POSTGAME: Rd 22 vs Carlton

[Demonsone 2,037]

Last few entries sums up the bombing and not lowering their eyes, Salem is a great kick and not sure why he didn’t hit a target by lowering his eyes, the bombing to Max and sure blocking occurred etc but our method is off … they wouldn’t have done this in 21. 

[Travy14 1,917]

19 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Yes a joe-the-goose.  Missed the only deliberate gettable shot by a lot from not far out.

A window presents for Moniz or Spargo for mine subject to their performances today.

Might need Smith to cover up forward for Grundy out over the next two weeks until we see how Macca goes.

Smith was the only tall forward to take a contested mark and kick a set shot goal in his limited time up forward.

If Macca makes it back then yes, maybe Smith goes back to sub but not before imv.  Need the alternate TF to assist JVR.

Smith had less impact on the game than chandler.  Chandler won the two games previously of his own boot, Smith was forward for a quarter and a half and his mark and goal was his only touch when in the forward line.

He had 5 possies for the game, and 74 meters gained, 1 free against.  this is why he needs to be sub, he does this as sub which is fine but a whole game.  Not good enough.

Spargo has shown he isn't up to it this year, and he isn't a goal kicker.  i also like AMW but he is a lot like Kossie and it will upset the balance of crumbing smalls.

We simply have to go with T-Mac if fit or Shachke until he is fit, JVR needs the help too tried his heart out on the weekend and often against a couple.

[layzie 33,796]

8 hours ago, McQueen said:

2 wineries and 1 brewery is pretty standard fare here in Perf. If you’re not totally munted after all that opportunity then you’re just a rank amateur mate 😂. 
 

Oh you can make a decent day of it for sure! Problem is we raced through them with about 30 mins at each tops! 

Plenty of good wines on the boat though 😉

[Guest]

11 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Nah. I didn't think that was why he missed. I reckon he has a brain. Buuuuuut...it can't have helped. 

Please let it go. I beat myself up at the time until the others assured me no harm had been done, but it took a tonne of convincing. 24 hours earlier I was at a funeral home saying goodbye to my little sister. That’s not an excuse but it’s an explanation of sorts. So please understand when I ask you to just let it go. 

[Roost it far 8,264]

7 hours ago, Longsufferingnomore said:

But it is not just Max being blocked. I have noticed a marked increase in a marking competition, our players are constantly blocked off the ball and another opposition players moves in and takes the mark. The umpires never pay the free. I'm presuming that they have to be a certain meterage away from the incoming ball before a free will be paid. If it is allowable why don't our boys do the same thing.  Can someone who knows the rules better than me clear this up for me. What is allowable blocking??

This has been spoken about on footy shows. It’s poor umpiring along with the rest of it

[Bitter but optimistic 22,239]

9 hours ago, McQueen said:

2 wineries and 1 brewery is pretty standard fare here in Perf. If you’re not totally munted after all that opportunity then you’re just a rank amateur mate 😂. 
 

I actually never get past the first winery.

[beelzebub 23,364]

18 hours ago, layzie said:

Absolutely, the problem is that none of them show them definitively not touch it it beyond doubt and thanks to this stupid system we're stuffed.

This is the stupidity of it..

Theyre attempting to prove something that didnt happen.  They can't show that it did.

It's a nonsense situation.  If you cant show it DID occur then logic dictates you must assume it DIDN'T. 

.. ergo....a Goal.

The umpire by definition didn't know at the beginning...but somehow does at the end ??? 

This argument is not about the game or indeed the outcome per se... its about this particular event. Granted...it had ramifications.  

So what they are saying....   is ...they couldn't verify it WASN'T touched...  which is a nonsense as the proof required was that is WAS.

[layzie 33,796]

2 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

This is the stupidity of it..

Theyre attempting to prove something that didnt happen.  They can't show that it did.

It's a nonsense situation.  If you cant show it DID occur then logic dictates you must assume it DIDN'T. 

.. ergo....a Goal.

The umpire by definition didn't know at the beginning...but somehow does at the end ??? 

This argument is not about the game or indeed the outcome per se... its about this particular event. Granted...it had ramifications.  

So what they are saying....   is ...they couldn't verify it WASN'T touched...  which is a nonsense as the proof required was that is WAS.

Someone asked yesterday how does it go to review if they aren't sure?

Is it the goal umpire saying "My call is touched but I don't know for sure let's check" or is it the field umpire saying "Not sure I totally believe you let's go to the replay"?

Touches are very subjective and if there is no deviation then benefit of the doubt should be a goal in my view until proven otherwise. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,214]

18 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

On radio he also claimed he touched it with his fingers.  Well neither hand went near the ball so that's a load of bullocks as was the whole review. 

Didn't have the balls to over turn what was an obviously incorrect call from the goal line replays.  Why are they there?  Getting paid for not doing their job professionaly.

