Don't forget the sneaky backwards throws. Very rugby just to shovel the ball out the back of a tackle to a waiting player.

1 minute ago, Fritta and Turner said:

JVR dangerous tackle 50/50 and tbh I would like the umps to err on the side of caution in these situations...

I think Kemp needs to explain why he put his head down twice in the tackling motion. None of the momentum of the tackle suggests any motion to drop his head forward, let alone twice.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/fine-the-fakes-calls-for-punishment-as-debate-erupts-over-dubious-free-kick-awarded-to-blues-defender/news-story/8c674cf8e2679ec5f36d20ceed985a21

The AFL needs to stop this, for their own financial benefit. Someone will break their neck trying to win a free. That’s why people hate that rule. Players have adjusted, and are now making the situation much more dangerous.

Reality is it is sports entertainment now and HQ are in profit maximisation mode, so $$$$$ generating teams like Collingwood, Sydney and Carlton will get a better run than other teams. Carlton Collingwood GF would generate massive revenues, even if everyone else would rather the stadium implode.

16 hours ago, ElDiablo14 said:

Goal touched by May

Petty chopped in the arms in front of goal 

Umpiring is reduced to Club preferences. It is a simple matter of application to whom, where, when and its strength towards a step (even steps across a game) for particular benefit. It has nothing to do with impartiality or applying the rules of our great game honestly and accurately. Here endeth the diatribe. 

5 hours ago, Redleg said:

That's true, but also if the umpire on just 2 occasions did the right thing, we would have one goal more from the rubbish dangerous tackle disallowed goal and they would have one goal less, from the incorrect ruck out on the full to Pittonet, who was the one who hit it out and giving them a goal.

That gives us a 2 goal win.

That is ignoring multiple other incorrect decisions, which of course can happen in a game.

Here is the real question though, in each of the last 3 games against the Blues, all won by them by less than a goal, how many controversial decisions went our way instead of Carlton's.

I have no doubt the crowd affects umpires and that is a fault with our game.

While the free against JVR was bizarre there were also decisions that went against Carlton. 

The constant need to blame umpires when we lose a close game is just bizarre. We did not deserve to win that game and in the end the better team won. If not for Petracca we would have lost by 5 goals.

 

3 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

While the free against JVR was bizarre there were also decisions that went against Carlton. 

The constant need to blame umpires when we lose a close game is just bizarre. We did not deserve to win that game and in the end the better team won. If not for Petracca we would have lost by 5 goals.

 

But it was for Petracca , what does that last sentence even mean.

We played pretty poorly in the first quarter the umpiring certainly did not help. While people say the umpires put away the whistle well that was not the case in the first quarter where they hit us for everything and ignored everything Carlton did. The tackle was not dangerous, the players shoulder and head did not hit the ground first as occurs with a sling tackle. the carlton players knees hit the ground first, he was then pushed over from there. this is no different from players being ridden into the ground all the time. the holding the ball, rule seems to be impacting Clarry most of all last week and this week he was the main person pinged for holding the ball or incorrect disposal. Never mind the treatment he gets both on the ball and off the ball. we had our chances and should not have to have relied on that roo's tackle to win the game, we had more scoring shots and some of our best players had the worst misses. damn proud at how they came back and almost won it, i was in the stands cheering them on and for a brief moment we had hope. god if we could only play more than 15 minutes with that level of intensity, if we could play 4 quarters we would be unstoppable. one of the main issues i have with the umpires is the deliberate out of bounds. we got pinged for it several times when players are being tackled and ended up kicking it off the side of their boot and it goes out, the same did not occur with carlton. I don't understand how a player can walk the ball over the line when there is little or no pressure and not get called for deliberate out of bounds. It is deliberate it just did not come off a players hand or boot. they are certainly not attempting to keep the ball in which is what the rules is supposed to be for. 

43 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

While the free against JVR was bizarre there were also decisions that went against Carlton. 

The constant need to blame umpires when we lose a close game is just bizarre. We did not deserve to win that game and in the end the better team won. If not for Petracca we would have lost by 5 goals.

