The Roar
The Roar

Munro Mike

Roar Rookie

Joined September 2018










He was hard done by last time after the tours – – stuffed around by the ‘cult of Marsh’.

Maxwell's Test dream renewed after shock addition to Sri Lanka squad

“The biggest problem is consistency.”

Yes – all the more because certain media and even fans can’t decide what they want.

The greatest consistency comes with allowing umpires to simply pay the frees that they see. Of course we want a scale such that minor frees might be overlooked (especially in a 50/50 contest).

However – we often see commentators assert it’s good when umpires put the whistle away late in a game……… is that consistent?? And who does that anywhere else in the world!?!?

We’ve seen recently 2 tight games with each side scoring 100+ points. Seemingly what many want (like the old days). However – many not happy with 60+ free kicks. So are we better with less frees……..but who tells each of the 3 umpires which ones to let go?

And 3 umpires. Of course there’ll be consistency issues.

The incredible weight of terrible umpiring

for umpiring – the ruck nomination is brilliant.

It means there’s only 2 players – whom I know of – that I care about if they get blocked.

What was ridiculous prior to the rule coming in were these 2 scenarios:

1. third man in complained about getting blocked and technically……the umpire had to pay it – even though it was pretty clear who the primary rucks were and that that person was going in as third up.

2. running 2 vs 1 in the ruck; which was entirely against the spirit of ruckwork. I saw it play out when the Bulldogs ran 2 up against Goldstein; it might have been Roughead and Campbell – – and one of those rucks was squarely targetting the body of Goldstein and not seriously targetting the ball.

So – – I’m fine with ruck nomination.

And – it would NOT have been an issue except that coaches – as is their want – decide to exploit the rules and as a result the rules need to crack down on that to continue the game being played as we prefer it to be played.

The incredible weight of terrible umpiring

This from this Roar article about Super Rugby…..(Former British Lions player and current Melbourne Rebels assistant coach Geoff Parling).

Part of that is the complexity of the laws and the inconsistencies in refereeing.

“There are too many stoppages still in the game, and we have to somehow try and quicken it up,” Parling said.

“That’s rugby in general and I feel for Super Rugby to really push it, it needs less law changes, make the product a little simpler for people who are watching.

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

I’m with DD here – largely.

Rules that could and should be repealed: “Stand” rule, Umpire dissent, ruck nomination, deliberate out of bounds for starters.

“Stand” – no – just call play on sooner if the player with the ball doesn’t come back behind the mark. And ‘the mark’…… where you stand…..stand the mark,…..stand on the mark……it’s not that complicated. But just call play on sooner. It looks silly if an umpire gets distracted and the player on the mark is left rooted to the spot.

Umpire Dissent – teach players to play to and then accept the whistle. The ultra hard line 50m…….not a fan of unless a player has carried on with it. At local level we can yellow card a player; the AFL doesn’t have that option. And THAT is one thing that would solve many of these issues. A player cracks it……yellow card him.

Ruck nomination – is great. 1 on 1 in the ruck. It’s a fundamental element of our game – the neutral 50/50 restart both in the middle of the ground and around the ground. It’s our one ‘specialist’ role. Protecting the integrity of the ruck contest is something I support – – despite that my North lads were great at exploiting it – Adam Simpson was a ripper at going 3rd man up. However – – when we saw umpires not knowing who was and wasn’t contesting a ball up and they’d ping someone for blocking the 3rd man up………that was a mess. That’s part of what it has fixed. That and I saw first hand the Doggies running 2 rucks against Goldstein; all game one just jumped into Goldy while the other went the ball. That was NOT in the spirit of ruckwork at all.

“deliberate out of bounds” is fine if applied correctly. However – the “insufficient intent” (to keep it in) – is a step too far as far as I’m concerned. It’s getting too close to last touch free kicks. THAT I do not want. This relates to original rules from 1859 and I don’t feel that we can change the ‘features’ of the game because some one suggests it looks like a flaw when compared to other codes. Similarly – we have the most pure goal in the football codes and THAT too is an original 1859 rule.

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

In ruck contests the players have to nominate to go for the ball like they’re in kindergarten.