No one has ever explained who the people are conducting the reviews in the "arc". It's one of the first questions I had when the review system was introduced, who is conducting the reviews?

We can say, what if it happens in a final. Well it did, Tom Lynch vs Brisbane last year.

[binman 42,920]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

This is the stupidity of it..

Theyre attempting to prove something that didnt happen.  They can't show that it did.

It's a nonsense situation.  If you cant show it DID occur then logic dictates you must assume it DIDN'T. 

.. ergo....a Goal.

The umpire by definition didn't know at the beginning...but somehow does at the end ??? 

This argument is not about the game or indeed the outcome per se... its about this particular event. Granted...it had ramifications.  

So what they are saying....   is ...they couldn't verify it WASN'T touched...  which is a nonsense as the proof required was that is WAS.

That is precisely right.

Look, I've calmed down now.

But that error caused us to not get 4 points - in a game we won expected score (a stat the clubs put a lot of store in) by 2 points.

it's simply not good enough. And i would say the same if it was us that benefited.

If they use ARC they should invest in the technology. And then have a proper system.

The VAR in the world cup works brilliantly, one because they have the tech. But as importanty it takes the pressure of the referee and linesman. If a difficult , and potentially controversial decision has to be made, it's made by an anonymous person shielded from baying fans. And the on field ref doesn’t cop it.

We essentialy revert to the umpires call when in doubt ' and they have made the call in the moment, under huge pressure  with no option to take their time and calmly review the evidence.

If they don't want to invest in the tech to work and/or have a proper system then scrap the arc.

And make it simple. If the umpire is 100% certain it is touched, it's a point.

If not 100% certain its a goal.

Takes out the grey. A huge amount of stress is avoided - not to mention resources that could be instead poured into improving the decision making skills of theumpireds.

Think about it. The ARC was brought in after hawkins was awarded a goal in a gf when replays (and the naked eye) showed it hit the post to prevent similar 'howlers'

Fifteen years later we are still having howlers. But worse. Because everyone watching sees it over and over.

The law of unintended consequences. A law the AFL consistently, repeatedly fail to respect, let alone heed.

They could have saved a fortune, and a huge amount of angst, if they simply changed the rule and made it like rugby (and soccer, and Hockey and gridiron and ice hockey and Gaelic football) - it hits the inside of the post and goes thru, its a goal

If it hits the post and goes back into the field of play it's a point (or play on, which would be rare, but add an interesting variable).

Instead we now have ridiculous scenarios of amateur "snicko' (i mean please - its not even accurate and nor all grounds has it), points getting paid when it hits oversized, flapping padding and minutes wasted trying to zoom in using sub standard tech on the point of impact - only to end up going with whatever the "soft call"  was (which there is no fixed rule on what it should be ie  they could simply make the rule if its not clear its a goal).

To me it yet another example of the AFL making things ridiculously, and unnecessarily complicated and having grey areas they could take out of the game.

It is hard not think it is a conscious decision by the AFL not to fix all this  rubbish up.

Why might they not take as much grey as they can out of the game?

The AFL is addicted to controversy because controversy sucks up media air time. Creates clicks. Unlimited content.

A good example is a free for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. What a ridiculous concept. The umpires have to determine the players mindset it in for petes sake. Not to mention factor in things like proximity of teamated, bounce of the ball eyc eyc.

Deliberate made more sense. But was still flawed.

Take out the grey, make it easier for the umpires, and just have the last touch rule between the arcs they have in AFLW. Not a single footy fan would be unhappy with that.

And critically it would reduce errors, take out a variable and most important of all give one less thing for fans to howl at the umpires for.

There are dozens of of rule changes they could make if they were serious about making the job of the umpire easier, reducing the criticism they receive and removing as much grey from how the game is officiated as possible.

Clearing up the holding the ball/insufficient attemp/not disposing schemozzle is just one.

It was a joke on Saturday night.

And that's on the AFL, not the umpires. I watched Casey yesterday. There is CLEARLY a directive not to pay htb. Just like Saturday night, a ridiculous number of clear frees not paid.

And the new one is blocking or holding in marling contests. I watched 10 mins of the saints game and King got the softest free for a hold in the goal square. Bowey gets pinged when he scraps and marks. Yet other clear blocks, scraps and holds get completely ignored - even when there is a 4th umpire right there. And they wonder why people get so upset at umpires. That's on the AFL.

The AFL talk a good game about the importance of not criticising the umpires. Which is fair enough.

But they are the problem, and offer no solutions- not even when the solutions are in their control and simple to implement.

Umpires deserves better.

Players deserve better.

Fans deserve better.

Edited August 14, 2023 by binman

[von 1,566]

On 8/13/2023 at 6:19 AM, fr_ap said:

Everyone saying "we can play better" - no, against Carlton, we can't. They have picked our method (contest and defence) and right now are better at it. Q1 their wall was on full display and we had no answer for it. There was nothing we could do to play better under that sort of pressure. 

