33 seconds to go in the first quarter, scores are level, Garlett takes a run from behind the Southern Stand wing with MacDonald in pursuit. He takes a bounce and puts the after-burners on. MacDonald stays close enough to keep implied pressure on. Garlett starts a curve in toward the point of the square, he fumbles a little and taps the ball up to himself, Kevin Bartlett style... but he keeps on running flat out without taking another bounce. I called out "How far?" three rows back near the Melborne players race... but the umpire is trying to match Garlett's pace and forgets the most basic rule of the game (15 metres max before a bounce)... End result goal to Carltank... then another on the siren... TURNING POINT you maggots! I get home... I check the replay... on slo-mo now... 21 F*&***% steps at Bolt pace... Go figure!!!!!

33 seconds to go in the first quarter, scores are level, Garlett takes a run from behind the Southern Stand wing with MacDonald in pursuit. He takes a bounce and puts the after-burners on. MacDonald stays close enough to keep implied pressure on. Garlett starts a curve in toward the point of the square, he fumbles a little and taps the ball up to himself, Kevin Bartlett style... but he keeps on running flat out without taking another bounce. I called out "How far?" three rows back near the Melborne players race... but the umpire is trying to match Garlett's pace and forgets the most basic rule of the game (15 metres max before a bounce)... End result goal to Carltank... then another on the siren... TURNING POINT you maggots! I get home... I check the replay... on slo-mo now... 21 F*&***% steps at Bolt pace... Go figure!!!!!

I yelled the same thing, Wayne.

He ran 21 steps at sprinting pace.

At my "Funrun pace", of 5min k's, each step is 1.2 metres. So even if he'd been running at my plodding pace, he'd have covered 25 metres. But at a sprint pace, it'd be at least 1.5 times that, i.e. 37metres!!! And that's conservative!!!

I thought it was a bit of ignorant, gutless umpiring. It's non-decisions like that that lower people's opinion of the umpiring fraternity. There was no excuse for this blunder. No "shades of interpretation", or ambiguity of the law. Just gutless ignorance. As you point out, it was crucial in the context of the match.

Send it to Giesch. There's actually no excuse for that.

33 seconds to go in the first quarter, scores are level, Garlett takes a run from behind the Southern Stand wing with MacDonald in pursuit. He takes a bounce and puts the after-burners on. MacDonald stays close enough to keep implied pressure on. Garlett starts a curve in toward the point of the square, he fumbles a little and taps the ball up to himself, Kevin Bartlett style... but he keeps on running flat out without taking another bounce. I called out "How far?" three rows back near the Melborne players race... but the umpire is trying to match Garlett's pace and forgets the most basic rule of the game (15 metres max before a bounce)... End result goal to Carltank... then another on the siren... TURNING POINT you maggots! I get home... I check the replay... on slo-mo now... 21 F*&***% steps at Bolt pace... Go figure!!!!!

Thought the exact same thing mate...all these carlscum supporters laughed at me!!!

21 steps was it? Cool i wonder what Gieshan will say this week!!

Broke the spirit of our players i know that..particularly after James Strauss injury.

I Hate Carlscum

Edited August 7, 201114 yr by why you little

Yeah, noticed it too and yelled "how far?!"

Joel Mac stayed with him and chased hard - not giving much ground* and put enough heat on Garlett to extend, lose concentration which almost caused him to drop the ball. Had the umpire been on the ball he should have pinged Garlett for running to far. Which would have been a indirect (or should I say direct) consequence of Joel Mac's pressure and chase.

*Garlett lost Joel Mac when he veered right through his agility, that's when Joel Mac tappered off, right before Garlett's kick.

It wasthe turning point of the game. I put the same post on Demonology, unfortunately I thought it was Yarran. I had better go and edit and see how many people have laid the boot into me LOL

It wasthe turning point of the game. I put the same post on Demonology, unfortunately I thought it was Yarran. I had better go and edit and see how many people have laid the boot into me LOL

Hahaha. The turning point in a game lost by 76 points...

Not the turning point but the umpiring is really taking the enjoyment out of the game for me. I thought we got the rough end of the stick but geez they made some rubbish decisions both ways.

The one that upset me was the Jack Watts decision down the Punt Road end where he refused to pick up the ball and his opponent had his hands wrapped around him - simple umpiring rule - I know his Jacks arms werent pinned but you cant wrap your arms around a player that doesnt have the ball - its called holding the man. Easiest decision of the day unpaid.

The umpiring on the day overall was OK, though. And it was 8 free kicks to one (our way) at quarter time.

Hahaha. The turning point in a game lost by 76 points...

Thought the same thing.

He did run way too far and should have been pinged for it. Not that it would have changed the course of the game at all..just the margin.

Still pinging him would have be just reward for Joels chase !!

Geischen says in What's Your Decision this week that he definitely ran too far (18 steps or >25 metres) and should have been pinged. Juggling the ball is still retaining possession.

Geischen says in What's Your Decision this week that he definitely ran too far (18 steps or >25 metres) and should have been pinged. Juggling the ball is still retaining possession.

Correct assessment IMO.

Still pinging him would have be just reward for Joels chase !!

Garlett made JoelMac look pedestrian.

Rule of Round 21.

How many players this weekend will be pinged for running too far?

Did Geischen make mention of the tackle where 2 Melbourne players were being held (one clearly high) by one Carlton player? Neither demon appeared to have clean possession of the ball. I think they got a goal from that one too.

Did Geischen make mention of the tackle where 2 Melbourne players were being held (one clearly high) by one Carlton player? Neither demon appeared to have clean possession of the ball. I think they got a goal from that one too.

Yeah, just on the point of the goal square.

Unbelievable..

Edited August 11, 201114 yr by Kick it LONG

Garlett made JoelMac look pedestrian.

How odd ..you missed the point

Joel tried..he never gave up. No many would have caught Garlett...so its irrelevent to his endeavour.

Pinging the Carlton player would have been reward for Joels effort.

Yeah, just on the point of the goal square.

Unbelievable..

Had to be a free to at least one - they didn't both have the ball. I lost hope then!

How odd ..you missed the point

Joel tried..he never gave up. No many would have caught Garlett...so its irrelevent to his endeavour.

Pinging the Carlton player would have been reward for Joels effort.

Absolutely.

How odd ..you missed the point

Joel tried..he never gave up. No many would have caught Garlett...so its irrelevent to his endeavour.

Pinging the Carlton player would have been reward for Joels effort.

Sorry I didnt knnow you made a point.

I can see he was trying but he tailed off. And the free would have been due to the error of Garlett and his endeavour was a by play.

Move on. PLease...

Move on. PLease...

Agree. Fwiw my earlier post 5 days ago is an accurate description.