Carlton Supporters Club

We actually had a ruck that won hit outs, clearances, tackles and took marks and won nicely - this is what TDK was doing before Pitto came in and lost three of four....players just took the game on with more run and scored more on turn over.... no idea what was going through selection committee head past month.

Again, are you taking the p!55 or what? Tom got smashed by Witts today, if ever you needed two rucks with one parked in the fwd line it was today. I dont know why they didn't park TDK in the goal square for his rest instead of the bench (like the resting ruckman did in the good old days). Sometimes old is new.

We got smashed in HO by we smashed them on clearances (all of them) and TDK had 25 possessions he was instrumental around the ground. The 3rd rover thing is a huge advantage. Aside from a gimme goal, Witt’s had minimal impact around the ground

Again, are you taking the p!55 or what? Tom got smashed by Witts today, if ever you needed two rucks with one parked in the fwd line it was today. I dont know why they didn't park TDK in the goal square for his rest instead of the bench (like the resting ruckman did in the good old days). Sometimes old is new.

TDK got 25 touches, 5 marks, 3 tackles, alot more than Witts. Witts certainly got more taps but we towelled them up at clearances. Beat him where it matters more, around then ground, quite comprehensively.

Would echo others here
- Charlie, frustrating. Awful game to HT but some how kicks 4. Thought Harry played a better role in the fwd line for less reward.
- Williams - shows our other forwards how it’s done.
- TDK, brilliant. Shows the versatility of our side
- Cripps was great as was Walsh again

We really need to be rotating our key players on the final month of the year to freshen them up. We have had as hard a 2 months as I can recall, with 2 weeks to come. McG, Weiters, Hewitt, Harry, Newman, Cripps, Walsh, TDK all need spells.

Would be interested to know how we go with TDK an Pittonet today, with one resting on Mac Andrew in the fwd half. Same result?

Next week - out, Orasio, in Motlop

If we went with two rucks we would have taken a runner out of the game on interchange - we had more run because players had more minutes to rest. Two rucks has been a disaster.

Watch the love come for williams this week - most wanted him in the bin the last few weeks.

I like him forward and while he wont kick 4 every week he is a decent user and is a smart footballer and dangerous when the ball is loose and bobbling around which happens a lot with our twin towers. Opposition coaches will be concerned having to deal with him as if you don't respect him he will make you pay. Also think we need to persist with kennedy as a medium forward. Cant rely on Martin or Cunningham and with Jack out for the year imo kennedy is a good option for us to fill that gap. He is strong overhead and i trust him as a set shot.

Thought Voss won in the coaches box today which was good cause i cant stand Hardwick.

Happy to bank the points - will be a tougher challenge next week. Hopefully Cerra is ready.  Off to enjoy my winners Scotch.

As Lods said, we’ll never know

If we went with two rucks we would have taken a runner out of the game on interchange - we had more run because players had more minutes to rest. Two rucks has been a disaster.

Probably not a disaster but we are always better balanced with one. I think it helps having Harry as a back-up as he revels in a run around the ground.

Williams looks a bazillion times better when he can just chase the footy, doesn't have the discipline for standing a man as a defender

Again, are you taking the p!55 or what? Tom got smashed by Witts today, if ever you needed two rucks with one parked in the fwd line it was today. I dont know why they didn't park TDK in the goal square for his rest instead of the bench (like the resting ruckman did in the good old days). Sometimes old is new.

Umpiring - I don't want to go there, but the numbers don't lie: we had 3 frees in three quarters of the game. That is just ridiculous.

Three weeks for the umpire who made inappropriate contact with Cripps, reduced to $3000 fine as a first offence

Some free kick numbers.
At 3/4 time it was 4-14 (I screenshotted to a friend)
It was then 5-15, 6-16 and then we got the last 5 jn a row to 'even it up' to 11-16....and some of them were definitely not there.

I've never heard the crowd chant "bull-$h!t" so many times in a game. At least 3 times it was loud and clear and directed at the umps. There was also the 'umpire is a wanker' chant that was brought out of retirement too.
When you have 40k at the game and a coach talking about the umps you know something needs to be looked at.

Thankfully, we managed to come out of it with a win anyway.

No, Tom didn’t get smashed in the ruck.  Witts got more hitouts but few ended up as GC clearances.  Most of Tom’s hitouts resulted in a clearance to us, and Tom’s second and third efforts at stoppages played a big part in that.

Tom had twice as many effective disposals than Witts and took important marks around the ground. Witts was a virtually a non-event around the ground, apart from the goal he was gifted.

From what I could see, Tom went to the bench for running repairs and because he had no gas in his tank.

Williams had significant game influence today, fans seem reluctant to give him credit where credit is due. For me his F50 success highlights a fundamental contributing cause of our failings over the last few weeks. How can it be a rookie SF like Williams gets in all the right spaces, while relatively more seasoned SFs like Fantasia, Owies and Durdin cannot?

Umpiring - I don't want to go there, but the numbers don't lie: we had 3 frees in three quarters of the game. That is just ridiculous.