 

Just interested in the discussion of who was the better team.

Here are a few points for analysis and discussion.

Blues off to a flyer first 6 goals in first quarter.

From that point, for last 3 quarters, we outscored them by 35 points.

61-41 inside F50 our way.

More scoring shots our way.

As you admit a bizarre decision takes a goal off us that would make us winners by 5 points.

We had one less day to recover from previous game.

On what basis do you say they were the better team. I am just interested in your reasoning, not arguing against it, just providing a few statistics for discussion.

 

52 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

While the free against JVR was bizarre there were also decisions that went against Carlton. 

The constant need to blame umpires when we lose a close game is just bizarre. We did not deserve to win that game and in the end the better team won. If not for Petracca we would have lost by 5 goals.

 

Carlton is very ordinary, a 70 % Melbourne almost got them after they had a 6 goal advantage.

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

I think Kemp needs to explain why he put his head down twice in the tackling motion. None of the momentum of the tackle suggests any motion to drop his head forward, let alone twice.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/fine-the-fakes-calls-for-punishment-as-debate-erupts-over-dubious-free-kick-awarded-to-blues-defender/news-story/8c674cf8e2679ec5f36d20ceed985a21

The AFL needs to stop this, for their own financial benefit. Someone will break their neck trying to win a free. That’s why people hate that rule. Players have adjusted, and are now making the situation much more dangerous.

 

And I see Newman got off with a fine rather than getting a week for his hit on Nibbler. Rated low impact rather than medium for the potential to cause damage.

The AFL have gone beyond a joke.

The Match Review Officer graded the incident as careless conduct, low impact and high contact, drawing a $3750 fine ($2500 with an early plea).

Newman's teammate Lachie Cowan was also fined $3125 for striking Neal-Bullen in the second quarter, with that incident graded as careless conduct, low impact and body contact. Cowan can accept a $1875 fine with an early plea.
 

so bad i posted this elsewhere

Umpire 22 has pride & place on my dartboard 

To think it’s umpire appreciation week😂

17 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Just interested in the discussion of who was the better team.

Here are a few points for analysis and discussion.

Blues off to a flyer first 6 goals in first quarter.

From that point, for last 3 quarters, we outscored them by 35 points.

61-41 inside F50 our way.

More scoring shots our way.

As you admit a bizarre decision takes a goal off us that would make us winners by 5 points.

We had one less day to recover from previous game.

On what basis do you say they were the better team. I am just interested in your reasoning, not arguing against it, just providing a few statistics for discussion.

 

They took there chances and a functioning forward line, hence on the night they were the better team. The overall statistics are no different to last year's final so either Carlton know how to play us or we are not learning.

3 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

They took there chances and a functioning forward line, hence on the night they were the better team. The overall statistics are no different to last year's final so either Carlton know how to play us or we are not learning.

Good point but we’re on this page to bash the  umpires haha

1 hour ago, loges said:

But it was for Petracca , what does that last sentence even mean.

i agree with this statement. Its in the same vein as the 5-0 first quarter. 

You need to assess the whole game in totality. Carlton owned us in the first quarter. Q2 and Q3 was an arm wrestle and we owned them in the last quarter. 

Walsh, Crippa and Weits had the ascendency in 1st half. Gawn, Lever and Trac in the 2nd half. 

This game was tight. It was always a goal in it either way. What burns, really burns is that our fate was decided by something beyond the control of the team...umpires. I would take a 10 goal thrashing better than i take a game lost by a dubious umpiring decision. It finds us all too regularly. The Pies and Blues seem to get the roll of the green all too regularly. 

I have to avoid this thread as im still livid and just recreating the same emotions of last night. 

4 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

i agree with this statement. Its in the same vein as the 5-0 first quarter. 

You need to assess the whole game in totality. Carlton owned us in the first quarter. Q2 and Q3 was an arm wrestle and we owned them in the last quarter. 

Walsh, Crippa and Weits had the ascendency in 1st half. Gawn, Lever and Trac in the 2nd half. 

