Autopsy AFL 2024 Round 1 - Blues v Tigers Thurs March 14th 7:30pm AEDT (MCG)

[Worm4]

Richmond got lucky free kicks early - three of their first 5 goals were absolute gifts, but from therein Carlton got the rub of the green and were very lucky to win in the end. Looks like the umps will be favouring them again this year - the AFL have laid down the law.

love a good conspiracy theory

 

[Jeremias]

I was around for the Christou era.

…who wasn’t the original Woof.

Just give it up Danny. You’re wrong.

I think being a one-club player should be the ones fans get behind, like Walsh.

Buy a Carlton membership and you'll then be well within your rights to suggest it to the club.

Until then, cry more.

 

[Irish BlueBagger]

Talk to me after tomorrow and I’ll respond better. I’m a Kildareman, so I’m used to losing.

Carlton were in the same boat for most of the past two decades as well!

 

[Malifice]

So why would you say the ball went 15+ metres when the ball actually stayed right at the players feet? I just watched it again. The ball went 0m. So why would you make it up out of thin air and not expect people to keep you accountable?

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/carl...0m-penalty-in-thrilling-final-term-c-13953655

TDK takes the mark cleanly, a second or two passes, then Baker negligently (at a minimum) bumps into TDK, knocking the ball out of his hands as he's looking for an option to pass it, which has the clear effect of delaying or impeding the play.

19.2 Where a field Umpire has awarded a Mark or Free Kick to a Player... a Fifty Metre Penalty in favour of that Player will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team... engages in any conduct which delays or impedes the play.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf

While you might want to argue it was 'soft' the elements of the offence were all made out. Baker did something (bumped into TDK, causing the ball to be spilt) which delayed or impeded the play.

If you want it to contrast to several incidents in the 1st quarter (2 free's that were paid to Lynch in the goal square, that literally were not there, that both resulted in goals, or the ball clearly going out of bounds by a meter while in Richmond's possession and also leading to a Richmond goal) we can examine those calls as well.

To my eyes Richmond got the rub early, and we got it late.

It's Round 1. The players are rusty and so are the umpires. Let it go. Your team played superbly with 3 down and beat us at our own game (the contest). You should be focussed on that and not sooking about the Umpires who (being human, and literally making split second decisions while running the equivalent of a marathon) will make mistakes.

 

[danster168]

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/carl...0m-penalty-in-thrilling-final-term-c-13953655

TDK takes the mark cleanly, a second or two passes, then Baker negligently (at a minimum) bumps into TDK, knocking the ball out of his hands as he's looking for an option to pass it, which has the clear effect of delaying or impeding the play.



https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...fa1d9b338ad/2022-Laws-of-the-Game-Booklet.pdf

While you might want to argue it was 'soft' the elements of the offence were all made out. Baker did something (bumped into TDK, causing the ball to be spilt) which delayed or impeded the play.

If you want it to contrast to several incidents in the 1st quarter (2 free's that were paid to Lynch in the goal square, that literally were not there, that both resulted in goals, or the ball clearly going out of bounds by a meter while in Richmond's possession and also leading to a Richmond goal) we can examine those calls as well.

To my eyes Richmond got the rub early, and we got it late.

It's Round 1. The players are rusty and so are the umpires. Let it go. Your team played superbly with 3 down and beat us at our own game (the contest). You should be focussed on that and not sooking about the Umpires who (being human, and literally making split second decisions while running the equivalent of a marathon) will make mistakes.

it wasn't even negligent imo. he didn't even swing his arms or anything. he has a right to stand the mark. it wasn't even intentional. horrible decision. everything else you said was true but if there's no intention then I don't think it can be careless. umpires have gotta be better as that was essentially the difference.

why are you talking about me smoking as a Richmond fan? I'm a Melbourne fan...you should put more effort into your posts than assuming I'm a biased richmond fan. I'm a neutral fan.

 

[Malifice]

it wasn't even negligent imo. he didn't even swing his arms or anything. he has a right to stand the mark. it wasn't even intentional. horrible decision. everything else you said was true but if there's no intention then I don't think it can be careless. umpires have gotta be better as that was essentially the difference.

why are you talking about me smoking as a Richmond fan? I'm a Melbourne fan...you should put more effort into your posts than assuming I'm a biased richmond fan. I'm a neutral fan.