Yep.

What Williams did as a small forward is probably what we were expecting/hoping from Fantasia, and Durdin. Opposition sides will put time into Williams now, so that's a hurdle to tackle. But what I really liked was his instinctual goal sense, and when it was time to hold the aggot in our forward line, his defensive work was front and centre. Ripper.

Should we find a fit and in form small forwards trio of Martin, Motlop & Williams... drool. As an opposition defense how would you like to have to quell Charles, H, Martin, Motlop & Williams? And add to that the hardness and tackling pressure of Fog... more drooling.

Pittonet is the one who can't play anywhere else.

Why is TDK expected to be Buddy Franklin when he goes forward?

That snap for his fourth was a bit hungry, could have laid it off by hand.  Doesn't look a natural forward, but I'll take any goal we can get

Williams had significant game influence today, fans seem reluctant to give him credit where credit is due. For me his F50 success highlights a fundamental contributing cause of our failings over the last few weeks. How can it be a rookie SF like Williams gets in all the right spaces, while relatively more seasoned SFs like Fantasia, Owies and Durdin cannot?

I know it may open a can of worms, but we just look better with TDK as the solo ruck, it also allows H to get into the game more in the ruck and around the ground. Not so top heavy. An extra running small is oh so handy. - My concern is that if our ruck gets injured we have no established ruckman to replace him. I would not want to see Harry rucking at centre bounces as it will take him away from his forward role and as LP has mentioned opens him up to PCL injures as well.

Our only lapse was the last 7 or 8 minutes. Huge step re persistence. - Was disappointed as well as percentage will matter.

I saw why Fantasia was chosen over Durdin, narrowly. - An improvement today. Would like to see him hit the scoreboard a bit more.

McGovern so supreme in defense. - Took two absolute specs today. However went off twice during the match and down to the rooms not sure what for but with his injury record was very concerned.

Walshy great but gotta clean up on disposal, handed them possession too many times. - Yesss. Missed Charlie by two meters when he was alone and the ball landed or was marked by Mac some 10 meters behind Charlie. Could of been # 5 for Charlie.

I think we have to live with the fact that Charles is spasmodic, laconic and inconsistent... but when he's on, he's an amazing weapon and turns games. - Yes. Charlie has mentioned that he likes to wrestle with his opponents. I thought Mac was the ideal opponent do do that with today however he never got into much of a wrestle with him. On the lead Mac had the pace and athleticism to go with him and punch the ball clear. Reminds me a bit of a young Dustin Fletcher with those inspector gadget arms of his.

Martin showed what a small forward can doing hanging around H and Charles. Too much talent to be used as a lock down defender. Great opportunistic goal sense. - Martin or Williams?

Cincotta sacrificed his game to play his lock down role really well. - Yes liked his game and seems to be very reliable. Did a great job on Picket a couple weeks a go.

Got a beaut with E Hollands. Just used the aggot so well. - And was used in the midfield more this week. More options and versatility for the team.

Crippa shone. - Say no more. Noticing more that he seems to be running a lot better this year as he is running away from opponents.

To be honest, I wouldn't make any changes for next week. Saady and Fog will be better for the run. Motlop needs another game in the Magoos. Maybe Billy for Jack as the sub. - Yes agreed.

The folly of rucking BigH by default was exposed in the commentary when Brown started banging on about TDK going solo.

King rightly came in and described why solo rucking TDK is not sustainable season long, then there was a suggestion to ruck Charlie and King nearly fell out of his chair, and he describe why you don't ruck Charlie ever, and the same applies to overuse of BigH in the ruck, the risk is too high relative to the benefit.

The BigH to the ruck is an occasional pinch hit option, not a default tactic.

If our MC aren't smart enough to make use of Pitto and TDK sensibly, as required, we have an MC problem it's not the players.

Personally, I though the return of Saad and the front and square work of Williams made a huge difference yesterday, and off the back of Cripps and Walsh being dominant things might have got better if Witts had zero respite.

Williams is not scared to get at the feet of the marking contests and it makes a a huge difference. I also note once his confidence was up he got a few runs through the midfield and did well, his critics should take note.

I thought it's laughable that some have suggested GC were an easy kill, Miller, Rowell, Witts, Lukosius, King, Andrew, we destroyed the GC strengths, surely whoever suggested the easy kill was joking.

The folly of rucking BigH by default was exposed in the commentary when Brown started banging on about TDK going solo.

King rightly came in and described why solo rucking TDK is not sustainable season long, then there was a suggestion to ruck Charlie and King nearly fell out of his chair, and he described why you don't ruck Charlie ever, and the same applies to the overuse of BigH in the ruck, the risk is too high relative to the benefit.

The BigH to the ruck is an occasional pinch hit option, not a default tactic.

If our MC aren't smart enough to make use of Pitto and TDK sensibly, as required, we have an MC problem it's not the players.

Personally, I though the return of Saad and the front and square work of Williams made a huge difference yesterday, and off the back of Cripps and Walsh being dominant things might have got better if Witts had zero respite.

