Murray MiddletonThe 19th Man
May 1st 2008 12:37
In the wake of last Sunday's draw between Sydney and North Melbourne both coaches suggested that their sides had got out of jail. The next day it was revealed that the Swans had played with nineteen men on the ground for a short period in the last two minutes of the match. The extra man on the field - Darren Jolly - was involved in the passage of play in which Brett Kirk kicked the behind that tied the match. In light of the development, there is little doubt that Dean Laidley's take on the two points would have altered considerably.
On Tuesday the AFL launched an investigation into the incident. The result was a fifty thousand dollar fine to the Swans. Although the fine seemed large, it was difficult to apply a penalty to the crime. How can the league put a price on two points? On 'Footy Classified' on Monday night Kangaroos chamption Glenn Archer suggested that the result might have huge consequences on the complexion of the ladder at the end of the season. He raised the possibility that his old club might miss out on the eight by two points. In such a situation the Kangaroos would have every right to feel cheated.
So what should have happened? If the Kangaroos had have called for a count - which they were entitled to do - they would have won the match (and won it handsomly). There is little doubt that the indiscretion was an honest error on the Swans' behalf. To intentionally play nineteen men on the field at the risk of forfeiting a match would be idiotic. There is a good chance that Paul Roos was not aware of the discrepancy until the league's investigation was launched. However, ignorance is no excuse.
An interchange is a simple act. It does not involve rocket science for the player coming onto the field. He does not enter the field of play until his teammate has left the field through the interchange gates. How hard can it be? Sydney have argued that the infringement occured during a multiple interchange, which caused confusion for the players entering the field. This does not cut the mustard. The player entering the field - first gamer Jesse White - must have known that he was entering the field for Darren Jolly. The swap was ruckman for ruckman. Given that Jolly did not leave the field of play, there could have been no confusion. The Swans cheated.
It would be a huge decision for the Swans to be stripped of their two points. On the surface it would tarnish a hard fought, defensive match. However Sydney breached the rules. Considering that Jolly was involved in the passage of play that decided the result of the game, it is important for the league to strip Sydney of their two points. They set a precedent for such action in 2006 when they correctly awarded Fremantle the four points after the 'Sirengate' incident in Launceston. The behind that tied the contest on Sunday was judged to have been touched by Michael Firrito. Replays appeared to show the ball crossing the goal line. If the Swans had have won the match, the Kangaroos would furious.
On Tuesday the AFL launched an investigation into the incident. The result was a fifty thousand dollar fine to the Swans. Although the fine seemed large, it was difficult to apply a penalty to the crime. How can the league put a price on two points? On 'Footy Classified' on Monday night Kangaroos chamption Glenn Archer suggested that the result might have huge consequences on the complexion of the ladder at the end of the season. He raised the possibility that his old club might miss out on the eight by two points. In such a situation the Kangaroos would have every right to feel cheated.
So what should have happened? If the Kangaroos had have called for a count - which they were entitled to do - they would have won the match (and won it handsomly). There is little doubt that the indiscretion was an honest error on the Swans' behalf. To intentionally play nineteen men on the field at the risk of forfeiting a match would be idiotic. There is a good chance that Paul Roos was not aware of the discrepancy until the league's investigation was launched. However, ignorance is no excuse.
An interchange is a simple act. It does not involve rocket science for the player coming onto the field. He does not enter the field of play until his teammate has left the field through the interchange gates. How hard can it be? Sydney have argued that the infringement occured during a multiple interchange, which caused confusion for the players entering the field. This does not cut the mustard. The player entering the field - first gamer Jesse White - must have known that he was entering the field for Darren Jolly. The swap was ruckman for ruckman. Given that Jolly did not leave the field of play, there could have been no confusion. The Swans cheated.
It would be a huge decision for the Swans to be stripped of their two points. On the surface it would tarnish a hard fought, defensive match. However Sydney breached the rules. Considering that Jolly was involved in the passage of play that decided the result of the game, it is important for the league to strip Sydney of their two points. They set a precedent for such action in 2006 when they correctly awarded Fremantle the four points after the 'Sirengate' incident in Launceston. The behind that tied the contest on Sunday was judged to have been touched by Michael Firrito. Replays appeared to show the ball crossing the goal line. If the Swans had have won the match, the Kangaroos would furious.
| 58 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
