There’s no way the free kick for dissent should be the big issue. The real controversy was why Harry wasn’t paid a free kick for being held immediately beforehand.
Ugly win, but an important one. And we’ve now staved off losses in our last 3 games when we were repeatedly overrun last year.
My biggest tale away from this match is that between Crippa and Doc albeit getting plenty of the ball only had one tackle between them. This is a worrying side for this poor tackling team.
Persisting with LOB is not working.......time to give Binns a few games.
I missed the in-game thread. At least this one is ready.
There's already a post game thread crash. They need to be merged.
We’re not firing by any means but we’ll sit either 3rd or 4th on the ladder before taking on North on Good Friday potentially without their best player in LDU. Winning ugly will do it for now.
We’re not firing by any means but we’ll sit either 3rd or 4th on the ladder before taking on North on Good Friday potentially without their best player in LDU. Winning ugly will do it for now.
AFL.com headline just about sums it up
"Misfiring Blues survive scare to scrape past spirited Giants"
My sphincter will be most relieved when we finally win one comfortably. Right.now it gets clenched hard on a weekly basis....haha.
4 points is 4 points.
Ignore the dissent free. Gws got some charity too, and got away with a few.
Blake acres has put together 2 very good games.
Our injury issues are worse than we are letting on IMHO.
This was a game that in past times we would've lost and lost bravely at that. Its difficult to define but there's been a big turnaround in the culture of the club and it can be measured by these scrappy wins. GWS were well drilled in how to hurt us and open us up on the outside. Not easy to sustain against Voss's Carlton now.
Sorry I missed something.
Lochiel o brien has been ineffective as a sub in each game hes come on.
He did ok against Richmond but he may as well have not have played against Geelong and today it was a bridge too far and his final quarter was putrid.
He either starts next game if acres doesn't come up or needs a game in 2s.
So very disappointing. Just hoping that one day we turn the corner and just win games against opposition that are crape. Make no mistake GWS are carp and we only managed to stumble across the line because Cripps had a blinder, the backline was solid and an umpire plucked something out of his hole that will be talked about more than the game and how bad we were. Yes I'm happy we got the points but when do we turn the corner. Maybe next week.
The positives
- W away
- W in a different way (kicking pts. Who'd have thought that was a thing)
- W in windy conditions
- W in front of minuscule crowd
- W after q4 turnaround
- W despite in-game injuries
- Great negating from a few (Newman 🙌)
- Ability to hold on for the W
Needs urgent attention
- Goalkicking, obviously
- Pressure around the ground (Durds aside)
- Connection
- Consistency
- Basic skills
- Player durability
Oh, and before I forget LOB you can f-off. I've had enough
My biggest tale away from this match is that between Crippa and Doc albeit getting plenty of the ball only had one tackle between them. This is a worrying side for this poor tackling team.
Persisting with LOB is not working.......time to give Binns a few games.
It’s hard to tackle when you’re the one with the ball. Crippa and Doc can just keep doing what they’re doing.
It’s hard to tackle when you’re the one with the ball. Crippa and Doc can just keep doing what they’re doing.
Err they need to defend better
Another positive
- Carlton headline doesn't read:
Brave
Plucky
Spirited 😏
Post match they said the dissent call was right and what wasn’t shown on tv was Coniglio was clearly on the wrong.
I felt like a lot of our marks werent called marks which was confusing.
The ground looked like crap.
Crippa chucked us on his back again to get us out of that hole.
So many missing players.
Ffs play LOB for a good spell and then decide his future. He’s not the only one that makes really dumb decisions.
Must say one of the most unenjoyable games to watch.
Well done Blacres and Hewey for playing through pain and doing well.
As others have said, winning ugly is important - beats the shyte out of loosing bravely, etc.
Terrific leadership from Crippa and Doc.
Welcome back JSOS.
Nick Newman, take a bow.
Hollands, again, did some brilliant defensive work late in the game. The sort of kid who will do something great in a GF (to save the game).
The dissent was from Coniglio, apparently an expletive or two that didn't make the air-waves. The umpire explained to Whitfield that it wasn't against him, it was against Coniglio (the dissent).
10 more shots should have equated to a 5+ goal win. We kept them in it with poor finishing.
The playing surface was shyte... the Midgets seemed to know that but we did a lot of slipping over.
I hope the club change that headline on our website, 'Blues Steal Victory Over Giants.' Bullshyte.
I said it was a 'danger game'and at one stage in the last it looked like the Giants were going to put us to the sword once they hit the front.
Thank christ we dug deep and found a way to get over the line in what was a totally boring and ugly game.
A handful of our players were shown up in this match for the charlatans & frauds they really are.
Rubbish game with little defense played at times and both teams over possessed and turned the ball over too much. We won all the big stats but never really got into a groove where we had control of the game and kept GWS in it.
I felt they dragged us down to their horrible level and we started to over use the ball in close and couldnt play with any method which didnt help Harry and Charlie down forward.
Both teams had big stat winners and Cripps had 42 but it wasnt one of his best games and I had players like Newman and Acres in our best players ahead of bigger stat winners.
TDK and Pittonet had no real impact but did win the rucks easily and I think that combo is working ok and if you add Jacks form down forward then there a few positives to be had from such a poor quality game.
Owies started well until injured and I think Motlop showed some real improvement along with Durdin who continues to provide a bit of spark around the goals and with his tackle pressure.
Newman was my BOG with his work on Greene and is probably a bit undervalued in the scheme of things given he did the job on Dusty in the first round and he would be one of my first picked each week.
You could make a case for Cincotta getting a run ahead of Cowan but Id be sticking with the Moo man for the moment, he looked a bit shaky today but improved as the game went on and I think he will learn quicker and faster in the seniors.
I think LOB was sub par today and needs a spell and Id give Cincotta or even Fogarty as a go as sub vs Nth.
So very disappointing. Just hoping that one day we turn the corner and just win games against opposition that are crape. Make no mistake GWS are carp and we only managed to stumble across the line because Cripps had a blinder, the backline was solid and an umpire plucked something out of his hole that will be talked about more than the game and how bad we were. Yes I'm happy we got the points but when do we turn the corner. Maybe next week.
With any sort of decent kicking at goal that would have been a comfortable 5 goal win. Instead they went the sphincter clenching route again.
Nice to be disappointed after a win. Times are changing!
Err they need to defend better
Again, it’s hard to defend when you’re the one with the ball and defending involves a lot more than tackling.
Cripps had 20 contested possessions. That’s 20 times he beat opponents for the pill. And how many times did he force stoppages or apply pressure that created turnovers or a 50/50 contest? That’s defence, and far more important than the odd tackle.
Last week Cripps had 27 disposals and 6 tackles. I’d take this week’s 42 disposals and 1 tackle over last week’s effort every time.
The ground looked like crap.
They showed the ground before the match.
It was cut up something terrible by the end of the early game.
Voss on Newman...
“I thought Nic Newman’s game was an incredible game. To be able to play against Toby, who we rate really highly as a very good player, and to minimise his influence on the game the way that he did — it was an exceptional effort for him . . . he was awesome."
There are a lots of different aspects that determine the result of a game but the significance of this match-up can't be underestimated.
Voss on Newman...
There are a lots of different aspects that determine the result of a game but the significance of this match-up can't be underestimated.
I agree. Holding topliner Toby like that in a close home game, is glorious 👏🏼
I'm among those worried about our ability to lock down the best smaller forwards. I have not given Newy credit for this. Today he impressed me.
Well done Newy.
There’s no way the free kick for dissent should be the big issue. The real controversy was why Harry wasn’t paid a free kick for being held immediately beforehand.
That free was carp and we all know it, but we deserve some luck given how many times we have been on the other end in the past.It was more than a free because it was a momentum changer at a critical time. These things usually even out so I'd expect us to cop a shocker free against us in the next few weeks.
That free was carp and we all know it, but we deserve some luck given how many times we have been on the other end in the past.
I have to wonder what words accompanied the gesture.
As you know I'm all for a clamping down on umpiring dissent, I want AFL to be like NRL and Union, the umpires get addressed as Mr, Ms or Sir, and there is zero backchat except for polite queries from the captains.
I was goal umpiring the day an umpire was bashed by a spectator at a Unders game, it is just not good enough to let this anarchy continue. We'll have no umpires and no sport. We need to get to the point we have so many umpires they can be selected on form!
As for the game, we finish the weekend Top 4, and we are doing it in average form, that's good enough for me!
I haven't seen much of the game other than the last 10-15min as I was at the GP. But all this talk of "an ugly win", "stole the game", what a load of nonsense. Couple of things:
- Stolen win - Nathan Williamson says hi. We have.had plenty of games "stolen" from us, what goes around comes around.
- Ugly win - A W is W every day of the week and Ill take it however I can get it especially on the road.
I have read Newman absolutely gave Tobey Greene a bath, that's excellent news. Greene is one of the comps few genuine match winners who I'd have in our side in a heart beat so that's a huge scalp for Newmy.
Whatever happened yesterday, its done. Review, reset and focus on smashing Norf this week please, it will be no easy gig but we MUST bank wins early and set the scene for the year ahead.
Haven't seen 1 minute of the match, might watch the Kayo mini highlights.
Blacres take a bow, the everywhere man and did nursing a shoulder.
Newman shutting down Green, matchwinner right there. (Newman that is!)
Ugly game
I wish we could sort out our forward line. Too many times we are spoiling each other.
Need to lead different ways.
McKay goes to ground waay tooooooooo easy.
Delivery for him needs to be out in front NOT on his head.
Who wanted JSOS out of the team? :o
How good is King Charles, can't wait for that game where he runs riot.
Winning ugly and winning the close ones is what good teams do, we only have to be better than the other team by a point. (Say hi to the Cheats) :D
I'm sure the Filth weren't disappointed by winning all the close ones last year and look at them now.
The LOB experiment has run it's course, I have zero confidence in his ability. Surely we have someone better that can impersonate a headless chook running around. ::)
Will be a few changes this week and like previous years I think Norp will be eyeing us off as a W. Time for some payback.
I haven't seen much of the game other than the last 10-15min as I was at the GP. But all this talk of "an ugly win", "stole the game", what a load of nonsense. Couple of things:
- Stolen win - Nathan Williamson says hi. We have.had plenty of games "stolen" from us, what goes around comes around.
- Ugly win - A W is W every day of the week and Ill take it however I can get it especially on the road.
I have read Newman absolutely gave Tobey Greene a bath, that's excellent news. Greene is one of the comps few genuine match winners who I'd have in our side in a heart beat so that's a huge scalp for Newmy.
Whatever happened yesterday, its done. Review, reset and focus on smashing Norf this week please, it will be no easy gig but we MUST bank wins early and set the scene for the year ahead.
Same page here, GTC old son. I was honestly gobsmacked when I saw the headline that we stole the game. 10 more shots on goal and we stole the game, eh... FO. Absurd, wrong and insulting to our boys.