WTF they can’t just throw the ball straight up, and if more than 1 player from either team competes pay a F/A is beyond me

Mate – you try umpiring this scenario. Think about it – – let’s say 4 players all make a play for the ball and 3 get blocked……who gets the free kick? It’s worse than Camberwell Junction with the lights on amber.

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

A. you follow the Eagles – so no wonder you’re on a downer with enjoyment at the moment.

B. if you like the NRL now – good luck to you; however NRL Womens is a token gesture of a 4 week round robin with practically no under lying competition. Remember – – it’s Rugby League; there’s not much skill involved and stuff all fitness required.

C. AFLW is going just fine. Most the critics seem to forget that it’s played in the hottest time of the year (changing that 2nd half 2022).

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

I was pleased the previous week to see Garry Lyon admitting on SEN that “Melbourne got the greatest run from the umpires I have seen for a long, long, long time. Jeez they had a good run.”

btw – great to see Goldy on Sunday working harder to impact deep forward – 2 goals and actually flying with real intent for a mark. My slight annoyance with Goldy is he’s gone through the motions a bit – – that game on Brad Scott’s last match – was one out of the box.

That said – he still gets stuff all from umps – they’re always holding him in the ruck!!!

AFL NEWS: 'You're losing the fans'- Action demanded after 'whistle-fest', reports of mass ejection in Dreamtime chaos

The rules as they stand this year includes the word “opinion” 22 times.

And of course it’s up to the interpretation of the umpires. A little hint – it’s also done FROM the view/percpetion of the umpires; not the cameras, or the crowd or the coaches box or the back pocket player.

Like any sport adjudicated by humans.

The simplest solution is to just pay everything. But no one wants that. SO EVERYTHING pulling back from 100% officious is bringing in shades of grey.

AFL Rules 2022

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

Calling stand is okay – if the player is where you want him to be. However – correct – umpires should be bringing the player with the ball back around. This is where you’ll see some players just creeping and almost not aware that they are – and we’ll call ‘play on’. Other times — if I’ve called a player to move back behind the mark a couple of times and they still don’t – then I’ll call play on. Watchers might think “He didn’t move” and that is precisely WHY I’ve called ‘play on’. And suddenly the player on the mark is back in the game. Players just need to not switch off mentally.

Yeah – the miking up of AFL umpires is arguably not needed; I’m fine with running the audio on a replay.

And the way it used to be……….was 15m penalties and Kevin Sheedy decided that he was willing to concede a 15m penalty because the benefit of slowing things down to allow his defenders to man up and fill gaps was worth the cost. Paying a penalty for a player not standing the mark properly is NOT something most of us (local umpies ) are looking to do; the preference is to NOT do it.

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

You suggest this to simplify.

– get rid of the ruck nomination so were you happy with teams often running 2 vs 1 in the ruck where one ruck was just taking out the body of the other to allow his mate the hit out/ or where third man up was getting free kicks for being blocked?? It was a mess. Ruck nomination is fine. It HAS simplified things.
– get rid of stand another simplification; in essence it removed a grey area of what a player could do – the old first part of the rule is retained – the player may stand ON the mark.
The simplicit now is that’s it – you either stand on it or somewhere near and behind it. The main issue is umpires not bringing the player with the ball back behind the mark and not calling play on soon enough.