Williams is not scared to get at the feet of the marking contests and it makes a huge difference. I also note once his confidence was up he got a few runs through the midfield and did well, his critics should take note.

I thought it's laughable that some have suggested GC were an easy kill, Miller, Rowell, Witts, Lukosius, King, Andrew, we destroyed the GC strengths, surely whoever suggested the easy kill was joking.

Pittonet is the one who can't play anywhere else.

Why is TDK expected to be Buddy Franklin when he goes forward?

Hard to see Cuningham getting back in ahead of Elijah Hollands.

The folly of rucking BigH by default was exposed in the commentary when Brown started banging on about TDK going solo.

King rightly came in and described why solo rucking TDK is not sustainable season long, then there was a suggestion to ruck Charlie and King nearly fell out of his chair, and he describe why you don't ruck Charlie ever, and the same applies to overuse of BigH in the ruck, the risk is too high relative to the benefit.

The BigH to the ruck is an occasional pinch hit option, not a default tactic.

If our MC aren't smart enough to make use of Pitto and TDK sensibly, as required, we have an MC problem it's not the players.

TDK tackles and takes marks and restricts opposition from winning quality clearances. He is Kreuzer on steroids except very durable. You can't play talents like that in other positions other than their preferred and most dynamic,

Umpiring - I don't want to go there, but the numbers don't lie: we had 3 frees in three quarters of the game. That is just ridiculous.

Where's arnie with the stats of how we go with one ruck vs how we go with 2. 

Mac Andrew pushed Charlie under the footy a few times no free kick.  Front on contact in a marking contest against us yes, for us....

Look the gc are afl sponsored but I was actually upset at the late square up.  I also thought at the time the way they umpire us might be best for the comp if they umpire everyone that way and that means no tiggy touchwood frees against us too, because I found myself thinking we've given away a few that weren't there and they've only missed a couple they should have paid unless you pay them against us.

I told my wife during the 3rd quarter that the umpires will give us a whole heap of free kicks at the end when the game is over.

There is no law stating the free kicks should even resemble even.  All it shows is a trend of how likely one team was to infringe vs another although you could argue how its possible that the team who had the lions share of the play, and won most of the ball, and had way more posessions and less tackles ended up with more free kicks against.

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

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

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

I'd play him in front of Fantasia.

I would play my nana in front of Fantasia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the ball is knocked free in the tackle it is holding the ball if there was prior opportunity and play on if there wasn’t.

Similarly, a player must dispose of the ball immediately when tackled if he had prior opportunity.  If there was no prior opportunity, the player must be given a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.

That’s where the confusion lies; identical tackles can have different outcomes depending on whether there was prior opportunity.

Get rid of prior opportunity, adjudicate every tackle on its merits but don’t disadvantage players who take on the tackler.  Ping them if they don’t make an attempt, but give them a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.

I'm not averse to giving the removing the prior opportunity a go.
But I think we need to see it trialled before we make the change to determine how much of a difference it would make.
Just for a bit of fun I watched a quarter  a few weeks ago and tried to 'umpire' it on the basis of get the ball and if tackled release it virtually immediately in a proper manner...no prior.
Of course it may very well  have been my interpretation, but I only counted 4 occasions when it would have made a difference...when a free might have been paid.
I'm guessing it was probably a lot greater on the weekend
I wonder how much difference it would make to the game, but we won't know unless we trial it...with umpires a bit more accomplished than my good self :))

The unknown though...is the 'unknown'.
We can visualise it, we can run our own scenarios looking at games and how things might go, but they'll come with a bit of bias either way.

Until you run a proper trial, the problems and the tactics used to nullify the rule won't be apparent.
And you can almost guarantee there will be unforseen consequences to such a change.
I think it's probably a fair guess to assume that initially it may result in more stoppages as players get pinged and both ball-players and tacklers delay and dwell on the contest and contact.

So any trial would require a bit of time before any benefits are realised and it becomes a fixed rule.
Not sure how you accomplish that.

Yep
I thought about the VFL.
I'd be quite happy to see it trialled there first for a season or two.
Senior coaches would get an opportunity to see it in action and work out strategies to cope with the new approach.
We'd all be able to see the benefits,  and any problems.
It would also probably give the second tier competition a bit of a boost as folks tuned in to see the new rules in action.

The downside of using it in the VFL is the overall standard is lower. The conditions and the grounds are worse.
As a result, it would be 'uglier' than it would be at AFL level.

I'm not averse to giving the removing the prior opportunity a go.
But I think we need to see it trialled before we make the change to determine how much of a difference it would make.
Just for a bit of fun I watched a quarter  a few weeks ago and tried to 'umpire' it on the basis of get the ball and if tackled release it virtually immediately in a proper manner...no prior.
Of course it may very well  have been my interpretation, but I only counted 4 occasions when it would have made a difference...when a free might have been paid.
I'm guessing it was probably a lot greater on the weekend
I wonder how much difference it would make to the game, but we won't know unless we trial it...with umpires a bit more accomplished than my good self :))