And Robbo wrote last night that the dissent call late in last was 'preposterous'... I can only assume that in a frantic effort to be 'first' and the most 'sensational,' Robbo forgot about the truth/reality. What was the umpire to do when Coniglio let rip on him? Mind you I understand Coniglio's frustration that H wasn't free kicked for incorrect disposal but as a leader, especially, you don't cross the line with your mouth at the umpire... and I think Coniglio realised that, judging by the look on his face after the fact. What did he think would happen when abusing the ump?
Same page here, GTC old son. I was honestly gobsmacked when I saw the headline that we stole the game. 10 more shots on goal and we stole the game, eh... FO. Absurd, wrong and insulting to our boys.
And Robbo wrote last night that the dissent call late in last was 'preposterous'... I can only assume that in a frantic effort to be 'first' and the most 'sensational,' Robbo forgot about the truth/reality. What was the umpire to do when Coniglio let rip on him? Mind you I understand Coniglio's frustration that H wasn't free kicked for incorrect disposal but as a leader, especially, you don't cross the line with your mouth at the umpire... and I think Coniglio realised that, judging by the look on his face after the fact. What did he think would happen when abusing the ump?
There's obviously been a bit more than just a wave of the arms.
If Coniglio has sworn at the umpire isn't that a reportable offence?
In fact the AFL, thinking strategically, can kill any controversy if he's charged...the penalty is a fine so he won't miss games but it makes a point
Laws of the Game
Reportable offences
22.2.2
h) Using abusive, insulting or obscene language towards or in relation to an umpire.
There's obviously been a bit more than just a wave of the arms.
If Coniglio has sworn at the umpire isn't that a reportable offence?
I think the umpire explained fairly accurately to the GWS player (not Cogs), he stated that his arms were wide appart and he yelled what's that, the umpire then explained definitely "that's dissent". So as Baggers so eloquently stated, the GWS players and everyone else can FO!
If you watch The Round So Far on the AFL website, from about the 5 min mark, you can see a replay of the umpire explaining to Whitfield why the free was paid : Coniglio puts his arms out and says "how is that not a free kick ?". If that's the extent of it, then it's a poor decision IMO.
If you watch The Round So Far on the AFL website, from about the 5 min mark, you can see a replay of the umpire explaining to Whitfield why the free was paid : Coniglio puts his arms out and says "how is that not a free kick ?". If that's the extent of it, then it's a poor decision IMO.
There is a suggestion (I first heard it on the after match commentary) that there was also some swearing involved.
There is a suggestion (I first heard it on the after match commentary) that there was also some swearing involved.
Ì wonder why the umpire didn't include that in his explanation to Whitfield ?
There is a suggestion (I first heard it on the after match commentary) that there was also some swearing involved.
The definitions of dissent are made crystal clear to the players, there doesn't need to be swearing involved, correct decision by the ump, we move on. The fact that it was a. close to the goals b. towards the end of the game is completely irrelevant.
Ì wonder why the umpire didn't include that in his explanation to Whitfield ?
The initial commentators were perplexed initially but then said that’s dissent - bad timing and area for GWS but that’s the role.
The after match crew went further and said there was more to it than we saw which was swearing at the umpire.
Ì wonder why the umpire didn't include that in his explanation to Whitfield ?
Seems the ump said all that he needed in explaining to Whitfield that the dissent was for what Coniglio said/did, not what he said/did. . On-air commentators also mentioned the expletives... perhaps they could hear the edits once it was replayed?
After game commentators also, equipped with the exact reason for the dissent, agreed with the umps call.
I haven't seen much of the game other than the last 10-15min as I was at the GP. But all this talk of "an ugly win", "stole the game", what a load of nonsense. Couple of things:
- Stolen win - Nathan Williamson says hi. We have.had plenty of games "stolen" from us, what goes around comes around.
- Ugly win - A W is W every day of the week and Ill take it however I can get it especially on the road.
I have read Newman absolutely gave Tobey Greene a bath, that's excellent news. Greene is one of the comps few genuine match winners who I'd have in our side in a heart beat so that's a huge scalp for Newmy.
Whatever happened yesterday, its done. Review, reset and focus on smashing Norf this week please, it will be no easy gig but we MUST bank wins early and set the scene for the year ahead.
Whilst i get what you’re saying, it was an ugly ugly win.
We absolutely take it.
But an ugly win constitutes:
Terrible ground
Constant falling over by our guys
Miskicks
Stupid decisions when in absolutely no pressure
20 behinds!
Gws had a good patch and thankfully we matched it. They then went to crap kicking out on the full etc so we got over the line.
Should’ve put it away in the first half but left the door open. Need to smash those games and put it beyond doubt early
Very happy for the win tho.
Another perspective, a positive perspective, on the gritty/ugly wins is that it builds a confidence within the group that they can win close, tough, hard games with conditions and other things against them. An importance reference for the group, and confidence within the group... also helps to erase any doubts from the end of last year.
I think the umpire explained fairly accurately to the GWS player (not Cogs), he stated that his arms were wide appart and he yelled what's that, the umpire then explained definitely "that's dissent". So as Baggers so eloquently stated, the GWS players and everyone else can FO!
GTC..If that call had been made on one of our players we would all have gone into orbit and picketed AFL house.
We got real lucky imho and the footy gods were smiling on us for a change which was very handy given the state of the game.
It wasnt winning ugly it more winning lucky imo and we were embarrassing most of the game.
GWS are the softest, most poorly led soulless team in the comp and we would want to deliver better vs Nth or we will get knocked over.
Still struggling to ascertain what Fishers role is.
The dissent rule, like the deliberate out of bounds rule and many others, requires interpretation. It will never be black and white. I thought it was a poor interpretation of the rule, and I would be screaming blue murder if it was against us. If you listen to the end of the umpire / Whitfield conversation I referred to earlier, Whitfield says. "so that's worth a goal, is it ?", and shakes his head in disbelief. If we're being consistent with the Coniglio decision, that's also dissent IMO, and another free kick should be awarded.
Still struggling to ascertain what Fishers role is.
He is lucky that there isn't much pressure from players in the twos and the skipper is his mate.
I wouldn't mind seeing Fogarty get a few games although I expect Martin to come back in next week for the injured Owies
Let’s not fall into the trap of conceding that Harry should have been penalised and that set the scene for a controversial free kick.
At no stage had Harry taken possession of the ball and it took only a split second for it to get away from him after it hit his left thigh as his left leg was striding forward. He may have tried to soccer it out of the air but Taylor then applied a tackle around the hips and continued to pull Harry down to the ground. In short, Taylor tackled Harry when he didn’t have the ball and prevented him from going after the ball which was close to him. Why wasn’t Harry given a free kick 15 metres out?
In fact, on the commentary Hudson said as the tackle was applied, “Curnow gives a little gift for Harry who is tackled maybe without the ball by Taylor”. As he was saying that, Garry Lyon was oohing and said, “How is that not a free kick!” although he may well have been reacting in the same way as Coniglio. We don’t know for sure as the dissent free kick then became the point of interest.
Yes Taylor didn’t realise Harry didn’t have the ball, but that has never mattered. Thousands of free kicks are paid every year against unlucky tacklers who incorrectly assumed the opponent had the ball. Moreover, the tackler is usually penalised when the tackler’s initial contact with a player in possession of the ball knocks it out of that player’s hands and the tackler continues the tackle assuming the ball was still in possession. That type of free kick really pisses me off. In any event, 9 times out of 10 the free kick is usually paid to Harry.
The argument that would be raised in favour of Taylor is that Harry is a magician who is capable of taking possession and then feeding the ball out for a kick all in the space of a nanosecond and Taylor was entitled to start the tackle during the ball drop. Even on this argument, Harry had no prior opportunity and failure to make contact with the boot should have resulted in a play on call.
In either case, Coniglio’s reaction that the umpire should have given Taylor a free kick was entirely wrong-headed. Part of the backlash against the dissent free-kick is the unstated assumption that Coniglio’s reaction was understandable as he’d witnessed an outrageous non-call and the umpire should have eaten a serving of humble pie by letting it go. Wrong on all counts. If anything, Harry should have been the one going off like a 2 bob watch. Kudos to Harry that he did the right thing.
Should any non-Carlton fan try to wind me up by saying we stole the win, my response will be that we were robbed of a goal to Harry immediately before and that just made up for it.
The dissent rule, like the deliberate out of bounds rule and many others, requires interpretation. It will never be black and white. I thought it was a poor interpretation of the rule, and I would be screaming blue murder if it was against us. If you listen to the end of the umpire / Whitfield conversation I referred to earlier, Whitfield says. "so that's worth a goal, is it ?", and shakes his head in disbelief. If we're being consistent with the Coniglio decision, that's also dissent IMO, and another free kick should be awarded.
I guess not knowing the expletives that Coniglio apparently used, and their context, has us jumping at shadows and assumptions.
I also think Wingman MAV's point re Harry not getting a free is worth noting.
In the bigger picture... how many frees are missed or soft, depending on who you barrack for. It's just that this free to Mots/against Coniglio happening at a critical stage, which should be irrelevant.
Yes, we would be up-in-arms had that been against us, but if we later found out that Crippa swore at the ump and aggressively challenged his decision, then we'd turn our attention to our Skipper... and not be impressed.
Whether we like it or not, the dissent rule is there and will be used and players know it. Simple... keep your mouth shut, the ump aint gonna change his/her decision because you object. Self discipline. Ask what it was for (in a reasonable manner), but don't question it... waste of time and effort, and is an unnecessary risk.
GTC..If that call had been made on one of our players we would all have gone into orbit and picketed AFL house.
We got real lucky imho and the footy gods were smiling on us for a change which was very handy given the state of the game.
It wasnt winning ugly it more winning lucky imo and we were embarrassing most of the game.
GWS are the softest, most poorly led soulless team in the comp and we would want to deliver better vs Nth or we will get knocked over.
Our blokes have and continue to give away the stupidest free kicks at times so it wouldn't surprise me. I hope Voss takes the time to point to out that incident to our blokes and reiterate how much discipline is needed for 120mins of every game and that undisciplined acts like questioning with dissent and/or swearing at an umpire could cost you a win. Rules are rules EB, for us and everyone else. Would I be incensed? 100% but at the act not the rule. Only place I'd picket is PP if it happened to us.Just a dumb act form a player who should know better.
Footy Gods? Luck? Dont believe in either sorry.
Great to see Lewis Young taking a mark in the goalsquare with 30 seconds to go to kill the game. He’s making a bit of a habit of that this year and it must be great for his confidence.
Interesting piece of trivia: the last time Carlton had a double digit win was against GWS in Rd 19 last year.
When you win a game by 10 behinds, and a dodgy free kick is given at the death....it will always make headlines.
Let the headlines go. It doesn't matter to us.
We played a pretty poor game and we came away with another win. Move on to next week.
Good to see Jack prove the doubters wrong. I reckon he was our most important forward (who was even back in defence a few times) on the day.
Acres deserved a mention. Thought we were going to lose him early. Managed to tough it out. Still needs some work, but can't fault his attitude.
On the other side of that is LOB. I think we need to look elsewhere for a sub as its largely underwhelming.
Pretty ordinary game to watch on TV for sure but bank the points and move on....as the cliche goes, you have to win ugly sometimes and we did. Should've put the game out of reach in the third quarter.