He has a right to stand the mark for sure, but you can't do anything while standing the mark that impedes the other player from playing on.

Such as knocking the ball out of his hands negligently, and impeding the play.

You can argue it was soft (and I partly agree with you) but it was there, unlike a few Richmond got (in front of goal no less) in the first, including a front on contact (that wasn't) and the ball going a meter OOB and not being called.

The Umps are rusty just like the players are. They're running a half marathon while simultaneously making split second decisions in deafening noise, much of it some pretty full on abuse directed towards them. Give them a bit of a break mate.

 

[Royce Hafey]

It sucks losing KPDs but Gibcus and Young weren't points of difference. Losing Balta and Nank would've been terminal for instance. Look at Carlton's defence without Weitering. Yes, there were less rotations but only one - a cooked Prestia - came from midfield or the flanks.

The defensive reshuffling with Grimes, one of Vlastuin and Broad playing tall and one of Nank or Balta floating back as a spare from ruck worked at least as well on Curnow and McKay as when Young/Gibcus were on the field. Which is to say, not very well, but if anything the rest of Richmond's defence stood up more after the absences.

This is wrong. Not only did we lose two key defenders against a forward line with two gun tall forwards, we also effectively lost our best performing tall forward by having to play him back. So we did, in a sense, "lose Balta". We lost Prestia as well, and even if you argue (as I know you probably will) that he wasn't performing that well before he was injured, this meant that we were three players down coming off a five day break.

 

[Magruder]

This is wrong. Not only did we lose two key defenders against a forward line with two gun tall forwards, we also effectively lost our best performing tall forward by having to play him back. So we did, in a sense, "lose Balta". We lost Prestia as well, and even if you argue (as I know you probably will) that he wasn't performing that well before he was injured, this meant that we were three players down coming off a five day break.

In which column on the ladder are moral victories recorded?

 

[Royce Hafey]

In which column on the ladder are moral victories recorded?

Two answers to that. The first, rather mudane one, is that I wasn't arguing that we had a moral victory, simply correcting an obvious error in a post regarding the effect of some injuries.. The second one, more in the spirit of your post, is that I'm unsurprised that you are a little uncertain in matters of morality. Carlton after all are the club of the lumpen bourgeoisie, the white shoe brigade, John Elliott and brown paper bags. This is widely enough known to be a cliche. But sometimes cliches are correct.

 

[Chief]

lumpen bourgeoisie

Great band.

 

[branedotorg]

Two answers to that. The first, rather mudane one, is that I wasn't arguing that we had a moral victory, simply correcting an obvious error in a post regarding the effect of some injuries.. The second one, more in the spirit of your post, is that I'm unsurprised that you are a little uncertain in matters of morality. Carlton after all are the club of the lumpen bourgeoisie, the white shoe brigade, John Elliott and brown paper bags. This is widely enough known to be a cliche. But sometimes cliches are correct.

calm down blagoev, your lot may like to think you started with 18 family members in a grim single fronted workers cottage, toiling at t'mill but it's not as if Richmond Hill hasn't had some toffs clustered around the cathedral or pretending East Melbourne is bigger than it really is and i'm fairly sure Richmond were the fancy boy club that sacked a star player for bad language.

 

[Andronicus]

calm down blagoev, your lot may like to think you started with 18 family members in a grim single fronted workers cottage, toiling at t'mill but it's not as if Richmond Hill hasn't had some toffs clustered around the cathedral or pretending East Melbourne is bigger than it really is and i'm fairly sure Richmond were the fancy boy club that sacked a star player for bad language.

The campaigner shouldn't have *en sworn.

 

[Pomsta]

This is wrong. Not only did we lose two key defenders against a forward line with two gun tall forwards, we also effectively lost our best performing tall forward by having to play him back. So we did, in a sense, "lose Balta". We lost Prestia as well, and even if you argue (as I know you probably will) that he wasn't performing that well before he was injured, this meant that we were three players down coming off a five day break.

Our defence improved in the 2nd half when Balta went back but we needed him up forward. Kept McKay to 3 touches in the 2nd half. One was on the hbf and another on the hff. We need 3 of the bloke.