#42 Adam Saad


Provided god run

Good disposals

Good in defence

A few times he went to a 50/50 contest and just went in a straight line and came out with the ball becuase he just wanted it more.

More of the same please


Had a cracker. Love his work.


won’t know whats hit him when he runs onto the ground in front of >90k


It would be really nice if this was the game filled with those highlight reel performances that he is so well known for.



That’s the second awesome goal disallowed due to that stupid rule. McKenna got done last year in the Brisbane game. Change the rule FFS.


The bloke had his pants pulled down how is that htb the ball?

If I’m not mistaken the ball sailed through for a goal should have been let go.


Nah he’d have played in front of 90k Suns fans surely
After all he was there for a few seasons :wink::wink:


You can’t bounce while been tackled, that is a free. But he bounced it just before he was tackled and received it while been tackled. So it should not have been holding the ball. Was a bad decision by the ump.


Spot on.


Was tackled before he completed the bounce


The rule is that if someone is touching you when you bounce the ball, it’s considered illegal disposal and hence holding the ball. Crap rule.


Aren’t you deemed to be in possession whilst bouncing?


You’re deemed throwing the ball away.


What irks me is that gets called, but when a guy has had prior opportunity and a broken tackle knocks a ball out it is called play on.


The rule is that you are deemed to be in possession while you are being tackled but they usually pay the rule that you have dropped the ball (the umps just don’t read the rules the way they are written).

In our case like last year with McKenna you had to look at the video in slow motion to realise that he had been tackled after he bounced it and was not being touched when the ball came back. It was kinda judged on the vibe when they disallowed the goal and paid the free kick.


Yes, I understand the rule, and how it is currently interpreted.


There is no rule that says this


The problem is Klawdy is right but the rule is being ignored. It is not a problem with interpretation as in the rule can be read one of two ways, the problem is that we want the rule to say this, but it doesn’t so stuff it we will pretend it does anyway. That is not really interpreting something it is making it up.


Basically, the foundation of ‘this great game of ours’.
It’s these things that add the colour to the game.
Fark I hate this game sometimes.