Positives
Cripps & Docherty in the midfield.
Acres...dropped off slightly in the second half but still a great game to back up last week's effort. He will be one of the recruits of the season for sure.
Hollands and Cowan again......Cowan got caught once or twice but both look composed and their kicking is a feature.
Newman.....Greene has been in fantastic form so to hold him to 5 possessions, beat him in a few one on ones and get 20+ possessions himself was massive.
JSOS...huge early. Just think he's way more value to us when he doesn't have to ruck.
Motlop...possibly his best game? Great pressure early and hit the scoreboard again. Expect both WA teams to come after him in due course.
Negatives
Harry....shocker of a game.
Weitering...was it just me or did he seem to struggle to get to contests and got caught out of position quite a few times.
Injury to Owies....hopefully only a week?
O'Brien....enough. Doesn't appear to have any footy smarts. Makes lots of the wrong decisions and when he makes a right one, can't execute the kick. Time for a VFL stint....maybe a Kemp/Carroll option for sub?
I note in the VFL that Cincotta was one of the best. If neither Kennedy or Walsh get up for next week, could Cincotta come in as a 7th defender and let Docherty play permanent midfield role?
Didn't watch the game but saw the free kick and it was a shocker.
Did it cost the Giants the game? Perhaps but allowing us to have 10 more scoring shots hurt them more.
Didn't watch the game but saw the free kick and it was a shocker....................
A bruise free game complete with bruise free umpiring decisions.
On the radio they claimed that Lob missed the bus from the hotel.
I would have expected him to have a big game, that he didn’t is worrying.
I think he needs game time and on form it won’t be in the seniors unless Acres shoulder doesn’t come up.
Happy to bank the 4 points but that’s where it stops.
Terrible display of what is the highest level of AFL in the country. All jokes aside seen far better skills in a local under 18 games than that display.
Stopping a team transitioning from defence is a major concern. Ball comes out way too easy when we kick a behind and rarely see us locking it in.
How odd is it when you have the previous 2 years Coleman medalists playing together and they consistently compete for the same ball have no clue still how to separate and play with each other rather then spoiling each other and then when they get a unless it on their preferred side under 30 metres out neither of them have any sort of a regular routine to go back and nail the goal. How do you win an award like that and then have no confidence at all to do what you are paid to do.
Newman was vital in the win and thought Jack was important too. Cripps had leather poisoning but thought he wasn’t as damaging as he had been with half those touches. Still tried his ar5e off as usual and liked seeing him tear into the team in the 1/4 time huddle.
Look forward to when the game is over at half time or 3/4 time and we can just watch without fear of losing. Genuine top tier teams crush weaker teams and we need to start getting that ruthless side into our game. Giving teams a sniff that they can win late in games is nerve racking for the fans and means every week is a tough slog. Good to kill the game early so we can have a lighter end to the games we should win comfortably.
Maybe next week.
How odd is it when you have the previous 2 years Coleman medalists playing together and they consistently compete for the same ball have no clue still how to separate and play with each other rather then spoiling each other and then when they get a unless it on their preferred side under 30 metres out neither of them have any sort of a regular routine to go back and nail the goal. How do you win an award like that and then have no confidence at all to do what you are paid to do.
THIS^^^^^^^^
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/04/02/gws-privately-seething-over-late-free-kick-as-former-star-labels-decision/
They showed the ground before the match.
It was cut up something terrible by the end of the early game.
We had some serious rain in Sydney yesterday from late morning, most of it was along the coast but there was some inland too, probably had an affect on the playing surface.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/04/02/gws-privately-seething-over-late-free-kick-as-former-star-labels-decision/
That free kick to us was deplorable umpiring, if that was against us we'd be seething like we never ever have before.
That free kick to us was deplorable umpiring, if that was against us we'd be seething like we never ever have before.
Yes, I agree.
From SEN: Umpire audio released overnight suggests there was no ugly language from the former GWS skipper and was only penalised because of his action.
Good to see Jack prove the doubters wrong. I reckon he was our most important forward (who was even back in defence a few times) on the day.
I'm not sure anyone doubts Jack.
What I was saying was that he didn't seem himself and was playing well below what he was capable of.
He had more posessions yesterday than he had in his previous two games combined.
He had much more influence than in his previous two games.
That's the level that's expected.
I'm not sure anyone doubts Jack.
What I was saying was that he didn't seem himself and was playing well below what he was capable of.
He had more posessions yesterday than he had in his previous two games combined.
He had much more influence than in his previous two games.
That's the level that's expected.
He played more game time. about 50% more game time than what he was given last week.
He played more game time. about 50% more game time than what he was given last week.
Maybe the club can now stop experimenting with Jack and let him perfect his link-up role
From SEN: Umpire audio released overnight suggests there was no ugly language from the former GWS skipper and was only penalised because of his action.
Well if that is the case, then I'll certainly modify my perspective. Perhaps the commentator who said expletives were involved was speculating? That made sense to me -- the penalty -- if the player had added some spice to the questioning, or was aggressive. On the replay Coniglio certainly was animated... perhaps too much so.
The AFL will possibly support the umps decision, as, by the letter of the law, he was correct, especially if Coniglio was belligerent in his delivery/questioning (which he appeared to be by the vision). Either way, a high price for dissent and a far cry from a 50 metre penalty. Clarification is needed for we supporters (and players) as to what happens if the ball is 'dead' and a player dissents.
He played more game time. about 50% more game time than what he was given last week.
But you can't question that JSOS lifted yesterday and was far more effective... the 'old' Jack, who holds his marks and uses his smarts and
hard work to good effect was on show compared to weeks one and two.
But you can't question that JSOS lifted yesterday and was far more effective... the 'old' Jack, who holds his marks and uses his smarts and hard work to good effect was on show compared to weeks one and two.
I believe it is supposed to be a free kick and an automatic 50m penalty.
I think the player on the mark should have been taken to the goal line as play was resuming from a behind.
Well if that is the case, then I'll certainly modify my perspective. Perhaps the commentator who said expletives were involved was speculating? That made sense to me -- the penalty -- if the player had added some spice to the questioning, or was aggressive. On the replay Coniglio certainly was animated... perhaps too much so.
The AFL will possibly support the umps decision, as, by the letter of the law, he was correct, especially if Coniglio was belligerent in his delivery/questioning (which he appeared to be by the vision). Either way, a high price for dissent and a far cry from a 50 metre penalty. Clarification is needed for we supporters (and players) as to what happens if the ball is 'dead' and a player dissents.
Swearing or not, its irrelevant.
The dissent rule is not brought in to protect the umpires feelings.
The dissent rule is brought in to teach one and all not to argue with the umpires.
The kids in the ground will never have heard if he swore or not.
They will have seen the arms out, the resulting free kick (and goal) and its potential game changing consequences.
If you can't learn from that, then you'll never learn.
If it wasn't Cogs this week, it'd be someone else next week.
Dunstall said it best when he said if you want to change the way people interact with umpires (which is what the AFL are trying to do with this rule) then you might shoot a few people along the way, but ultimately you will get what you want.
I agree.
In a 50-50 call, err on the side that will help the umpires in the future. Otherwise, you ultimately do more damage by ignoring it.
But you can't question that JSOS lifted yesterday and was far more effective... the 'old' Jack, who holds his marks and uses his smarts and hard work to good effect was on show compared to weeks one and two.
As i said last week. If he kicked 2.0 instead of 0.2 he would've got in the bests.
His effort has never been questioned...his output was.
Sometimes things won't go your way and you'll have 'down' games, but as i showed last week, by comparison to every other forward short and tall, his output (statistically) hasn't been lacking.
This week he took some marks he dropped last week. Is that a droppable offense?
Happy to bank the 4 points but that’s where it stops.
Terrible display of what is the highest level of AFL in the country. All jokes aside seen far better skills in a local under 18 games than that display.
How odd is it when you have the previous 2 years Coleman medalists playing together and they consistently compete for the same ball have no clue still how to separate and play with each other rather then spoiling each other and then when they get a unless it on their preferred side under 30 metres out neither of them have any sort of a regular routine to go back and nail the goal. How do you win an award like that and then have no confidence at all to do what you are paid to do.
Completely agree. Surely after that performance we should be looking for a new forwards coach. It's hard to believe that Harry and Charlie have ever played together. We got away with a win against an average side but will be made to pay with a similar performance against stronger sides.
Swearing or not, its irrelevant.
The dissent rule is not brought in to protect the umpires feelings.
The dissent rule is brought in to teach one and all not to argue with the umpires.
Dunstall said it best when he said if you want to change the way people interact with umpires (which is what the AFL are trying to do with this rule) then you might shoot a few people along the way, but ultimately you will get what you want.
I agree.
In a 50-50 call, err on the side that will help the umpires in the future. Otherwise, you ultimately do more damage by ignoring it.
Swearing goes to belligerence. That's why it would be an issue. And, after watching the replay, a few times, Coniglio certainly remonstrating... let's say, forcefully. Pretty sure that would have been a free and a fifty anywhere on the ground.
The rule wasn't, I believe, brought in to protect the umpires feelings but rather to protect the esteem and respect for umpires and their decisions. And that is imperative. Difficult enough job without being abused for a couple of hours every week, not to mention the example for the other leagues - junior and senior.
I also thought that Jason Dunstall's comments were the most accurate and to the spirit of the law. Garry Lyon though...
As i said last week. If he kicked 2.0 instead of 0.2 he would've got in the bests.
His effort has never been questioned...his output was.
Sometimes things won't go your way and you'll have 'down' games, but as i showed last week, by comparison to every other forward short and tall, his output (statistically) hasn't been lacking.
This week he took some marks he dropped last week. Is that a droppable offense?
Not in itself...
I think what made it even a discussion was that he was subbed off last week.
He didn't appear to be injured.
Given that, at that point of the game it was determined he was the player we could most do without.
He'd had an average start to the year compared to what we know he is capable of contributing.
Now those two factors mean that if changes were to be made for yesterday's game then he may have been in the frame.
Not necessarily the one to make way, but maybe in discussions.
The match committee obviously saw him as a valuable component for the GWS game.
Really there was probably no alternative.
And as it transpired we're all pretty glad he played.
He's played well and probably earned himself a game next week. :D
Seriously though, when he's on his game he's in most folk's sides every week. ;)
Well if that is the case, then I'll certainly modify my perspective. Perhaps the commentator who said expletives were involved was speculating? That made sense to me -- the penalty -- if the player had added some spice to the questioning, or was aggressive. On the replay Coniglio certainly was animated... perhaps too much so.
The AFL will possibly support the umps decision, as, by the letter of the law, he was correct, especially if Coniglio was belligerent in his delivery/questioning (which he appeared to be by the vision). Either way, a high price for dissent and a far cry from a 50 metre penalty. Clarification is needed for we supporters (and players) as to what happens if the ball is 'dead' and a player dissents.
Doesnt change my perspective one iota.
"Acres was banned for one match for rough conduct against Greater Western Sydney's Brent Daniels, which was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact." AFL.com
"Acres was banned for one match for rough conduct against Greater Western Sydney's Brent Daniels, which was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact." AFL.com
Wow. I have no idea when that happened.