I said in the pre-game we would struggle to score against this Carlton defence, especially with Petty out as Melksham wouldn't compete against Weitering. I was bang on. 

They're the best defensive side in the comp since Rd 10 by a very, very long way. 

I'm not sure I can recall us having even one simple chain of uncontested possession. Or a clear contested mark win. Blues fought and scragged and neutralised every single ball. Whether you're Owies or Acres or Holland's - they brought the ball to ground and held and pushed in every single contest. Like we used to. 

If they play like that - they won't lose another game and will absolutely go all the way. There is no side that can handle that sustained level of pressure, and there's no side with the get-out-of-jail-free card they have down the other end in Curnow. 

We've never been the most skilled and our gameplan is literally to bludgeon the opposition into submission. We got bludgeoned back. For the first time I can recall since we elevated to one of the best teams. 

Rd 6 '21 was when we took the mantle from the Tigers as the toughest team going around.

I think we've just had it taken off us.

"We'll get them in September"?

Don't think so. 

A few weeks to go -the top 4 theorising is pointless unless you claim to predict Brisbane and port's movements - we will play who we play. 

Oh - and also as I said, Grundy back in and our stagnancy returns. Yes his individual output was good, but that misses the point. He's always been Ok - he's a good player - but he makes our greatest trump card - Max - worse. For some reason. He can't be picked again. Just doesn't fit. 

But we lost by less than a goal Playing poorly and should have won if they did a proper review. You seem very definitive for something that went so close.

[At Least I Saw a Flag 5,242]

The post-match narrative would have been very different if Salem had kicked that goal, or if Petracca's goal hadn't been disallowed. Cracks would have been papered over.

[old55 23,561]

On 8/13/2023 at 6:19 AM, fr_ap said:

Everyone saying "we can play better" - no, against Carlton, we can't. They have picked our method (contest and defence) and right now are better at it. Q1 their wall was on full display and we had no answer for it. There was nothing we could do to play better under that sort of pressure. 

Carlton are very good - better than I thought, but we can definitely beat them.

JVR x 2, Chandler and Salem all missed chances they usually nail and then there was the Petracca goal call. One of those five instances goes our way and we win.  It's ridiculous to say we can't beat them.

[beelzebub 23,364]

I still dont quite understand ( in my own thinkings ) how Salo [censored] that up.

It was a daisy kick..   mear and 3 veg all day any day....except righr then it seemed.

Bizarre really

I dont apportion our loss to that ...just find it rather odd....esp for a normally very good kick.

Tbh...  Carlton won....because they won the mental battle.

Earlier this year we beat them by outmanoeuvring them...

That was return of serve...  game set and match.

Smacked our bums in the 4th qtr opening.. lost the game right there....right at the moment Goodwin had only minutes earlier said Melbourne would need to do  x,y and z in the last... Carlton made us look stupid.

Learnings dont win a game...goals do

We need more goals..

I maybe the odd one out... I thought May had his colours lowered.  Voss worked us out...and properly. 

The run home is far more daunting now.

Prior to this weekend  I thought youd have to better both Us and the Filth to look at the flag.

Dont look now...someone just did

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No one has ever explained who the people are conducting the reviews in the "arc". It's one of the first questions I had when the review system was introduced, who is conducting the reviews?

We can say, what if it happens in a final. Well it did, Tom Lynch vs Brisbane last year.

Compare this to VAR where they show the command centre and mention who's in charge.  Quite transparent.

The AFL obviously don't care about transparency or fixing what is a very flawed system & tech though.

Unfortunately to the detriment of the game.

[demoncat 1,428]

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2023-round-22-report-card-highlights-grades-analysis-every-club-reviewed-best-and-worst-video-stats/news-story/0ad390e9061b54e386e6e3c312c97c21
 

The Carlton love-in is well and truly on

They got an A+ for a game they should have lost, while we got a B for a game we should have won and DID win on expected score 

Footy media is an absolute joke

Edited August 14, 2023 by demoncat

[praha 11,240]

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I still dont quite understand ( in my own thinkings ) how Salo [censored] that up.

It was a daisy kick..   mear and 3 veg all day any day....except righr then it seemed.

Bizarre really

I dont apportion our loss to that ...just find it rather odd....esp for a normally very good kick.

Tbh...  Carlton won....because they won the mental battle.

Earlier this year we beat them by outmanoeuvring them...

That was return of serve...  game set and match.

Smacked our bums in the 4th qtr opening.. lost the game right there....right at the moment Goodwin had only minutes earlier said Melbourne would need to do  x,y and z in the last... Carlton made us look stupid.

Learnings dont win a game...goals do

We need more goals..