This game was tight. It was always a goal in it either way. What burns, really burns is that our fate was decided by something beyond the control of the team...umpires. I would take a 10 goal thrashing better than i take a game lost by a dubious umpiring decision. It finds us all too regularly. The Pies and Blues seem to get the roll of the green all too regularly. 

I have to avoid this thread as im still livid and just recreating the same emotions of last night. 

Yes I get it I just had to reply to one of the dumbest comments I've read in ages.

1 hour ago, Deecisive said:

We played pretty poorly in the first quarter the umpiring certainly did not help. While people say the umpires put away the whistle well that was not the case in the first quarter where they hit us for everything and ignored everything Carlton did. The tackle was not dangerous, the players shoulder and head did not hit the ground first as occurs with a sling tackle. the carlton players knees hit the ground first, he was then pushed over from there. this is no different from players being ridden into the ground all the time. the holding the ball, rule seems to be impacting Clarry most of all last week and this week he was the main person pinged for holding the ball or incorrect disposal. Never mind the treatment he gets both on the ball and off the ball. we had our chances and should not have to have relied on that roo's tackle to win the game, we had more scoring shots and some of our best players had the worst misses. damn proud at how they came back and almost won it, i was in the stands cheering them on and for a brief moment we had hope. god if we could only play more than 15 minutes with that level of intensity, if we could play 4 quarters we would be unstoppable. one of the main issues i have with the umpires is the deliberate out of bounds. we got pinged for it several times when players are being tackled and ended up kicking it off the side of their boot and it goes out, the same did not occur with carlton. I don't understand how a player can walk the ball over the line when there is little or no pressure and not get called for deliberate out of bounds. It is deliberate it just did not come off a players hand or boot. they are certainly not attempting to keep the ball in which is what the rules is supposed to be for. 

One of the blues defenders just walked it over the goal line at one stage too. Three Carlton players there and no Dee's within 10 metres.

Where is the accountability around umpiring - both for those who train umpires and for the umpires

there isn’t any

heads should roll after last night

and where is our club on this? Gone missing. Pert should be demanding a please explain. 
 

I hate the league

i hate our timidity / good corporate citizen 

 

I also hate our terrible kicking 

gaaaaaaaaaaa!

Between all the terrible umpiring, the lack of continuity at the tribunal and all the other nonsense the afl is guilty of I think we all as fans of all clubs should come together and find a way to protest the afl. By the afl I mean head office. They are a bunch of unaccountable so and sos who abide by no rules and the general feeling amongst those I talk to across all teams is that they don’t like the way the game is run. Maybe a boycott could be in order…

Robbo tells it like it is ❤️💙

7 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Robbo tells it like it is ❤️💙

Love Robbo - still so passionate about the club and makes so much sense 👏🏻👏🏻

31 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Robbo tells it like it is ❤️💙

He needed more eff words 

 

5 hours ago, Satan said:

The Match Review Officer graded the incident as careless conduct, low impact and high contact, drawing a $3750 fine ($2500 with an early plea).

Newman's teammate Lachie Cowan was also fined $3125 for striking Neal-Bullen in the second quarter, with that incident graded as careless conduct, low impact and body contact. Cowan can accept a $1875 fine with an early plea.
 

so bad i posted this elsewhere

What a sick (and some would say corrupt) organisation is the AFL and their MRO.

Kozzi got time for nothing different to Newman, and every week some opposition thug takes advantage of the league's pathetic weak adjudication of deliberate gut punches.  Wait for one of our guys to do it - "we need to stamp out this behaviour".

I’d be more likely to appreciate umpiring more than once a year when I’m told to with some simple rule changes to remove umpires guessing at players intention.

Out of bounds but not on the full - last touch penalised. If inside 50 then indirect (cannot score goal directly).

Rushing - rush all you like, whenever you like, point stands but no kick-in either - ball up on edge of kick-in box.

Front-on/head high contact - always penalised, no need for umpire to rate player’s character, haircut, their own chances of getting out of carpark alive, etc

Won’t happen though as AFL is a media business and controversy is free publicity = 💰