What a shame. Blacers has been in great form.
"Acres was banned for one match for rough conduct against Greater Western Sydney's Brent Daniels, which was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact." AFL.com
Might be a blessing in disguise. Give his shoulder some extra recovery time.
Might be a blessing in disguise. Give his shoulder some extra recovery time.
Cmon Paul, surely the first thing should be “Is this a reasonable charge/outcome ?”
Ì wonder why the umpire didn't include that in his explanation to Whitfield ?
Because it would have gone to air …
Because it would have gone to air …
Why would that be an issue ? He doesn't have to repeat the words, just explain to Whitfield that Coniglio used expletives.
Cmon Paul, surely the first thing should be “Is this a reasonable charge/outcome ?”
You can watch the replay on the AFL website. I watched it at 0.5 speed with freeze frame, and it's hard to tell exactly what went down. It certainly looks clumsy on Acres' part, but how much Daniels' foot played a role is hard to say IMO.
On the radio they claimed that Lob missed the bus from the hotel.
I would have expected him to have a big game, that he didn’t is worrying.
I think he needs game time and on form it won’t be in the seniors unless Acres shoulder doesn’t come up.
O’Brien backed up in the magoos last weekend so he’s played seven and a half quarters over three weeks. I’m not sure that it’s a lack of game time that’s the problem. He seems to have turned the clock back to indecisive Lochie 🤔
Cmon Paul, surely the first thing should be “Is this a reasonable charge/outcome ?”
The old Carlton, the Malthouse / Bolton / Teague Carlton, would let Acres wear the charge due to the injury, but that is a failure to support the player.
We have to stand shoulder to shoulder with our players.
I get the AFL's stance but they can't be kyboshing players because of accidents, it's untenable for that to be penalised in a contact sport.
Coniglio is a serial offender when it comes to questioning umpires’ decisions. He showed dissent on at least two previous occasions during the game. What we don’t know is whether he was cautioned or whether the umpires decided to ping him for the next incident.
Despite the AFL softening its stance on dissent, Coniglio’s remonstration was worth a free kick. As a senior player, he should have better self control.
Harry was tackled after he fumbled the ball and could easily have received a free kick for holding the man, as the commentary suggested. The tackler doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt if he can’t see that his opponent doesn’t have the ball. “Play on” was probably the correct call but Coniglio was way out of line with his remonstration.
Yes, I would have been p1ssed off if one of our players had given away a free in those circumstances … but with the player.
O’Brien backed up in the magoos last weekend so he’s played seven and a half quarters over three weeks. I’m not sure that it’s a lack of game time that’s the problem. He seems to have turned the clock back to indecisive Lochie 🤔
His disposal efficiency was 40%, in a very non pressure high stat game shows he needs some twos footy and that the sub
role doesn't suit him as he has had no impact in any game so far.
I also thought that Jason Dunstall's comments were the most accurate and to the spirit of the law. Garry Lyon though...
Lyon is so anti-Carlton it's a joke. He tried to explain that Motlop's perfect tackle on Coniglio in the 2nd was in fact holding the man because Congilio never took possession of the ball (replays clearly showed the opposite). And then when the same thing happens to H in the last , it's 'how was that not a free kick to GWS'....
Still, what do you expect from a knob who would pinch his mate's wife.....
Lyon is so anti-Carlton it's a joke. He tried to explain that Motlop's perfect tackle on Coniglio in the 2nd was in fact holding the man because Congilio never took possession of the ball (replays clearly showed the opposite). And then when the same thing happens to H in the last , it's 'how was that not a free kick to GWS'....
Still, what do you expect from a knob who would pinch his mate's wife.....
Ex wife
Swearing goes to belligerence. That's why it would be an issue. And, after watching the replay, a few times, Coniglio certainly remonstrating... let's say, forcefully. Pretty sure that would have been a free and a fifty anywhere on the ground.
The rule wasn't, I believe, brought in to protect the umpires feelings but rather to protect the esteem and respect for umpires and their decisions. And that is imperative. Difficult enough job without being abused for a couple of hours every week, not to mention the example for the other leagues - junior and senior.
I also thought that Jason Dunstall's comments were the most accurate and to the spirit of the law. Garry Lyon though...
They showed instances on the Sunday FS where players did the same thing with their arms (one was Gov yesterday) and no free was paid. The ones they showed however were an appeal for a free by the players for deliberate out of bounds so there is a difference albeit subtle and whilst I dont like players doing, that's not a free in my mind. The Coniglio one was according to the rule, if they aren't paid on other occasions, that's on the umpire at the time, it doesn't make yesterdays call wrong.
Acres was the last 40 seconds of the game - it is a bit of a mess with bodies. Hope we look at it closely with a view to appeal.
Saw the second half of the third quarter, the TV was one, but could only glance at the last quarter - looked to be like others have commented.
For a sub, a player that can have a high impact and demands the footy is probably needed - but they are also needed for the whole game, so unlikely to be a sub. Not sure what the answer is, but LOB doesn't fit the bill. Thought he did OK in R1, but the 2nd & 3rd showed more natural colours - doesn't really get the ball, runs fast and occassionally uses the ball well.
I think Blake needs a week rest - he has been terrific so far.
I'd like to see us blood some youngsters like Jaxon Binns that has been impressive with his work rate, defensive attitude and footskills.
That free kick to us was deplorable umpiring, if that was against us we'd be seething like we never ever have before.
Yes, I was pretty happy with got another goal to make it 10pts. 4pt win would have seen many scream "robbed". Extra goal removed that.
Completely agree. Surely after that performance we should be looking for a new forwards coach. It's hard to believe that Harry and Charlie have ever played together. We got away with a win against an average side but will be made to pay with a similar performance against stronger sides.
Early season, their timing and other positioning aspects might be a bit rusty. I'm sure that is not part of a forward coach's plan. Certainly wasn't last year. Alot of things aren't at their best yet, fair way from it, but they are winning. A big change.
The only thing I can think of with coniglio and the free is that there must have been something said earlier or he was going off all game and got pinged for it.
Occasionally the number of times you do something will see you punished harshly and it might be retribution but that didn't seem an incident in the spirit of the game and I'd wager there is more to it than we will ever find out about.
We need to challenge the charge against Blacres.
Get him off then rest him anyway whilst giving the finger to the AFL.
The game is becoming more like netball. Pffft, Contact!
They showed instances on the Sunday FS where players did the same thing with their arms (one was Gov yesterday) and no free was paid. The ones they showed however were an appeal for a free by the players for deliberate out of bounds so there is a difference albeit subtle and whilst I dont like players doing, that's not a free in my mind. The Coniglio one was according to the rule, if they aren't paid on other occasions, that's on the umpire at the time, it doesn't make yesterdays call wrong.
I think there's a big difference between appealling for a free and questioning a decision.
That was quite silly with the footy show trying to draw a comparison in the McGovern case.
No decision had been made, McGovern was just appealing for the free to be paid, so no dissent at all.
Early season, their timing and other positioning aspects might be a bit rusty. I'm sure that is not part of a forward coach's plan. Certainly wasn't last year. Alot of things aren't at their best yet, fair way from it, but they are winning. A big change.
An important observation, LAJ. And a better quality ground will go a long way, too.
I think there's a big difference between appealling for a free and questioning a decision.
That was quite silly with the footy show trying to draw a comparison in the McGovern case.
No decision had been made, McGovern was just appealing for the free to be paid, so no dissent at all.
Players hold their arms out in imitation of the boundary umpire’s “out on the full” signal almost every time a kick rolls over the boundary line. The comparison between Coniglio’s aggressive dissent and Gov’s inquiry is disingenuous at best.
Early season, their timing and other positioning aspects might be a bit rusty. I'm sure that is not part of a forward coach's plan. Certainly wasn't last year. Alot of things aren't at their best yet, fair way from it, but they are winning. A big change.
We actually started better last year.
3-0 after three rounds and a percentage of 115%
It was round 4 that brought us undone against the Gold Coast.
But we won five of the next six.
It was the form after the bye that was erratic.
I have seen numerous players gesture and swear and nothing has happened. This decision came from no where and smells, we all know umpires do bet on football now.
I have seen numerous players gesture and swear and nothing has happened. This decision came from no where and smells, we all know umpires do bet on football now.
Did anyone else notice during the interview with Crippa post-game that they cut to footage of Doc gesturing several times and I think saying 'scoreboard', in the direction of Coniglio who was standing nearby?
Looks like Coniglio's protests went on long after the free kick was paid, which makes me wonder if (a) he'd be doing it all day and the umps had eventually had enough) or (b) his outburst at the umps was a bit more colourful than indicated.
Either way, I am sure glad we didn't spend bucketloads on him when we tried to lure him a few years back. Average at best.
I wonder if the umpire was starting to kick himself for not paying a free kick to Harry for holding the man and then Coniglio starts on him. Justice done.
Collingwood fans may have thought the blocking frees they received in the last quarter in rd 23 last year were justice for Cripps playing when he shouldn't have been but two wrongs don't make a right.
Most cringeworthy effort by the commentators goes to Anthony Hudson for "Daniels, Stormy through the middle!" ::)
Most prophetic comment; Anthony Hudson again, "Whitfield looking for an explanation from the umpire. You can't do that too vigorously!"
Most cringeworthy effort by the commentators goes to Anthony Hudson for "Daniels, Stormy through the middle!" ::)
Closely followed by "A casual Sexton" during the Suns game.
We actually started better last year.
3-0 after three rounds and a percentage of 115%
It was round 4 that brought us undone against the Gold Coast.
But we won five of the next six.
It was the form after the bye that was erratic.
Hopefully a slightly rusty start means we'll peak better at the right time, rather than start all guns blazing and fall away.
Most cringeworthy effort by the commentators goes to Anthony Hudson for "Daniels, Stormy through the middle!" ::)
Donald likes this.....or he did at the time...lol.
I believe the club had until 10am today to contest the Acres charge. I can't find anything about this on the internet. I assume the club has just accepted it ?
I believe the club had until 10am today to contest the Acres charge. I can't find anything about this on the internet. I assume the club has just accepted it ?
Never mind. I just found an article on SEN :
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/04/03/blues-and-roos-both-headed-to-afl-tribunal-ahead-of-good-friday-clash/
Logue's looked worse...ran past the ball and chose to bump.
Logue's looked worse...ran past the ball and chose to bump.
Agree, Acres is a stumble and a collision, Logue's looks like he chose to bump.
Agree, Acres is a stumble and a collision, Logue's looks like he chose to bump.
Yep, Blacres can easily plead 'accidental' (downgraded from careless). Plus he was heading into the contest to tackle or spoil, with eyes on that contest ahead. Logue, not so much.
Logue's looked worse...ran past the ball and chose to bump.
The AFL simply cannot afford to have Logue get off. Otherwise, their whole argument in this concussion debate about introducing changes to protect players is shot to pieces.
On the Acres suspension I have this to say.
As each week goes by and we see more and more of these MRO decisions it looks to me like the MRO is gutless and doesn't want to make a call, so it's ruling in the most p1ssweak manner and leaving the tough decision to a 3rd party, whether that takes the form of a tribunal ruling or a challenge is dependant on the event.
