on the action on the field? Imagine if the game turned on that. Would anyone like to see a game, especially a finals game, won or lost due to a player crossing onto the field in the wrong direction.
No doubt the rule was interpreted correctly by the umpires, and sure the bench steward & Callan should've been on the ball to prevent it from happening in the first place, but I just think it is a stinker of an outcome for the game of football for an infraction that is so innocuous and that did not disadvantage the opposition in any shape of form.

[The Coon Dog]

If you didn't have to go through the yellow lines then you could have a scenario where a player comes on behind the goals. Be handy if the opposition didn't pick him up.

Wasn't it a huge momentun shift as a result? Higgins lining up for a shot to put us 2 goals clear, then it goes up the other end & Kennelly misses but Hall gets the goal a minute later from a free to put the Swans infront.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

If you didn't have to go through the yellow lines then you could have a scenario where a player comes on behind the goals. Be handy if the opposition didn't pick him up.

Wasn't it a huge momentun shift as a result? Higgins lining up for a shot to put us 2 goals clear, then it goes up the other end & Kennelly misses but Hall gets the goal a minute later from a free to put the Swans infront.

Sure, but players and coaches already utilise the current area to their advantage to slip a player on at critical points in play to secure a free player as it is.

To stop players coming on behind the goal they could just legislate that no player can come on the ground inside either 50 metre line, instead of penalising a team for missing an arbitrary yelloe line by two metres.
Again, it's not that it's an incorrect decision, just that in the context of other frees its an extremely disproportionate outcome in realtion to the nature of the infraction.

For example, you could hit a player late in your forward 50, and the worst that happens is a player gets a free and a 50, taking them to the wing or forward of centre.
As compared to what happened tonight, and the ball goes from a shot on goal to one team to a shot on goal to another...... for such a minor infraction.

[The Coon Dog]

I don't disagree with your sentiment YHF, especially as it was as a result of those cheating pricks that the rule got changed.

The penalty seems grossly disproportionate to the crime.

[ledge]

Point is its not like its rocket science, go through the yellow lines thats what they are there for, how many times do you have to be told??
Have footballers got brains??
AND the stewards ffs in "between the lines boys!!"
Callan should be shot for that.
No wonder Eade went off his nut how stupid.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Point is its not like its rocket science, go through the yellow lines thats what they are there for, how many times do you have to be told??
Have footballers got brains??
AND the stewards ffs in "between the lines boys!!"
Callan should be shot for that.
No wonder Eade went off his nut how stupid.

Oh I agree, it's stupidity personified, however I think this exact situation also highlights the knee jerk way in which the AFL reacted to the Swans v North interchange drama earlier this year.
Instead of thinking through the rule change, they hastily introduced THE single most devastating penalty that can be paid during a game, and as a result we could now see a game turned not by events on the field - and not due to a team having more than 18 on the field- which is why the rule was introduced - but due to a player entering the arena 2 metre shy of a yellow line.
It just seems too harsh a penalty to be paid for what is really THE most minor of infractions.

[Go_Dogs]

Apparently if you run off the other side of that line, you can't come back on at all?

Pretty silly mistake either way, and something I'm sure won't happen again. No biggie, but I'm sure Callan will owe Higgins a beer once our finals are done.

[hujsh]

Apparently if you run off the other side of that line, you can't come back on at all?

Happened to Gehrig against WCE at Subi one year

[G-Mo77]

Stupid rule, something that NEVER should have been brought in half way through the season. It was kind of ironic that the rule burnt us while playing against the cheats that forced this ludicrous rule change.

Free kick in the middle of the ground is penalty enough a free shot on goal is to severe.

[strebla]

Interesting as I am watching the replay that it was not the umpires that picked it up but the sydney official as if they didn't get enough advantage tonight

[G-Mo77]

Interesting as I am watching the replay that it was not the umpires that picked it up but the sydney official as if they didn't get enough advantage tonight

Surprised?

[strebla]

Surprised?

No not surprised but FING pissed off that is not the Sydney officials job BUT they do always get everything they want

[G-Mo77]

No not surprised but pissed off that is not the Sydney officials job BUT they do always get everything they want

They also dobbed our runner in as well.

[ledge]

Well they got theyre right whack, wonder if it all stems back to why Eade got the sack at Sydney?

I have one question though, is it the stewards job to notice it, emergency umpire or someone else?
Who is the official and it should be his job and no one elses or you might as well take the word of a supporter leaning over the fence.
Something about interstate sides dobbing in , if i recall rightly wasnt it the Eagles who started the dobbing in at tribunal hearings?

[Twodogs]

I've got two qustions;



1. How does a competetion retain any integrity when it changes the rules halfway through a season purely to benefit one club? This was, is and will continue to be a joke and makes the AFL a farce. I was always a huge supporter of the current AFL administration but this cost them my support


2. How the hell did Kennely end up taking the kick? My understanding of the rule was that the ball would be returned to the centre circle, the 50 metre penalty measured out and then the ruckman took the resulting kick. Or is it like most AFL rules and it only applies to 15 clubs and the Swans continue to please themselves about whether they observe it or not.

