Carlton Supporters Club

Not paying the ones to Harry doesnt make the Elliot ones not there. Point is he panicked everytime the ball csme to them

I confess to being absolutely baffled when it comes to 'holding the man,' 'dropping the ball,' 'incorrect disposal' and 'holding the ball' unless blatantly obvious. Totally confused. It used to be pretty clear cut, but now it seems there are tolerable grey areas for all these which only creates further confusion in an already difficult to adjudicate game. But with these tolerated grey areas you end up with too much individual umpire interpretation. Some times you can watch one game, then another, and swear there were different rules for each! Result? Inconsistency... the continual complaint from supporters.

Just one example: There was a time where if you took possession of the aggot and tackled, and the ball was dislodged - automatic free kick against... regardless.

The AFL needs, on Monday mornings, to explain contentious frees and non-frees to educate us so we can better understand how the game is adjudicated.

Agree.....the Voss reaction with Cerra on the boundary shows he isnt happy and Id expect a few home truths and back to basics football vs Melbourne with defense ,manning up as a priority and sticking to the game plan.

Right this very minute, I say we are the posers and better rectify it quickly if we want to contend.

Geelong are posers we should have won that game last week if it wasn't for meek defensive efforts from the usual suspects - giving away goals like lollies.

Better defensively against the Filth and Gov is coming back which will settle and reinforce the defence a little bit more.

That's how it's umpired, paying the Elliott frees is fair enough but Harry got nothing for the same holding treatment down the other end and I think that's what's irking a few fans .

The manner in which Daicos senior carried on after the goal lacked a bit of class.

wait, wait, wait … just watched the Sunday Footy Show highlighting how they blocked Cripps at every centre bounce.

 I mean, COME ON. If that sort of treatment doesn’t warrant a rule change I don’t know what does.

So the ball is NOT in play, there’s NO actual contest yet, in some instances the location was more than 10 metres away from where the ball was about to be bounced, and the opposing player did NOT have eyes for the ball.

So if you take your eyes off the ball and look at your opponent for a split second in a marking contest it’s a free every single time.

Also an instant free for “blocking” if the player’s path to a marking contest is impeded.

Why is that treated differently?

Of course, nothing new here - has been happening for years, and not just to Cripps.  McCrae is portrayed as the good guy but I think this belies his Sheedy- or Clarkson-like approach to pushing things to the limit. He was even astute enough to make Pendlebury the blocker knowing he’s an ump favourite who has the footballing IQ to disguise the blocks.

Which brings me to Pendelbury’s last centre clearance - did he or did he not head straight for the boundary line?
Great observation from one commentator that doing that is win/win. If the ump pings him for “insufficient intent” it gives them time to set up behind the ball. If the ump is too gutless to make the call it’s a throw in just far enough away from goal.

That's how it's umpired, paying the Elliott frees is fair enough but Harry got nothing for the same holding treatment down the other end and I think that's what's irking a few fans .