If that is the case, then the MRO is a waste of time and money, give it the ar5e!
Coaches votes
Player (Club)
10 Patrick Cripps (CARL)
8 Nicholas Newman (CARL)
4 Sam Docherty (CARL)
3 Adam Cerra (CARL)
2 Sam Taylor (GWS)
2 Josh Kelly (GWS)
1 Jack Buckley (GWS)
You know...it'll be interesting on Brownlow night if Newman's efforts are recognised.
I suspect they won't
Coaches votes
Player (Club)
10 Patrick Cripps (CARL)
8 Nicholas Newman (CARL)
4 Sam Docherty (CARL)
3 Adam Cerra (CARL)
2 Sam Taylor (GWS)
2 Josh Kelly (GWS)
1 Jack Buckley (GWS)
You know...it'll be interesting on Brownlow night if Newman's efforts are recognised.
I suspect they won't
I think you’re right Lods, although Newman got a fair bit of the ball and could have attracted the umpires’ attention.
A few defenders have won the Brownlow over the years, including our Gordon Collis and Johnny James, but you really have to be racking up possessions these days. I don’t think that detracts from the Brownlow’s significance but it’s good that we have the coaches’ award, and others, that recognise more nuanced aspects of the game.
Newman’s efforts were outstanding really. A down to earth, old fashioned defender with the belief to back himself in, attack the footy, support his teammates and shut down his opponent.
He is one of the best trade ins we’ve acquired … and Acres isn’t far behind. His game with a crook shoulder was admirable. How many players would have given that effort under such adversity?
I should mention Cerra too. He seemed to me to be an icing on the cake type of player but then he shows that he can play a role in defence to perfection.
SOS and Curly’s boy didn’t get every draft pick, free agent trade right but you can’t fault bringing Newman, Cerra, Saad, Acres and Young on board.
Donald likes this.....or he did at the time...lol.
There was a recent twitter exchange about the 2 that was pretty funny.
Trump supporter: Trump wouldn't tough you (Stormy Daniels) with a 10 foot pole!
Stormy Daniels: True. He used a 3 inch one.
Get that man some Aloe Vera!
Ill be the first to admit that I have been critical of Newman at times. I cannot fault his first three games this year and he has been one of the pillars of our defence this year (which at times has been under siege). On Sat, he obliterated one of the comps match winners, hats off to you Newmy.
Ill be the first to admit that I have been critical of Newman at times. I cannot fault his first three games this year and he has been one of the pillars of our defence this year (which at times has been under siege). On Sat, he obliterated one of the comps match winners, hats off to you Newmy.
We should also acknowledge the work he’s done with young Cowan. Having an established, senior player to help you learn the ropes, on and off the field, must be invaluable.
We should also acknowledge the work he’s done with young Cowan. Having an established, senior player to help you learn the ropes, on and off the field, must be invaluable.
I can now see why Newmy has coaching aspirations and is an assistant with our womens team. His footy IQ is up there with the highest of our players. I now see blokes like Newmy and Doc and think on field, we are in good hands. Newmy didn't play on those agonising losses at the end of last year, that's a tell.
Yep, Blacres can easily plead 'accidental' (downgraded from careless). Plus he was heading into the contest to tackle or spoil, with eyes on that contest ahead. Logue, not so much.
He was nursing a crook shoulder all game and the AFL think he went in looking to throw his shoulder around ?
Good grief…
He was nursing a crook shoulder all game and the AFL think he went in looking to throw his shoulder around ?
Good grief…
Fair point NB
I can now see why Newmy has coaching aspirations and is an assistant with our womens team. His footy IQ is up there with the highest of our players. I now see blokes like Newmy and Doc and think on field, we are in good hands. Newmy didn't play on those agonising losses at the end of last year, that's a tell.
The injury curse silver lining. A couple of bona fide player coaches. Or is it coaching players 🤔
Superb asset for the backline.
He was nursing a crook shoulder all game and the AFL think he went in looking to throw his shoulder around ?
Good grief…
I get that the AFL has a duty of care to minimise the chances of concussions but suspending players willy-nilly isn’t the answer. Acres collided with Daniels in a contest for the footy, a bit like the Cripps incident and the Plowman incident before that. All are very different to Logue’s shirtfront or Picket launching himself at Bailey Smith’s head.
The AFL/MRO/Tribunal is more concerned with being seen to prevent concussions than it is with distinguishing between deliberate and intentional high contact. I’d prefer to see every head-high contact reviewed by an expert panel charged with determining whether the contact was part of the game/accidental/unavoidable, careless, or intentional. The MRO is not qualified to determine that, and neither is the Tribunal.
There was a recent twitter exchange about the 2 that was pretty funny.
Trump supporter: Trump wouldn't tough you (Stormy Daniels) with a 10 foot pole!
Stormy Daniels: True. He used a 3 inch one.
Get that man some Aloe Vera!
Haha! Nice!
Looks like Coniglio's protests went on long after the free kick was paid, which makes me wonder if (a) he'd be doing it all day and the umps had eventually had enough) or (b) his outburst at the umps was a bit more colourful than indicated.
The HUN is now reporting that the AFL have stated that 'Stephen Coniglio's constant complaints lead to dissent free kick'. Serial offender who put the straw on the camel's back at a very poor time for his team.
The HUN is now reporting that the AFL have stated that 'Stephen Coniglio's constant complaints lead to dissent free kick'. Serial offender who put the straw on the camel's back at a very poor time for his team.
Making it up as they go along.
It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating, jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.
It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating, jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.
I strongly suspect, Pauly, that it's not so much the questioning it's the manner of the questioning. Pretty confident that had Coniglio (or any player really) asked the ump 'why' quietly and calmy (respect) rather than remonstrate, he'd have been fine. Remonstrating comes across as a public challenge to the umps decision which implies all manner of disrespect. Whitfield asked the question with respect. Coniglio did not.
All players know the risks of moaning, whining and remonstrating to the umps about their decisions. Them thar the rules, like it or not. Leadership would require from Coniglio that he understand and respect this rule of the game, indeed, all players should and most do. I'm pretty sure after this episode that players will really 'get' buttoning it when disagreeing with an umps adjudication.
And you have to ask yourself what useful purpose does it serve to give the ump a belligerent questioning. None. The message/rule is clear... respect the ump and his/her decision, regardless of your opinion of the adjudication or non-adjudication.
It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating, jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.
Dissent is cheating by intimidating the umpire. If Cripps gave away a 50 or free I’d be p1ssed off with him, not the umpire or the rule.
Players know the rules. Coniglio is a serial offender and was demonstrative in his dissent earlier in the game. Perhaps he will keep his trap shut now.
Where’s the outrage at the failure to pay Harry a free for forceful front on contact in a marking contest in the first quarter?
Swings and roundabouts!
Where’s the outrage at the failure to pay Harry a free for forceful front on contact in the first quarter?
Swings and roundabouts!
On that point, Harry in particular needs to enforce the ball drop zone, it’s his space and like in your example he allows opponents to get in his way…
On that point, Harry in particular needs to enforce the ball drop zone, it’s his space and like in your example he allows opponents to get in his way…
In that instance Harry was leading his opponent to the ball when Flynn(?) shirtfronted him. Nothing Harry could do.
It was a brave/foolish man who got in Fev’s way. Harry needs to inspire similar respect.
In that instance Harry was leading his opponent to the ball when Flynn(?) shirtfronted him. Nothing Harry could do.
It was a brave/foolish man who got in Fev’s way. Harry needs to inspire similar respect.
As you say, you need to make them think long and hard about doing it again.
It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating, jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.
Our players never question free kicks. All the video of our players waving their arms about is CGI from the Carlton hating media.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/895460/no-challenge-no-risk-afl-umps-boss-says-dissent-rule-won-t-change
"Just like we have some players or coaches who occasionally get emotional, or become overly expressive when under pressure, we also have umpires with differing levels of temperament," Richardson said.
Right, so if we need to take the individual temperament of umpires into account, and one umpire may award a free and another may not, then we should also take player temperaments into account - so it you're an Italian hot head like Coniglio (a personality type for which I have considerable sympathy), then he should get more BOD than mild mannered, unruffled types like Whitfield or Marc Murphy lol.
Cogs was metres away from the ump. There's nothing threatening or rude or disrespectful about what he did.
Can of worms
You cant have umpires discriminating on the basis of personality.
They would have little idea of the majority of players personalities.
If Coniglio whinges all day, that should count against him rather than for him in the judgement.
On the other hand....
Umpires interpret passages of play differently all the time.
One umpire will pay a free when another will call play on.
So that's just part of the game.
If it's determined there was 'little wrong' with Coniglio's actions then it's a free for all for questioning umpires decsions all over the field.
That then floats down to junior football.
You can't have one rule for 10 metres from goal an another for 70 metres from goal.
The AFL have set themselves on a course of action to stop dissent.
Perhaps the most effective way to fast track that is through events such as last weekend where the decision has strongly impacted the result.
A strict follow-up this weekend will reinforce that. I suspect they'll go hard.
Only a complete dill will be questioning an umpire's decision in round 4.
I strongly suspect, Pauly, that it's not so much the questioning it's the manner of the questioning. Pretty confident that had Coniglio (or any player really) asked the ump 'why' quietly and calmy (respect) rather than remonstrate, he'd have been fine. Remonstrating comes across as a public challenge to the umps decision which implies all manner of disrespect. Whitfield asked the question with respect. Coniglio did not.
All players know the risks of moaning, whining and remonstrating to the umps about their decisions. Them thar the rules, like it or not. Leadership would require from Coniglio that he understand and respect this rule of the game, indeed, all players should and most do. I'm pretty sure after this episode that players will really 'get' buttoning it when disagreeing with an umps adjudication.
And you have to ask yourself what useful purpose does it serve to give the ump a belligerent questioning. None. The message/rule is clear... respect the ump and his/her decision, regardless of your opinion of the adjudication or non-adjudication.
As Ol Mate Pacino says in "Any Given Sunday", "Its a game of inches". You add up all the little positives and subtract all the little negatives and the net result is either winning or losing. If you are disciplined enough in every small facet of the game (training, weight, diet, behaviour on and off the field etc), the reward at the end can be huge. Rules are rules, some are missed, some are got, some are costly, some are not. As I said earlier, I hope our coaching staff drill into our guys how costly Cog's action was (whether we like it or not) and that could have indeed been a GF. If we don't learn anything from it (including Cogs), we may as well pack our bags and go home. Despite what we may all think/say, the game is about more than just kicking a ball through the two larger posts more often than the other mob. How many games have we won recently with us having at least one goalless qtr? I'll hazard a guess and say one, Saturday's. Why? "Its a game of inches".
“If you don't challenge the decisions, then there is no need for the debate.”
Simple really!
“If you don't challenge the decisions, then there is no need for the debate.”
Simple really!
Its not rocket science. When's the last time an ump said "you know what, Ill reverse the decision here"?
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2023/04/03/former-afl-umpire-disagrees-on-leagues-dissent-ruling/
Please bring this guy out of retirement.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2023-umpire-dissent-rule-clarity-needed-says-jason-dunstall-dan-richardson-statement/news-story/e77e60300d6bb2d3fca922c171d6461f
“If you don't challenge the decisions, then there is no need for the debate.”