– revert to actual deliberate out of bounds, not insufficient intent agreed – – otherwise many forwards need to be penalised for kicking for the forward pocket throw in because we know they prefer that than a behind.
– allow some leeway for players with the ball getting back onto their mark when the player isn’t having a shot for goal. It makes no difference if he’s half a metre off the line and then the umpire doesn’t have to run over to every mark. That just adds a whole heap of effort for nothing for the umpire part of this is to support the player standing the mark – is to bring the player with the ball back to where they roughly need to be. If there’s been a non-continuous element to play and you can’t call advantage/play on – – or if a mark – – then you have to get back behind the mark……it’s a small trade off for accepting the protected area that you now get (which I long thought needed to come in; especially immediately behind the kicker.
– call play on for advantage without a whistle. Only blow the whistle if there’s no advantage and you have to call it back I know at local level sometimes I do this – more on minor frees; however – – same with a mark where the player is going to play on; it’s obvious to everyone – we still blow the whistle and then call play on – – it allows the stats people to register is as a mark or free. It’s dangerous leaving it as an ‘implied’ free kick incase the umpire gets it wrong.
– its holding the ball the ball if you had an opportunity to get rid of it and you get tackled; there’s no wait time to see if you get rid of it. You get tackle with the ball and you’re gone. Agreed – that’s largely how I umpire it; and if you have hands clear and shape a handball then decide against it – – that’s an opportunity so if you had no prior – but you do this as you get rotated in a tackle then you’ve just used your ‘current’ opportunity and then I’ll ping you for that.
– only 50 from the protected zone if the player with the ball is actually impeded.a lot of us try to only pay it where it’s impactful or very potentially impactful; and that can include the guy at the back who lost contact (2 metres) with his opponent and is suddenly running to catch up to him. It’s a new element of footy smarts….let you man relax and then try to sneak away from him quickly.
– throw the ball up or in immediately, no waiting for the rucks yes and no; while it would be nice to – – to minimise lost time – – there’s a lot to be said for everyone having a quick breather; sometimes both players AND umpies need just a couple of seconds that it takes; and that’s often where an umpie will take that little longer to highlight the path he intends exiting – ‘cos the umpie is knacked and needs a chance to settle. It happens. We’re actually coached that way to kind of control the tempo at times.
– change the umpiring philosophy to be to give free kicks if the player is actually impeded, not just cos there’s a rule.some umpires are over officious; we know this – protected by the rule book. Good umpires facilitate and don’t dominate a game. I try to reward players that ‘earned’ a free and penalise players that deserve to give one away. And sometimes – I’m almost apologetic as I pay a free that the poor sod really had no hope in a situation. Trickiest is still the taking the legs out in wet weather. What once might have been reckless courage now is reckless endangerment.
– get rid of the chopping the arms rule or…..actually pay it properly. I’m fine with the rule – the ball should be the object. It’s not well applied. The irony – we North people loved watching Glenn Archer compete and beat taller opponents; I think he did this a bit.
– get rid of 6-6-6 Arguably this has allowed key forwards to re-emerge. In the old days – we’d have 1 or 2 behind the ball when kicking against the wind – but back then there was a big muddy cricket wicket square in the middle of the ground. These days the players get up and back through the flattened (no camber) centre quite easily – so forcing a sense of starting positions is okay by me. We don’t apply at local level with 1 or 2 central umpires. The main rule that should come in is – if you kick a goal then you can’t be taken straight off the ground!!!

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

The main problem with the 50m rule is that it replaced the old 15m rule and is a one stop shop penalty.

Arguably, a sliding scale – 25m and 50m; or just 25m and pay multiple if deemed appropriate. However – always remember it was largely because K.Sheedy was happy to concede 15m so as to slow things down. Remember the problem that it was brought in for.

re the Swans/Richmond game – – I’m 100% fine with no 50m.

Remember the 50m penalty rule (now 19, was 18) has a couple of elements to it.

After a Mark or Free Kick has been awarded to a Player, a Fifty Metre Penalty will be
awarded against the opposing Team which delays or impedes the play, or behaves
in an unsportsmanlike manner.

First and foremost – – in this case Stevic from out of area didn’t believe his whistle had been clearly heard – so the notion of a free kick being awarded – that wasn’t quite so black and white as if he were the closest controlling umpire.

then the next bit has a very important preamble – – “Umpire is of the opinion”…….this is the ‘discretionary’ element (I know Mark Robinson can’t find “discretion” or “common sensen” in the rule book – – however “opinion” appears repeatedly.

Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player, or a Player is preparing
to bring or bringing the football back into play after a Behind is scored, a Fifty Metre
Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that
any Player or Official from the opposing Team:

Then………..which of the criteria?

(e) has not returned the football directly and on the full to the Player awarded the
Mark or Free Kick;
(f) engages in any conduct which delays or impedes the play; or
(g) engages in any other conduct for which a Free Kick would ordinarily be awarded.

There’s always (from good umpires) a level of ‘flex’ on how quickly a player is expected to respond…….and that’s in general play out in the middle. In this instance with the siren sounding and the non controlling umpire blowing his whistle (that we hear through the tv coverage mics) but at ground level the players were not aware until the umpires were discussing it. The controlling umpire didn’t know what was going on.

