old rules Vs new rules

[saintbrat]

shame they changed the interchange rule-

under the old regulation if Roo had realised and called for a count the Bulldogs score would have gone to 0.00= 00 after 3/4 time- would have been 67 - 0

[OneEyedSainter77]

I'm a precious little egotitistical moron who thinks his opinions matter.

[saintbrat]

this one was differant than the foot over the line though- they ahd 19 men on the field..

[Nudge111]

Yup. In this case I think the punishment suits the crime.

Crossing the line though is a whole different story...

[SteveStevens66]

Yup. In this case I think the punishment suits the crime.

You won't be saying that if it is a close GF and the decision goes against us!

[Nudge111]

You won't be saying that if it is a close GF and the decision goes against us!

Better than our score being reset to Zero!

[ace]

The Puppies would have got away with 19 players on the field for some time if it were not for the tight monitoring of the interchange rule.

The Puppies actually started the quarter with 19 players on the ground.
By the time the interchange umpire realised and confirmed his facts, St Kilda had moved the ball to their half forward line hence the 50 metre penalty took Roo to the goal line.

It could be argued that the breach took place at the centre bounce and hence the ruckman King should have had the shot with the man on the mark 30 metres out.

[meher baba]

I absolutely hate the interchange rule. You can take your hands in the back, you can take your arm chopping and you can take your inconsistent holding-the-ball but THIS intercahnge rule is the WORST rule in the league.

Adrian Anderson gets paid 500k a year to think up this s***?!

At such a crucial moment in the game, such a contentious decision should not have been made. It should be a fifty from the centre of the ground - or a FREE KICK ONLY from where the ball currently is. Not BOTH!!!

:r
oll:

I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.

Having the wrong number of players on the ground is a fundamental error of the type that - in most other professional sports - results in an automatic forfeit.

In this, as in a lot of other things (eg, Bazza deliberately knocking someone unconscious and getting away with six weeks) our game is AMAZINGLY lenient!!

[Life Long Saint]

What is wrong with the interchange rule is the Bulldogs received the same punishment for having 19 on the ground as we did for Luke Ball crossing outside the line.

At no stage did we ever have 19 on the ground yet Carlton were gifted a goal.
Luke ball crossed just outside the line, had no bearing on the play yet Carlton were gifted a goal.
Incidents like the Luke Ball one should only ever be a fine.

Starting with 19 on the ground, whilst we assume it is an error, could easily lead to accusations of cheating.

As someone pointed out, if Roo had called for a head count, the Doggies score would have been wiped.

Lucky to only cost them a goal in the end.

[starsign]

What is wrong with the interchange rule is the Bulldogs received the same punishment for having 19 on the ground as we did for Luke Ball crossing outside the line.

At no stage did we ever have 19 on the ground yet Carlton were gifted a goal.
Luke ball crossed just outside the line, had no bearing on the play yet Carlton were gifted a goal.
Incidents like the Luke Ball one should only ever be a fine.

Starting with 19 on the ground, whilst we assume it is an error, could easily lead to accusations of cheating.

As someone pointed out, if Roo had called for a head count, the Doggies score would have been wiped.

Lucky to only cost them a goal in the end.

Exactly!!

[starsign]

What is wrong with the interchange rule is the Bulldogs received the same punishment for having 19 on the ground as we did for Luke Ball crossing outside the line.

At no stage did we ever have 19 on the ground yet Carlton were gifted a goal.
Luke ball crossed just outside the line, had no bearing on the play yet Carlton were gifted a goal.
Incidents like the Luke Ball one should only ever be a fine.

Starting with 19 on the ground, whilst we assume it is an error, could easily lead to accusations of cheating.

As someone pointed out, if Roo had called for a head count, the Doggies score would have been wiped.

Lucky to only cost them a goal in the end.

Exactly!!

[saintbrat]

the rule has changed- they no longer would have lost the whole score......

would have looked good on Akkers face though

[OneEyedSainter77]

I apologise to everyone and retract my statement. I was on the opposite side so I couldn't see what actually happened. I was under the impression that it was the same situation as what happened in the Carlton game - which I screamed bloody murder about at the time.

I hate it when close games are decided by contentious decisions... inthis case however, that is a bluinder. I thought it was just a case of having one guy step over the line which I think IS bulls***. Like the holding the ball rule, they need to work out a solid interpretation of it niot just whatever the umpire feels like.

If a team starts a quarter with an extra man on the ground, that is a stupid error which deserves what it actually got in this case. Otherwise, I say let it go.

I truly didn't actually see what happened so just assumed it was the same as the Luke Ball decison. I apologise to everyone.

[ace]

Eade said he spoke to Welsh after the game but would not punish him for the mix-up.

"I don't think he realised," he said.

"[After the game], I asked him if he'd read the match-up board and he said he didn't.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

ALTERNATE ANSWER
Like yeah coach I read the match up board.
I saw that you had me sitting on the bench.
I didn't like that so I decided to stay on the field to play as 19th man and give away a goal.
Next time don't sit me on the bench.