Simple really!
There was no decision.
There was no decision.
In fact, the decision was "play on", followed by the "all clear" decision.
Coaches votes are interesting........
10 Patrick Cripps (CARL)
8 Nicholas Newman (CARL)
4 Sam Docherty (CARL)
3 Adam Cerra (CARL)
2 Sam Taylor (GWS)
2 Josh Kelly (GWS)
1 Jack Buckley (GWS)
Cerra's game was obviously well received.
Can of worms
You cant have umpires discriminating on the basis of personality.
They would have little idea of the majority of players personalities.
...
Only a complete dill will be questioning an umpire's decision in round 4.
I was kidding about the player personalities, hence the "lol."
Questioning or not questioning is not related to being a dill IMO. We expect a passionate investment from the players, win at all costs, try their guts out for 4 quarters - they can't just flip on a dime and go into courteous mode when talking to the umps. It's human nature to react in the heat of battle. Try reading the comments on here during a game, and see what happens when something goes against us. When you're in the flow, your reactions are instant. It was a poor decision from Fleer. I'd be curious to know if he would pay that if he had his chance again.
As for the supposed "constant bickering", a strike / warning policy of some kind is a better way of handling that, rather than just letting the situation fester for the whole game, and then you pay one at the very end to make up the others that weren't paid.
In fact, the decision was "play on", followed by the "all clear" decision.
So everytime our boys (and they do this a lot) point to the mark asking for a 50 they should have the ball taken off of them?
"In fact, the decision was "play on", followed by the "all clear" decision" - so, did we get the point and then the goal after the free kick? ie Did we get 6 or 7 points?
"In fact, the decision was "play on", followed by the "all clear" decision" - so, did we get the point and then the goal after the free kick? ie Did we get 6 or 7 points?
7, a point and then a goal for the free kick (for dissent).
"In fact, the decision was "play on", followed by the "all clear" decision" - so, did we get the point and then the goal after the free kick? ie Did we get 6 or 7 points?
7 points!
The dissent occurred after the umpire had given the "all clear" for the behind. That's why the free was taken at the top of the square.
Appealing for a free kick, seeking clarification of a mark, are not disputing an umpire's decision.
Asking "How is that not a free kick?" is a clear indication the player thinks the umpire got it wrong.
Appealing for a free kick, seeking clarification of a mark, are not disputing an umpire's decision.
Asking "How is that not a free kick?" is a clear indication the player thinks the umpire got it wrong.
Whitfield questioned the umpire over the dissent free, why didn't we get another kick?
Questioning or not questioning is not related to being a dill IMO.
Anyone who questions an umpire's decision next week is a complete dill.
Anyone who questions an umpire's decision next week is a complete dill.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
So everytime our boys (and they do this a lot) point to the mark asking for a 50 they should have the ball taken off of them?
Why? That's not dissent.
Whitfield did not get a 50 when he asked the umpire to explain why Coniglio was penalised. It's not dissent for players to indicate deliberate out of bounds or out on the full, claim a touched ball, suggest that a player has cribbed on the mark, or to ask for an explanation. It's dissent to repeatedly gesticulate and shout at the umpire when the call doesn't go your way.
Whitfield questioned the umpire over the dissent free, why didn't we get another kick?
Here's where it gets problematic.
It's been decided that the AFL wants to stamp out umpire dissent.
If it's open slather at senior level and there is no penalty then there are implications for lower leagues.
But how much is too much?
The AFL have basically put it back on the umpire to determine if they feel the dissent has gone too far.
Now in the case on the weekend.
Coniglio has put himself in a position where he has obviously offended the umpire.
The umpire's response to Whitfield..."it wasn't you it was Coniglio" is an indication he didn't feel the same degree of offense by Whitfield's actions.
"It's not what he said – it wasn't you (Whitfield), it was Steve Coniglio," he said.
"There was a decision not paid, so the ball had gone through (for a behind) and he (Coniglio) has gone, 'How is that not a free kick?' – with his arm out."
Whitfield replied: "And that's worth another goal?".
"That's dissent," Fleer said."
So it will be a brave (and foolish) player who disputes an umpires call this weekend.
It's really a case of they'll have to double down...unless they're told on the quiet to be a little lenient.
But it's a bit like being half pregnant.
How much is too offensive?
Is it fair to leave it to an umpire who just mightn't like the player who gives too much lip?
Can we afford to let it run open slather with the implications for junior league.
I can see the point of those arguing against the severity of the penalty on a team.
I kind of like the idea of putting it back on the individual.
No free, just report them and give them a fine.
It will be equally as effective in modifying behaviour and won't impcat on the match results.
Coniglio wasn't being abusive, he asked a question. He used his hands, so what?
Are they to treat the umpires like magistrates?
I suspect this thread would look a lot different if that free and then the result went the other way.
Coniglio wasn't being abusive, he asked a question. He used his hands, so what?
Are they to treat the umpires like magistrates?
Coniglio gesticulated and shouted "How is that not a free kick?" That might be a question grammatically, but in the context and manner in which it was made, it was dissent.
It was interesting to hear umpires calling in to the ABC and applauding the decision. They all mentioned how difficult it is to attract and retain umpires in local and junior competitions because of the dissent and abuse. My son-in-law was umpiring his son's under 9 team and had to send a player off for dissent. Coniglio's behaviour was basically the same as the under 9 kid.
I suspect this thread would look a lot different if that free and then the result went the other way.
Yep
Because then some of us would be making emotive responses based on losing the game, but even then I'd bet there would be a few critical of the player.
I suspect this thread would look a lot different if that free and then the result went the other way.
I generally agree.
Thing we don't know is whether or not there was any additional mouthing off and disrespect shown towards the umpires during the match.
Realistically had we lost, we would all be looking at the 20 odd behinds and going kick straighter and we win easily even if there was a line ball decision at the end of the game.
Yep
Because then some of us would be making emotive responses based on losing the game, but even then I'd bet there would be a few critical of the player.
The only people defending the decision are the AFL and Carlton supporters.
Even a lot of usually pro umpire commentators like Dunstall don't understand why that one got picked out.
The only people defending the decision are the AFL and Carlton supporters.
So basically the AFL and the most intelligent supporters :D
(I thought Dunstall was OK with the decision...he might be wondering why it was that particular one that got picked out)
Coniglio gesticulated and shouted "How is that not a free kick?" That might be a question grammatically, but in the context and manner in which it was made, it was dissent.
It was interesting to hear umpires calling in to the ABC and applauding the decision. They all mentioned how difficult it is to attract and retain umpires in local and junior competitions because of the dissent and abuse. My son-in-law was umpiring his son's under 9 team and had to send a player off for dissent. Coniglio's behaviour was basically the same as the under 9 kid.
My son who has adhd got sent off in an auskick game last year because he complained about being tackled which isn't allowed. He was upset and ran out of the whole reserve, guess who had to chase him lol? Thanks umpire.
This year he's playing basketball, loves it. Football sux which is a shame as he is good.
No way what Coniglio did was dissent.
If we're looking for reasons why umpire numbers and retention is down, I'd say look at parents, kids coaches, their peers, the media and fans before you look at players. Out of those groups I just mentioned, players are the least abusive / dissenting / critical by far. You could fill a book copying and pasting negative comments on here about umps. Go to any football game (kids, AFL, VFL you name it), and listen to the crowds giving the umpires a few gentle words of encouragement. Listen to adults at a family function discussing among themselves what No 22 did., within earshot of kids. Kids learn from a young age that umpires are fair game, and only a small amount of what is learnt comes from the Cogs' of this world.
The only people defending the decision are the AFL and Carlton supporters.
Even a lot of usually pro umpire commentators like Dunstall don't understand why that one got picked out.
Not really. As I mentioned previously, Hudson virtually predicted it in the first quarter and many umpires called the ABC to express their support for the decision.
I think that what has got some commentators confused is that it was a free kick and not a 50 metre penalty. 50 metre penalties for dissent rarely raise an eyebrow.
They're confused all of the other complaining incidents were not paid. Numerous other incidents were highlighted.
My son who has adhd got sent off in an auskick game last year because he complained about being tackled which isn't allowed. He was upset and ran out of the whole reserve, guess who had to chase him lol? Thanks umpire.
This year he's playing basketball, loves it. Football sux which is a shame as he is good.
That's not good.
I'm glad that he likes basketball but it would be nice if he could get back into footy.
The kid my son-in-law sent off was generally quite pleasant and engaged in polite conversations with the umpires. However, he punched another kid after a good tackle and repeatedly questioned umpires' decisions that went against him. When he came back onto the ground, he accused a goal umpire of cheating for correctly paying a goal. His coach thanked my son-in-law for sending him off and wished more umpires would do the same. Of course, the umpires are just parents with no formal training or umpiring expertise.
They're confused all of the other complaining incidents were not paid. Numerous other incidents were highlighted.
SoJ must have been close to getting pinged in the last quarter as well.
I'm surprised more forwards do not get pinged as they are always begging, for example how the feck can it be possible that Jack Riewoldt isn't done over at least five times a game?
I was goal umpiring U16s once and a kid snapped a shot on goal that was touched by one of the players nearest him, he momentarily reacted like he knew it was touched, then he threw his arms up in the air and charged off claiming it was a goal. I signalled touched and he complained to the central umpire, who came down to ask me what happened. By then this kid was charging towards his bench shouting loudly it was a goal, but it was clearly touched and everybody in the vicinity knew it, they even moved off quickly to setup for the kick in. The kid wouldn't give up and kept making smart-ar5e comments through the remainder of the game, which caused some spectators to confront me as I left the ground. But it was obviously touched and some of his own team stated as much.
Later that season in another game a talented footballer got pegged holding the ball as he tried to sprint clear the middle, he screamed an expletive out loudly which is not allowed in the Unders and he abused the umpire claiming he'd handballed which he of course hadn't, this caused a 50m penalty. His father started hurling abuse from the boundary line and jogged around the fence, the kid kept up the abuse egged on by his parent as he came back to the mark and the umpire gave him another 50m to the goal line. When the kid got to the mark on the goal line he grabbed the youngish central umpire by the head and threw a knee into the umpires face with a martial arts style action. Like snapping a branch over your knee. That kid was probably heading to the AFL, it ended his career and the young umpire never officiated again.
This is why umpiring abuse is not on, under any circumstance. The AFL is the custodian of the sport, it needs to act to ensure it's future.
I was very disappointed when Alistair The Angry Ant Clarkson got off so lightly for abusing the regional umpire, the AFL had an opportunity then to send a message and it whimped out. The AFL lives a double standard!
The Coniglio decision wouldnt even have registered a tech foul in basketball, players throw their hands up all the time, point to where they have been fouled and bail up referees for an explanation all the time.
The Umps called that free out of nowhere after going soft on dissent calls because it got ridiculous last season and now have suddenly called that one at a crucial point in the match.