I maybe the odd one out... I thought May had his colours lowered.  Voss worked us out...and properly. 

The run home is far more daunting now.

Prior to this weekend  I thought youd have to better both Us and the Filth to look at the flag.

Dont look now...someone just did

Goodwin summed it up... games like that are decided by moments. 

The moment... Salem kicked a goal.

 

or.

 

The moment... Salem sprayed it and didn't even make the distance.

 

The moment... JVR is awarded a free kick on the boundary. 

 

or.

 

The moment the umpire conteoversually sees but doesn't call a blatant free kick in a high pressure game.

The "moments" fell Carlton's way.

Barely anyone is talking about Carlton three goals to start the quarter. All of the "moments" were Melbourne non-moments: Melbourne had control of the moment but it didn't work out.

Literally a finger tip away from 2nd and likely a home QF. 

Salem makes the most of that "moment" in the 2021 Grand Final.

Ditto, Petracca: his shot on goal was almost a mirror for the first goal in 2021 GF. Moments make a difference. They didn't go our way.

Three weeks ago the "moment" was Melksham's. 

The moment on Saturday night was that it wasn't Melbourne's moment.

[In Harmes Way 7,770]

For everyone getting stuck into Salo for not kicking that goal from 45 in free space, nobody is commenting on Bowey scrabbling around on all 4's in the third quarter failing to kill the ball in front of Carlton's goal which could equally be the difference in the game.

And as much as I love Gawny, we lost the first three centre clearances of the last quarter which gave us a mountain to climb. For all the Grundy haters, he stemmed the bleeding from the middle.

I think there's a few players that would be looking closely at themselves, but at the end of it all, they were a bit better at applying the pressure for longer which led to a lot of the above.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

This is the stupidity of it..

Theyre attempting to prove something that didnt happen.  They can't show that it did.

It's a nonsense situation.  If you cant show it DID occur then logic dictates you must assume it DIDN'T. 

.. ergo....a Goal.

The umpire by definition didn't know at the beginning...but somehow does at the end ??? 

This argument is not about the game or indeed the outcome per se... its about this particular event. Granted...it had ramifications.  

So what they are saying....   is ...they couldn't verify it WASN'T touched...  which is a nonsense as the proof required was that is WAS.

One of the posts of the season Bubs

Thank you

[sue 9,102]

Why do the ARC people get to hear the umpire's call in advance?  It must affect their thinking.

Surely they should be told the umpire is in doubt as to whether or not it was touched.  If the ARC can then clearly see it wasn't touched, then we never hear what the umpire thought and it's a goal.  If they say it was clearly touched,  it's a point.  If they say ARC can't tell, then reveal the umpire's call and implement it.

[pitmaster 3,549]

5 hours ago, layzie said:

Someone asked yesterday how does it go to review if they aren't sure?

Is it the goal umpire saying "My call is touched but I don't know for sure let's check" or is it the field umpire saying "Not sure I totally believe you let's go to the replay"?

Touches are very subjective and if there is no deviation then benefit of the doubt should be a goal in my view until proven otherwise. 

It's amazing two days later and I keep being told by neutrals and Blues supporters that it was a goal.

At the time I copped it sweet but the problem is with the first call. If the ball is kicked and passes through the goal posts the default call should have been "Goal" with the umpire then requesting a check to see if it had been touched. With no definitive video it's a goal.

Fact is, the goal umpire stuffed up. Should have called goal with a request to check touched. End of story, except it isn't.

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,214]

17 hours ago, Jerry Lundergard said:

Instead of Kingy on the First Crack talking about Max Gawns influence being the difference to our W-L record, maybe he should delve a little deeper and have a look at the treatment he receives in the games where his influence is nullified.

He is being constantly blocked off the ball and being held held in marking contests on our dump kicks down the line.  This has direct correlation to his lack of influence in our losses.  It would be great if they were to highlight that once in a while.

And held/scragged at boundary throw ins. And they have the gall to pay a free against him when he tries to protect himself when the umpires centre bounce goes over his head 🤬

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

I just saw the coaches votes. Trac got the 1 vote and now is behind Daicos on 99 (Butters is on 92)

It really is a game of millimeters because if his goal is allowed, he probably gets 7-8 votes in total as he’s the match winner, the highest goal scorer on the ground and also got 20+ disposals. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, layzie said:

Someone asked yesterday how does it go to review if they aren't sure?

Is it the goal umpire saying "My call is touched but I don't know for sure let's check" or is it the field umpire saying "Not sure I totally believe you let's go to the replay"?

Touches are very subjective and if there is no deviation then benefit of the doubt should be a goal in my view until proven otherwise. 

It should be how it is with cricket dismissals… “If in doubt, you’re not out.” That’s before DRS, of course. But the same should apply here. 

[McQueen 17,864]

6 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I actually never get past the first winery.

That’s moderation right there.