Carlton Supporters Club

They showed the ground before the match.
It was cut up something terrible by the end of the early game.

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.

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.

He played more game time. about 50% more game time than what he was given last week.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?