There was no foul language or threatening behaviour...we got a lucky break which is great and went onto win the game but the reality is we had some divine intervention help us which is fine because its our turn for a change of luck but GWS got stitched up with the Cogs free and the non call on Harry too who dropped the ball(incorrect disposal when tackled imho), yep he was held onto a bit long after that but I believe the free was there before that.
We will either see a lot of dissent calls this week or nothing depending on how the umpires have been told to adjudicate the game in this area. If its nothing then they would have decided it was a over zealous call on Coniglio and it wont happen like that again...
A free kick at the top of the goal square is a very heavy price to pay for dissent BUT it is no worse than a 50 metre penalty that moves a player to a similar position for dissent or one of any number of trivial technicalities.
It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating, jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.
Once upon a time, someone said the same thing about the running through the mark rule.
Jimmy Stynes found out the hard way and cost his team a goal, and ultimately a spot in the grand final.
You reckon he ever made that mistake again?
....and thats the point.
Make a big statement about it and make it mean something and players will start to take notice.
You could pay 10 of them in nothing parts of the ground, in a game that was a blowout and nobody would learn anything. Pay 1 like that and everybody takes notice.
Yes it sucks. Thankfully it went our way. It will be less likely to occur in the future, because players will learn from it and you have that decision to thank for it.
Think back to the pre-season game last year when we played the Dees. Umpires had just been spruiking the dissent rule in the off-season. From memory, we learned pretty quick, but the Dees did not. I think there was something like 8 50m penalties for backchat and dissent. Dees learned their lesson eventually.
...and thats the thing with these rules as well. You go hard early and set a tone...then ease off when the games really matter and finals. Happens with all rules.
We will either see a lot of dissent calls this week or nothing depending on how the umpires have been told to adjudicate the game in this area. If its nothing then they would have decided it was a over zealous call on Coniglio and it wont happen like that again...
Or coaches will have instructed players not to show dissent …
Whitfield questioned the umpire over the dissent free, why didn't we get another kick?
Reason......because he is not Italian!*
You laugh, then you realise, thats its actually a legitimate reason.
Italians speak with their hands and arms. Its cultural. Cogs probably can't help it.
Harsh as it may seem, you can't take that into consideration when talking about the 'look' of the incident.
*Its ok, i can say that, i'm half Italian ;)
If you get pinged for dissent next weekend you should proabably give yourself an uppercut. ;) :D
Reason......because he is not Italian!*
You laugh, then you realise, thats its actually a legitimate reason.
Italians speak with their hands and arms. Its cultural. Cogs probably can't help it.
Harsh as it may seem, you can't take that into consideration when talking about the 'look' of the incident.
*Its ok, i can say that, i'm half Italian ;)
Mum ma Mia!
I enjoyed the 60s, 70s and 80s where the players would give it to the umpires, umpires would give it back, and there was a real mutual respect. After all that during a game the umpires would then join players from both sides in the social club after the game for a beer. Decisions would be discussed, all enjoyed a beer and all go home happy. Probably the limit was calling the umpire a f idiot and even then umpires just passed that over often too.
Still remember Umpire Glenn James coming to our 1982 B & F, sitting with the players and mingling. He a good laugh when Ian Rice happily said "who can remember the magnificent coathanger delivered by Jimmy Buckley to Mick Malthouse in round 20, oh, I forgot, Glenn James is here" (it was a ripper of a coathanger too). I reckon there was so much more respect, player to umpire and vise versa back then (maybe Diesel and John Russo excepted)
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2023-umpire-dissent-stephen-coniglio-free-kick-jack-riewoldt-comments-reaction-gws-vs-carlton-arms-out/news-story/dcacbdbeff444997ba90fd7be39da3d7
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2023-umpire-dissent-stephen-coniglio-free-kick-jack-riewoldt-comments-reaction-gws-vs-carlton-arms-out/news-story/dcacbdbeff444997ba90fd7be39da3d7
Youre not actually holding Jack up as someone credible are you ?
Its like asking Jack the Ripper if the laws around slaughtering prostitutes are too cumbersome and need to be relaxed...
Youre not actually holding Jack up as someone credible are you ?
Its like asking Jack the Ripper if the laws around slaughtering prostitutes are too cumbersome and need to be relaxed...
It's more about the whole discussion with him, Docherty and the panellists.
It's more about the whole discussion with him, Docherty and the panellists.
He admitted he does a lot worse and gets away with it.
So the question is...if what Coniglio did isn't dissent?
If it's not worth a penalty?
What does constitute dissent?
Are we prepared to let these actions become the standard.
If there's no penalty they will be more frequent because some players are obviously disciplining themselves not to react.
If they're the standard at senior level how will that translate to junior football.
He admitted he does a lot worse and gets away with it.
Yep, and not just him. I'm absolutely in favour of treating the umpires with respect, but I think the AFL needs to handle this issue a lot better.
Perhaps the AFL should tell the umpires not to penalise a player who reacts emotionally driven by the belief that the umpire’s decision was wrong or unfair. That would solve everything, wouldn’t it? :P
So the question is...if what Coniglio did isn't dissent?
If it's not worth a penalty?
What does constitute dissent?
Are we prepared to let these actions become the standard.
If there's no penalty they will be more frequent because some players are obviously disciplining themselves not to react.
If they're the standard at senior level how will that translate to junior football.
Like Paul mentioned Coniglio is more respectful of the umpires than 90% of the fans in the grounds. When I was a kid I used to sit in the Carlton Social club where the umpires used to walk off.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2023-umpire-dissent-stephen-coniglio-free-kick-jack-riewoldt-comments-reaction-gws-vs-carlton-arms-out/news-story/dcacbdbeff444997ba90fd7be39da3d7
More to the point, Riewoldt had no idea before the Coniglio free. It’s bad luck that AFL didn’t bring in a penalty for whinging 🙂
I reckon Riewoldt's right.
He should be pinged every time for his actions....so now he's drawn attention to it, here's hoping :D
Yep, and not just him. I'm absolutely in favour of treating the umpires with respect, but I think the AFL needs to handle this issue a lot better.
Like Paul mentioned Coniglio is more respectful of the umpires than 90% of the fans in the grounds. When I was a kid I used to sit in the Carlton Social club where the umpires used to walk off.
So accepting that the AFL want to set a standard of respect, what's the solution.
If you don't agree with the current practice (which I agree is a little dodgy given the inconsistency of interpretation and application) what do you guys see as the answer.
I don't think there is a problem.
The problem is under control at the moment as players realise they may give up 50s or frees. Most of them self-censor. But if the AFL follows its usual problem-solving strategy, umpires will be told not to penalise and it’ll be open season again.
That’s what happened with hands in the back. While most players adjusted, there was a number of players who whinged mightily about being free-kicked when they kept on putting their hands in the back. So out goes that black and white rule and players were told they couldn’t use their hands to push an opponent out of the contest. Now we have a grey area over what is a push and what is holding one’s position. That reached peak ridiculousness in the case of 2 players running towards the ball where it was argued that the player running second was entitled to push his opponent in the back to protect the ball drop or hold his position. Now, only a fool takes front position as you just get pushed out of the marking contest.
Players just run the risk of giving away a free kick just like running the risk of giving away a free kick at bumping instead of tackling.
I don't think there is a problem.
I think the way it was umpired was fine, I think the way most players are dealing with it is fine, there will always be the odd infringement.
Personally, if I was coach I'd be asking Coniglio why he spent moments wasting time when he could have been 5m or 10m down the ground setting up for the kick out! This in my opinion is why he remains a so so footballer.
I think the way it was umpired was fine, I think the way most players are dealing with it is fine, there will always be the odd infringement.
Personally, if I was coach I'd be asking Coniglio why he spent moments wasting time when he could have been 5m or 10m down the ground setting up for the kick out! This in my opinion is why he remains a so so footballer.
His coach defended him in a presser saying that he is the most respectful player in the league and the infringement was wrong. So much for coaches not commenting on umpiring decisions.
His coach defended him in a presser saying that he is the most respectful player in the league and the infringement was wrong. So much for coaches not commenting on umpiring decisions.
What a coach might say publicly is not necessarily what gets said privately, but I'll check on that with Ross the Boss!
Kingsley has said its complete rubbish that Coniglio was complaining all match.
Did Coniglio’s mum think he did the wrong thing?
Interesting.
Is it simply a matter of the finer points of things?
In COGS case, it sounds innocent enough, but he asked specifically "how is that not a free kick?" which is nothing untoward, but asking that in open play might have been a bridge too far for the umpire.
Perhaps he got his answer, and Harry was deemed to have not had full possession of the footy?
Anyway, it might be time to split this topic into its own to discuss dissent.
The Giants are also not happy with some of the blocking and holding on Toby Green so hopefully we don't get penalised too much on Friday.
Imagine if Durdin HAD kicked the goal, all clear, dissent, the kick in the square...and two goals waved instead of 1 goal / 1 point. Just lucky it was against the Giants who have minimal fans and relatively no presence on social media! Would have been much more fun if it was Essendon!!!
The Giants are also not happy with some of the blocking and holding on Toby Green so hopefully we don't get penalised too much on Friday.
I imagine that we're not too happy with the treatment that Harry, Charlie and Crippa received ... but we're unlikely to whinge about it.
What do the Giants think about the blocks Greene put on our defenders?
Imagine if Durdin HAD kicked the goal, all clear, dissent, the kick in the square...and two goals waved instead of 1 goal / 1 point. Just lucky it was against the Giants who have minimal fans and relatively no presence on social media! Would have been much more fun if it was Essendon!!!
Imagine we got penalised against the Bombers and it was Sam Docherty who asked the question which cost us the game. Then the AFL and Essendon supporters were smearing him calling him a serial whinger.
Imagine this place, Imagine our club's response, Imagine the next time we played them.
The AFL are just lucky the Giants have no fans.
Imagine we got penalised against the Bombers and it was Sam Docherty who asked the question which cost us the game. Then the AFL and Essendon supporters were smearing him calling him a serial whinger.
Imagine this place, Imagine our club's response, Imagine the next time we played them.
The AFL are just lucky the Giants have no fans.
The problem with that scenario is that Docherty isn't a serial dissenter and Vossy would have his guts for garters if he gave away a goal like that.
The reason Coniglio's venomous dissent is still newsworthy is that most commentators and at least 75% of football supporters hate it when we win.
Imagine we got penalised against the Bombers and it was Sam Docherty who asked the question which cost us the game. Then the AFL and Essendon supporters were smearing him calling him a serial whinger.
Imagine this place, Imagine our club's response, Imagine the next time we played them.
The AFL are just lucky the Giants have no fans.
My wife's cousin is a passionate GWS supporter. Attends every game at home and often travels. They have a small core of strong supporters.
She sent us a message straight after the game.
"Congratulations to the Blues on the win"
No mention at all of the dissent free kick.
The problem with that scenario is that Docherty isn't a serial dissenter and Vossy would have his guts for garters if he gave away a goal like that.
The reason Coniglio's venomous dissent is still newsworthy is that most commentators and at least 75% of football supporters hate it when we win.
Yep
As if we're going to hear anything other than ...'GWS wuz robbed" from opposition supporters.
It's hard to know how we would have felt had the shoe was on the other foot.