So…….100% correct. Player Warner had every reason to believe the game was over and his actions certainly were not an attempt to play on/take advantage from a whistle he’d heard. Very much the opposite – his actions fully illustrate having NOT heard a whistle or…..associating it with the siren/end of game.

And this isn’t quite so intangible a concept – given that umpires are supposed to adjudicate ‘intent’ or lack of – regarding ‘deliberate out of bounds’ and in reality around the ground we’re often letting players off a bit if they’re showing fair intent and those that are clumsy/reckless will be adjudicated more harshly.

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

Ruck nomination is okay – – it helps manage ball ups; it makes umpiring easier to know who is or is not blocking and who has right of way. Previously it was impossible with 3rd man up winning free kicks for being blocked. Just ridiculous. Let alone some clubs running 2 v 1 all through the game – with one of the 2 basically just jumping into the body of the 1. That again – just ridiculous.

the 50m penalty – the problem is we went from 15m for everything to 50m for everything. In some grades we have the 25m penalty – much better because you can then just apply a second one to make it 50m for something more severe. If we had a choice of 25 or 50. Much better.

re man on the mark. Remember – from 100m away from goals will still had to make sure the player didn’t jump over the mark – – because – – gaining an unfair advantage can see the ball touched/smothered when it shouldn’t have been. One object is to avoid players winning a contest ‘illegally’ (cheating?). Now it’s pretty clear that as per 20.1.1 (a) that the player may “stand on The Mark”. That was the old 19.1.1 (a); but the old (b) provisioned “move along a lateral line without advancing beyond The Mark”.

What happened with that rule tweak was that the provison (b) was removed; and then the protected area defined which I liked because it was too easy for someone to loiter behind a player and then tackle him as soon as the umpire called play on. In other sports that player would be in an ‘off-side’ position. We don’t do ‘off side’ but we now provide the player with the mark/free kick some situational protection which is a good thing. I think. Again though – – players don’t all understand the policing of that protected area.

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

Mate – you seem to forget that before ‘stand’ we (umpires) had to monitor where the ‘mark’ was and ensure the player didn’t creep over it; even if the player was standing 10 metres inside from it. It was impossible to manage.

Stand ON THE MARK is brilliant. However – -what many umpires forget is to bring the player with the ball back behind the mark or to call play on early enough. Nothing is perfect. However the Mark is the Mark……not 10 metres inside. The rule always was ‘stand on the mark’ but it allowed “(b) move along a lateral line without advancing beyond The Mark;”. We’ve simplified that one.

Umpiring – – is a very, very verbal activity. It’s amazing how much players need prompting sometimes to ‘play on’. Granted I’m local level – but I remind ALL players, senior mens, juniors, ’19s, womens – to play to the whistle. I remind them that we can NOT see through people. That we’ll often call play on because we actually couldn’t see and won’t guess. But still – we seem to have to always call out “no prior, play on” or “knocked out in the tackle, play on” or “no prior, tried, play on” etc etc.

The third man up in the ruck – – I don’t mind; between that and confirming which way I’m backing out – is able to be used quite well to give everyone a chance to quickly catch their breath; a kind of mental ‘centering’ before we then resume. Sometimes this is more important than others when players are getting a bit aggro……just cool things down a smidge.

A note on matches – – the last 2 rounds we’ve seen Bris v Haw with 60+ frees and both teams scored 100+; likewise Syd vs Richmond. Back in the early ’80s – the ‘good old days’; there were regularly 70-80 frees.

Paying free kicks is not a bad thing.

However – consistency is still and always will be an issue. It’s a bit like Under 9s – just let them play and look after them. Remember – we are there to facilitate a game and not to dominate it. The Round 10 North vs “Naarm” game went under the radar for most – and it doesn’t look rediculous – Melbourne won the free kick count 25-18 (16-10 at half time). However – former Melbourne champion Garry Lyon admitted on radio SEN the following week that “Melbourne got the greatest run from the umpires I have seen for a long, long, long time. Jeez they had a good run.”

I was at that game – not many were. And as a North fan I had low expectations; and was pleasantly surprised. But with my umpiring goggles on – – as I try to have on more than not these days – I was astounded at the umpiring imbalance.

