Carlton Supporters Club

I was at the game, and things may have looked different on TV, but i cannot agree with this statement.

Me and 40k of my closest mates seemed to see some very obvious ones being missed.
Most of it was based on the holding the ball decisions.....that were not paid.

A lot of the frustration would be taken away, and the decision making of the umpires made easier, if we ditched the prior opportunity rule.

Right now a player takes on a tackler (which gives up his right to prior opportunity) is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of it correctly, and the umpire doesn't pay anything because they say there was no prior opportunity. So the mistake came when judging if/when a player decided to take on the tackler.
Removing prior opportunity removes that decision making error.

There's a similar problem when the ball comes out in the tackle.
Is that supposed to be play on?
Does the player with the ball get done for incorrect disposal?
This seems to change depending on how long the player had the ball for as well......or....if he had prior opportunity. TBH, i'm not sure which way that rule is supposed to go, but thats how its umpired and thats where another grey area is introduced where it shouldn't be.

I keep banging on about it, but removing prior fixes so many of these errors.
The main issue seems to be that people don't want to penalise the player making the play.....which is a reasonable stance.
However, currently, we do not reward the tackler enough. It NEEDS to be fairer in that regard.

Despite an out of the box low free kick count there wasn't much obvious stuff missed, and I suspect the main complaint will be that all the subtle / borderline frees went GC's direction in the 1st half, but I didn't see any major clangers by the umpires for either side.

Is it possible this is by instruction ? I find it hard to believe that the coaches don't notice this, and if they're unhappy with it, would they not issue a corrective ? I've heard a number of coaches criticize too many players getting sucked in to the contest, and state some players need to be stationed outside the contest to receive the footy.

I thought it was his best game for us so far, but off a low base.

Still very worried about his lack of physical contesting, for me it's not a game style that stands up in finals, you often see him lurking in the background at stoppages, rarely moves forward into the traffic, even when the ball spills in his direction he seems to back off waiting for it to be delivered...............................................................................................

Fantasia was pretty good on Saturday.  He had some critical possessions deep in defence and his pass to Harry for a goal was outstanding.  He's still not hitting the scoreboard himself though.

I would play my nana in front of Fantasia.

Why he keeps getting full game time is beyond belief. Surely motlop takes his place if fit this week.

I'd play him in front of Fantasia.

Hardwick did make one pertinent point; 131 tackles were laid for very few free kicks.  A lot of those tackles were relatively meaningless, repeat efforts in congestion, but more than a few should have been rewarded with holding the ball free kicks and some should have been punished for holding the man.

There won't be much to come out of that umpire complaining, Hardwick's example was Charlie being spun in the tackle but the reality is Andrew didn't halt Charlie's movement or inhibit his disposal so the umpire is correct.

I'm against Hardwick's demand umpires blow the whistle sooner, he seems to think "We the public" want that as the default, which in effect encourages and rewards tacklers. But for me it's the exact opposite of what the general public want, we want the player hunting the ball rewarded, we do not want the sniper who sits off the contests and tackles rewarded.