Right now, a couple of days later, I'm thinking some of us would probably have been angry with the player, but that's not in the emotion of the moment.
At the time it may very well have been anger at the umpire.
What I do know is that if a Carlton player is pinged for dissent in the next game he won't get much sympathy.
They're all on notice.
Yep
As if we're going to hear anything other than'GWS wuz robbed" from opposition supporters.
It's hard to know how we would have felt had the shoe was on the other foot.
Right now, a couple of days later, I'm thinking some of us would probably have been angry with the player, but that's not in the emotion of the moment.
At the time it may very well have been anger at the umpire.
What I do know is that if a Carlton player is pinged for dissent in the next game he won't get much sympathy.
They're all on notice.
I suspect that dissent will have been a topic discussed at 18 team meetings this week.
………………………
The reason Coniglio's venomous dissent is still newsworthy is that most commentators and at least 75% of football supporters hate it when we win.
Venomous dissent ? No way.
Yep
As if we're going to hear anything other than ...'GWS wuz robbed" from opposition supporters.
It's hard to know how we would have felt had the shoe was on the other foot.
Right now, a couple of days later, I'm thinking some of us would probably have been angry with the player, but that's not in the emotion of the moment.
At the time it may very well have been anger at the umpire.
What I do know is that if a Carlton player is pinged for dissent in the next game he won't get much sympathy.
They're all on notice.
They were robbed....thats the general perception of everyone bar Carlton supporters and a lot of them think we got lucky.
IDGAF. Do they think Harry was unlucky to miss out on a free for holding the man? I’m guessing they’d say that such decisions are just the rub of the green …
They were robbed....thats the general perception of everyone bar Carlton supporters and a lot of them think we got lucky.
Yep
But they're biased. :D
They were robbed....thats the general perception of everyone bar Carlton supporters and a lot of them think we got lucky.
Take away the 6 points we still win, everyone can GAGFed AFAIC.
Take away the 6 points we still win, everyone can GAGFed AFAIC.
Scores were level at that stage and they had momentum ...... pro sport usually has the karma bus making a visit when you get lucky like that and evening up the score somewhere down the line.
The Umps will burn us in an important game and make it even.......its going to happen imho.
Scores were level at that stage and they had momentum ......
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike.
If my grandma had wheels she'd be a bike.
She could have been a Bugatti la voiture noire too...😊
Venomous dissent ? No way.
Yes way!
It’s interesting how the narrative is changing with Coniglio now gesturing in accordance with his Italian heritage while politely asking why GWS didn’t get a free. What a load of bollocks!
Despite what some supporters may think, umpires don’t just pluck free kicks out of their ask. On the other hand, Kingsley is talking out of his ask with his claim that Coniglio doesn’t question umpires’ decisions. A half decent coach would suck it up and agree that showing dissent isn’t good for the game.
Coniglio is a serial offender and he went too far and too often.
Anyway, the message has gone out and the umpires will have some respite from venomous dissent.
I heard Ray Chamberlain talking about this on radio today, the most interesting thing he said was how did the ump even see him with his peripheral vision? Ray said there is so much to do, so much going through your mind, the fact he saw him was impressive. That made me think though, was Ray suggesting he must have heard something to attract his attention?
I heard Ray Chamberlain talking about this on radio today, the most interesting thing he said was how did the ump even see him with his peripheral vision? Ray said there is so much to do, so much going through your mind, the fact he saw him was impressive. That made me think though, was Ray suggesting he must have heard something to attract his attention?
The umpire had called “all clear” before he paid the free. In other words, play had stopped. He would have responded to Coniglio’s shout and turned with plenty of time to see the gesticulating and stink eye.
IDGAF. Do they think Harry was unlucky to miss out on a free for holding the man? I’m guessing they’d say that such decisions are just the rub of the green …
He dropped the ball when tackled imho...I would have paid that as incorrect disposal. He was held onto for too long after the initial tackle but I would have paid the free to Taylor before that...
He dropped the ball when tackled imho...I would have paid that as incorrect disposal. He was held onto for too long after the initial tackle but I would have paid the free to Taylor before that...
I think Harry fumbled the ball just before the tackler got to him, and the tackle then lingered long after H did not have possession. Holding the man every day of the week, as the tackle did not cause the fumble.
Of course, the umps may well have paid advantage, at which point we get rewarded with Durdin's point.
But in a nutshell - 4 points in the bank, move on..... no dissent from me!
I think Harry fumbled the ball just before the tackler got to him, and the tackle then lingered long after H did not have possession. Holding the man every day of the week, as the tackle did not cause the fumble.
Of course, the umps may well have paid advantage, at which point we get rewarded with Durdin's point.
But in a nutshell - 4 points in the bank, move on..... no dissent from me!
That's exactly as I saw it. Harry fumbled the ball before he was tackled and should have got a free for holding the man. The umpire's view was obscured by Harry and the tackler and a free either way would have been a guess. The umpire had a better view than Coniglio.
Yep, if you watch a replay you see that Harry never took possession. He tried to grab the ball but never got a hand to it. It bobbled and then his left thigh (swinging through as he was running) knocked it beyond his reach. In fact, using the term ‘fumbled’ overstates it as he never had a piece of it at all.
And the tackle was only applied when the ball was a metre away from Harry and heading away from him. There’s absolutely no doubt that Harry didn’t have the ball. It was the most obvious case of holding the man that can be imagined, especially as the tackle dragged him down to the ground when the ball was clearly away from Harry and Taylor continued to hold him when they were on the ground.
The weird thing was that the umpire could be heard saying play on as the tackle started and still the tackle continued until Harry had been brought to ground. The umpire should have blown the whistle and awarded the free as the tackle continued.
This is not a case of advantage being allowed as the umpire has to blow the whistle and then wave the play on and call advantage. None of that happened.
That’s why IDGAF about whingers who moan that GWS was robbed. They were allowed to get away with the big steal initially but rather than behave like thieves in the night escaping with their ill-gotten gains, that tosser Coniglio had to put his foot in it. Justice was done and let the footy gods be praised.
Scores were level at that stage and they had momentum ...... pro sport usually has the karma bus making a visit when you get lucky like that and evening up the score somewhere down the line.
The Umps will burn us in an important game and make it even.......its going to happen imho.
The Giants were five points up before Durdin scored the behind. Motlop's goal put us two points up and we scored one goal and three behinds to the Giants' one behind after that. I thought that their two goals in the last quarter were against the run of play and that we looked more likely to score.
Harry was robbed of at least two frees in front of goal (not that he would necessarily have goaled) so the karma bus was right on schedule.
The Giants were five points up before Durdin scored the behind. Motlop's goal put us two points up and we scored one goal and three behinds to the Giants' one behind after that. I thought that their two goals in the last quarter were against the run of play and that we looked more likely to score.
Harry was robbed of at least two frees in front of goal (not that he would necessarily have goaled) so the karma bus was right on schedule.
Like I said I thought it was a free against Harry for incorrect disposal hence Coniglio and Whitfield complaining....happy to take the win but we will see where the karma bus parks in the next few games, the Crows Game will be tough but I would expect to thump Nth.
IDGAF. Do they think Harry was unlucky to miss out on a free for holding the man? I’m guessing they’d say that such decisions are just the rub of the green …
I thought it was dropping the ball but was fine with the play on call as he only had it a split second before he flicked it out.
This has to be some kind of record, 16 pages on the Post Game, 4 on the game, 12 on one free kick.
I thought it was dropping the ball but was fine with the play on call as he only had it a split second before he flicked it out.
I think that “play on” was the most likely call given the umpire’s view of the play.
Imagine the angst if he’d paid a free either way. Of course, Harry wouldn’t be a Monty to goal from there.
This has to be some kind of record, 16 pages on the Post Game, 4 on the game, 12 on one free kick.
One of the most debated free kicks ever. It’s got to be up there with Doug Wade being penalised for holding Peter Barry’s shorts seconds before he marked dead in front … and we won by less than a goal; an indelible memory 🙂
I've seen enough of the game now to be damned frustrated. We could have really killed this lot in the 3rd quarter: shot after shot for no rewards.
As for Lochie O'Brien, he has to be dropped from that effort. he needs to get a full game into him, a bit of form and a bit of belief. At the moment, he is showing nothing.
Against Richmond he wasn't that bad, even though he mucked up the kick that would have won it. Since then he's delivered nothing.
It was nice seeing Jack Silvagni showing some form. Not having to waste himself in the ruck allowed him to play a game much more suited to himself.
I can't say enough about Nick Newman; his game was excellent.
As for Lochie O'Brien, he has to be dropped from that effort. he needs to get a full game into him, a bit of form and a bit of belief. At the moment, he is showing nothing.
This is probably a discussion deserving of a thread in it's own right.
My thoughts are that Lochie's problem is more with the stupid sub rule than anything else. How is the poor kid expected to develop any form or belief if all he plays is a quarter of football every week?
Never been a fan of the sub rule - tactical or otherwise. Where do we stop? Players will get injured and so be it. Do we need 18 players on the bench?
This is probably a discussion deserving of a thread in it's own right.
My thoughts are that Lochie's problem is more with the stupid sub rule than anything else. How is the poor kid expected to develop any form or belief if all he plays is a quarter of football every week?
Never been a fan of the sub rule - tactical or otherwise. Where do we stop? Players will get injured and so be it. Do we need 18 players on the bench?
I can understand where you're coming from. We need to spread the sub job around. Lochie's probably suffering from not playing enough football. he needs to get 20 - 30 possessions in the 2's and some confidence. Being on the bench as he was is doing nothing for him.
Never been a fan of the sub rule - tactical or otherwise. Where do we stop? Players will get injured and so be it. Do we need 18 players on the bench?
Agreed.
For me I can't understand the logic of a Sub and a Cap on rotations, we have the Cap on rotations so you might as well leave the cap in place and have a 5th player on the bench, or 6th or 7th for that matter. It's not like you can rotate them freely, if they want they could just tighten up the rotation cap even further and have more players on the bench.
The rotation cap was to stop injuries, that really worked.
The rotation cap was to stop injuries, that really worked.
Was it to stop injuries or slow the game down a bit and increase the fatigue factor to ease congestion.
It's an interesting situation.
It would be good to see some stats.
What's the effect of the cap.
Logic would indicate that if the players are more fatigued they would struggle to reach contests and congestion would be lessened.
On the other hand players pushing themselves through fatigue, rather than coming off for a rest, is more likely to result in a soft tissue injury.
This has to be some kind of record, 16 pages on the Post Game, 4 on the game, 12 on one free kick.
Given the day I would have laughed if the umpire paid the free kick and just as it was about to be kicked, the umpire goes "April Fool"....haha.
Was it to stop injuries or slow the game down a bit and increase the fatigue factor to ease congestion.
It's an interesting situation.
It would be good to see some stats.
What's the effect of the cap.
Logic would indicate that if the players are more fatigued they would struggle to reach contests and congestion would be lessened.
On the other hand players pushing themselves through fatigue, rather than coming off for a rest, is more likely to result in a soft tissue injury.
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/league-keeps-eye-on-rotations/news-story/ac4b97659ea74ab37ccec3a30598cf83