My sentiment is – – pay the free kicks. Consistently. I don’t want F50 contact paid only at one end – – I want all 3 umpires able to pay the free kick irrespective of ends and……..infact irrespective of whether it’s the forward or defender. My approach to a contest is I have no thoughts of forward vs defender; I try to just monitor the contest and so often we have just a good contest with a few potential soft frees either way. However………if we let the first definite free kick go; then we’ve tied a noose for ourselves.

The other major gripe – the TV/Radio commentators with the non-sensical wish for umpires to ‘put the whistle away’ late in a game. Sorry – but you don’t hear cricket umpires or tennis umpires saying “No……keep going, not out ‘cos it’s late in the game and it’s close”. It doesn’t work that way. We need to be as consistent as possible throughout the game. Putting this ‘put the whistle away’ expectation over umpires and then…….seemingly complaining about it??

Overly officious umpiring is making AFL all but unwatchable

Stand is fine – – because the Mark is the mark. The rules were always that you stand on the mark. So – I’m fine with that. However – the kicker needs to be brought back behind the mark as well – – I umpire locally and I’m hot on that; I call them back twice and if they don’t come back then it’s play on and that means the player on the mark is back in the game.

50m penalties are annoying – – we need the capacity to go 25m on some lesser things. But – remember – it was brought in largely because Sheedy was happy to concede 15m’s in the name of slowing things down.

AFL NEWS: 'You're losing the fans'- Action demanded after 'whistle-fest', reports of mass ejection in Dreamtime chaos

btw – was glad of one thing.

Goldy was far more focussed on ensuring he spoiled the ball and brought it to ground – after being made to look silly by Darcy – he covered Gawn pretty well.

AFL NEWS: 'You're losing the fans'- Action demanded after 'whistle-fest', reports of mass ejection in Dreamtime chaos

This game was up there with the 15 mins in the 2nd qtr vs the Doggies. An window into what we’re building towards.

AFL NEWS: 'You're losing the fans'- Action demanded after 'whistle-fest', reports of mass ejection in Dreamtime chaos

that goal that Xerri kicked (thankfully) – Larkey just had to get a free and got nothing.

Also saw Pickett fly so very early – and interfere with a North player – – easiet umpiring 101 free to pay………”play on”.

But yeah – that one to McDonald against Corr (he played seriously well).

I went along – and was dismayed at how few North people were there. As a fan – playing the reigning premier is a ‘free hit’. Anything other than 100 point drubbing is better than expected!!!

And we also had for the first time all year a mature midfield – Anderson (ignore first game back underdone vs Freo), Greenwood and Simpkin. We won some clearances and the benefit being that LDU was more productive. Again – – little windows to the not too distant future.

AFL NEWS: 'You're losing the fans'- Action demanded after 'whistle-fest', reports of mass ejection in Dreamtime chaos

Covid is still a major issue on crowds. And will have been a major driver in many people voting early in record numbers for the Fed election.

Anytime you have a major family or other (especially if multi-generational) event coming up then it’s appropriate to do RAT’s and be cautious about activities leading up to it.

re free kicks – yeah the Neale one was crazy; however – pushing someone in the back over the boundary…….should ALWAYS be a free kick. If not a report. It is so very, very dangerous and gutless too – – that’s not something to be protected.

re free kicks – – just get more consistent. And that tackle by Thomas on Langdon; how the heck was that a free kick?!!!? The umpire had no idea about footy. A strong tackle on a guy wide open. It’s not like he whacked his head – he was sat on his back and they paid a free and Melbourne got their goal. Got a few goals in fact from Frees while arguably getting the soft calls in their F50 and in contrast Larkey and JHF in particular were seen as fair game for over zealous Melbourne defenders.

AFL NEWS: 'You're losing the fans'- Action demanded after 'whistle-fest', reports of mass ejection in Dreamtime chaos

what’s interesting when considering the Essendon conundrum of long term impact of the sanctions re the drugs saga is considering the North Melbourne long term impacts.

Going back…..way back…..1999; won a premiership. 13 games at the MCG during the H&A season and the 3 finals.

The MCG was our home ground and had been for over a decade during which we’d pioneered Friday night footy and if not on a Friday – we’d often turn up on a Sunday afternoon.