[mjp]

I agree with your assessment of the rul2 2D, BUT both times I have seen it applied (Adelaide vs West Coast, last night) the player nearest the ball when the infringement occurred took the kick.

[craigsahibee]

Make the interchange area smaller and the player coming off has to exchange a card with the player coming on detailing the guernsey number of his replacement.

[LostDoggy]

Common sense is not the AFL's forte.

Such a minor infringement. He crossed in the wrong area, then stops and goes back around the right way. No advantage to us. Reserving a shot on goal to shot on goal for the opposition is way to harsh.
Could have easily been a 12 point turn around.

[LostDoggy]

Apparently if you run off the other side of that line, you can't come back on at all?

Pretty silly mistake either way, and something I'm sure won't happen again. No biggie, but I'm sure Callan will owe Higgins a beer once our finals are done.

I thought that was the rule too I thought it was the incorrect decision because 18 men where on the field and not 19 so the 50m penelty from the centre square doesn't apply. How ever Callan definantly came off the ground but didn't do it through the interchange gate so i thought that means he's off for the game. Be interesting to see aker's take on it. I thought we were lucky to be honnest.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Make the interchange area smaller and the player coming off has to exchange a card with the player coming on detailing the guernsey number of his replacement.

I think this has some merit, Aker was on before the game yesterday and stated that all other games that have an interchange, you just need to give a high five. This or a card could be quite simple couldn't it.

It may disadvantage us as i remember Rocket taking gILBEE OFF AFTER A KICK IN AFTER A POINT AND eagle coming on and running forward. it almost paid off for us that day.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think this has some merit, Aker was on before the game yesterday and stated that all other games that have an interchange, you just need to give a high five. This or a card could be quite simple couldn't it.

It may disadvantage us as i remember Rocket taking gILBEE OFF AFTER A KICK IN AFTER A POINT AND eagle coming on and running forward. it almost paid off for us that day.

A player can come off the ground wherever they like but if they do not come off through the interchange gates they can't come back on.

The night to which you are referring, there was only about 1 minute to go, so Gilbee stepped over the boundry behind the goals and Eagle ran on through the interchange gates to the forward pocket. There is still nothing against the rules to prevent this - other than Gilbee could not come back on (and Gilbee had to stay outside the boundry of course).

[Twodogs]

A player can come off the ground wherever they like but if they do not come off through the interchange gates they can't come back on.

The night to which you are referring, there was only about 1 minute to go, so Gilbee stepped over the boundry behind the goals and Eagle ran on through the interchange gates to the forward pocket. There is still nothing against the rules to prevent this - other than Gilbee could not come back on (and Gilbee had to stay outside the boundry of course).



Pretty sure it MacMahon who came on, wasnt it?

[The Coon Dog]

Pretty sure it MacMahon who came on, wasnt it?

Eagle came on, but it well may have been 'Football's First Lady' who came off.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Pretty sure it MacMahon who came on, wasnt it?

Yeah. I reckon you're right. Was it when he hurt his ankle?

[The Coon Dog]

Yeah. I reckon you're right. Was it when he hurt his ankle?
It was defnately Eagle who came on.

[aker39]

A player can come off the ground wherever they like but if they do not come off through the interchange gates they can't come back on.





Not anymore than can't.

If they don't come off through the gate, the same penalty applies.

[Go_Dogs]

Not anymore than can't.

If they don't come off through the gate, the same penalty applies.

So then technically, could our penalty have been because Callan ran off on the wrong side of the gate, after running on through the wrong side? Should he have been dis-allowed to come back on because he returned on the wrong side, or because he ran on incorrectly, it didn't matter, as he wasn't actually 'on'?

[Mantis]

Eagle came on, but it well may have been 'Football's First Lady' who came off.

Football's First lady replaced by Football's Second Lady.

I just had to...

[Sockeye Salmon]

Not anymore than can't.

If they don't come off through the gate, the same penalty applies.

So a guy gets hurt and they take him straight up the race they give away a free shot at goal?

I believe you. That's exactly the sort of rule the AFL would bring in.

[aker39]

So a guy gets hurt and they take him straight up the race they give away a free shot at goal?

I believe you. That's exactly the sort of rule the AFL would bring in.


Unless he's taken off on a strecher, than the rule will apply.

Initially the AFL were only going to fine a club for this breach, but I can confirm it has the same penalty as what happened Friday night.

[bornadog]

Unless he's taken off on a strecher, than the rule will apply.

Initially the AFL were only going to fine a club for this breach, but I can confirm it has the same penalty as what happened Friday night.

Why was Buddy allowed to go off the field when he kicked his 100, not through the interchange gate:D

[The Coon Dog]

Why was Buddy allowed to go off the field when he kicked his 100, not through the interchange gate:D

a) Did anyone replace him?

b) Player safety must be paramount & overide all other considerations.

[westdog54]

Why was Buddy allowed to go off the field when he kicked his 100, not through the interchange gate:D

It seemed everyone was asking that question.

The scenario was planned and OKed by City Hall, it was all above board.