19 Man Swans Zone – All Hands on Deck?

Q: What’s harder than breaking down the Sydney Swans’ 18 man defensive zone?
A: Breaking down the Sydney Swans’ 19 man defensive zone

Evidence has surfaced that the Sydney Swans had 19 men on the ground in the late stages of their controversial draw on Sunday. A game already shrouded by the controversy over Brett Kirk’s game tying point now sees revelations that not only did they have 19 men in their defensive zone for the Kangaroos kick-in, but the ’19th man’ Darren Jolly made an important hand pass at half forward that saw the ball come back into the attacking 50, eventually ending up with Brett Kirk to level the scores.

Apparently the mix up occurred with first gamer Jesse White taking the field without replacing anyone with about 90 seconds left to play – I’m not the first to mention what a way to start your career, and I won’t be the last.

Kangaroos coach Dean Laidley has made a statement that the Kangaroos are content with the result of the match, and it’s not something they will pursue further, seeing it had no real effect on the result of the game. This was apparently before Laidley had been informed that Jolly had played a hand in the lead up to the final point. Not that this will change anything – I’m sure Laidley is not a man to look for a win on a technicality – but there is more than a few Kangaroos fans raising the possibility of an extra 2 points being the difference between a top 4 or top 8 finish at the end of the season, Glenn Archer for one.

The Kangaroos have their hands tied here – they can’t come out and say ‘Look, we deserve 4 points for this game’, even if they believed that to be the case. Such a statement will reek of sour grapes to many, and they have too much respect for the Swans to do so. They have to rely on the AFL to make a big decision – which obviously won’t happen.

The AFL will have their obligatory investigation, conclude by stating what everyone else already knows, and try and wipe the issue under the carpet. They do it time and time again – by now everyone knows the result before they even release it themselves.

Do I think the Swans should be penalised? Yes. But I think awarding the game to the Kangaroos is too big a penalty for them to pay. Especially with no precedent leading into this incident, and on the assumption that the error was clearly an oversight, and no more. However, I can’t help but feel aggrieved for the Kangaroos. Any penalty other than 2 points will serve nothing for them.

What I would like to see, is the rabble known as the rules committee come up with something that will lay clear guidelines for another breach in future. The current rule of the captain having to call for a head count is clearly outdated in today’s age of interchange, as is the penalty of resetting the team’s score. Is this a rule that should have been looked at previously – could the committee have foreseen such an incident with the rapid rise in interchanges? Maybe not. But maybe it could have.

Let’s be prepared for a similar incident in future – this most definitely will not be the last time an interchange error will be made.

Let’s amend the rules for the good of the game.

With the recent record of the rules committee, let’s just not hold our breath.