A certain stadium opened in the year 2000. North Melbourne did NOT opt out. However – the began the process of AFL fixturing us out of the MCG and into Docklands stadium. 7 games at the ‘G during the H&A season. Also 7 games on Friday night in the H&A. By 2001 down to 6 games at the MCG and by 2002 just 4.

Gradually we were fixtured OUT of the MCG an into Docklands stadium – with no power in the negotiation and were therefore shafted on the stadium deal.

The AFL did NOT advocate on our behalf. We were – as a result – financial smashed for the next 10 years. Running the thinnest football department and at times unable to afford rookie players (missed out on Aaron Davey who was playing at Port Melbourne during our affiliation and arguably Jack Riewoldt who was playing with the Tassie side again during our affiliation).

When Brad Scott took on the job in 2009 North was a financial basket case. The capacity to make back to back prelim finals in 2014 and 2015 just all the more astounding given the perilous position.

The capacity to develop talent and move with the times was massively hampered. I blame the AFL – equalisation just wasn’t sufficient for the loss of MCG/Friday nights and the shocking deal at Docklands where our break even attendance – down at Geelong – would deliver Geelong a $600K profit.

So – – a single priority pick…….I wouldn’t say no to. Looking at the big clubs that have bottomed out over the years and benefitted – – the ridiculous situation of Hodge, Ball, Judd……the ‘super draft’ – and ALL three were Priority picks.

So why not. They (the AFL)
owe us.

BRETT GEEVES: Noble pursuit? Why North's flirtation with a priority pick is anything but

The problem with King’s comment:
“Simpkin is in there, that’s terrific, but where are the big bodies coming and flying in?”

Who?? Ziebell is stuck deep forward. Cunnington and Anderson aren’t out there. Perhaps Zurhaar……not really anyone else. Goldy? Josh Walker??

Basically Zurhaar is about it.

Btw – it’ll be rediculous if Young gets off – – you can’t just stand and bump a guy head over the ball coming towards you. Had to either go lower if trying to bump or…….actually go for the ball.

AFL NEWS: No.1 pick praised for response to Blue's 'your club is s--t' jibe, report reveals sexism faced by female umpires

On what basis do you say the AFL piggybacked off him??

Is V’landys jumping the shark?

I will qualify this article…… was penned/submitted the day before we learned that Tristan Xerri would miss a month.

So – now we’ll see Callum Coleman-Jones hopefully back in the 1’s for successive matches.

The question however still looms for a months time – upon the return of Xerri.

Is Goldy at very least ready to step back to the VFL?

A club in rebuild mode is forced to ask of itself some tough questions.

Goldy, are you still helping North?

It was Sheedy’s suggestion.

As it is I’ve been advocating that Tassie be incorporated with NZ; and have #20 as FNQ/NT/PNG-Pacific Islands.

However – Sheedy was talking up Newcastle population growth (not sure whether his parameters were inclusive of the Central Coast as well?).

As it is – – I certainly agree with academy system running and if we do NOT have even a 3 yearly SoO; then NSW/QLD lads (arguably as well as Tassie lads) should have effectively a first option of living/playing local.

BRETT GEEVES: Are the Swans still 'cheating with that bloody academy' - or time to cut them a break?

What we DO know is that for Isaac Heeney – – who was a gun at whatever sport he had a go at – that as he said that being the only student through his schooling that played Aust Footy; that he would’ve played Rugby League if it hadn’t been for the Swans academy.

Not too many super stars come out of Newcastle/Hunter region; via Heeney the Cardiff Hawks have made their mark on the footy world.

It was interesting hearing Kevin Sheedy on the weekend – asserting that if we have Tassie enter was team #19; then team #20 really must follow and he’d target Newcastle.

THAT sort of expansion could ONLY be done via the continuation and expansion of player academies.

Remembering prior to that there was the NSW Scholarship program – – I remember hoping Khan Haretuku would kick on but landed at St Kilda at the wrong time. Jarrod Witts though is still going strong and returned well to form with the Suns now after his ACL injury. He also could so easily have been playing Union or Cricket. It was an odd system – where he was signed by Collingwood but played games with the GWS TAC cup team in 2010.

BRETT GEEVES: Are the Swans still 'cheating with that bloody academy' - or time to cut them a break?