AFL Rd 3 2023 Post Game Prognostications Giants vs Carlton

[Micky0]

Ì wonder why the umpire didn't include that in his explanation to Whitfield  ?

The initial commentators were perplexed initially but then said that’s dissent - bad timing and area for GWS but that’s the role.

The after match crew went further and said there was more to it than we saw which was swearing at the umpire.

[Baggers]

Ì wonder why the umpire didn't include that in his explanation to Whitfield  ?

Seems the ump said all that he needed in explaining to Whitfield that the dissent was for what Coniglio said/did, not what he said/did. . On-air commentators also mentioned the expletives... perhaps they could hear the edits once it was replayed?

After game commentators also, equipped with the exact reason for the dissent, agreed with the umps call.

[Micky0]

I haven't seen much of the game other than the last 10-15min as I was at the GP. But all this talk of "an ugly win", "stole the game", what a load of nonsense. Couple of things:
- Stolen win - Nathan Williamson says hi. We have.had plenty of games "stolen" from us, what goes around comes around.
- Ugly win - A W is W every day of the week and Ill take it however I can get it especially on the road.
I have read Newman absolutely gave Tobey Greene a bath, that's excellent news. Greene is one of the comps few genuine match winners who I'd have in our side in a heart beat so that's a huge scalp for Newmy.
Whatever happened yesterday, its done. Review, reset and focus on smashing Norf this week please, it will be no easy gig but we MUST bank wins early and set the scene for the year ahead.

Whilst i get what you’re saying, it was an ugly ugly win.

We absolutely take it.

But an ugly win constitutes:

Terrible ground
Constant falling over by our guys
Miskicks
Stupid decisions when in absolutely no pressure
20 behinds!

Gws had a good patch and thankfully we matched it. They then went to crap kicking out on the full etc so we got over the line.

Should’ve put it away in the first half but left the door open. Need to smash those games and put it beyond doubt early

Very happy for the win tho.

[Baggers]

Another perspective, a positive perspective, on the gritty/ugly wins is that it builds a confidence within the group that they can win close, tough, hard games with conditions and other things against them. An importance reference for the group, and confidence within the group... also helps to erase any doubts from the end of last year.

[ElwoodBlues1]

I think the umpire explained fairly accurately to the GWS player (not Cogs), he stated that his arms were wide appart and he yelled what's that, the umpire then explained definitely "that's dissent". So as Baggers so eloquently stated, the GWS players and everyone else can FO!

GTC..If that call had been made on one of our players we would all have gone into orbit and picketed AFL house.
We got real lucky imho and the footy gods were smiling on us for a change which was very handy given the state of the game.
It wasnt winning ugly it more winning lucky imo and we were embarrassing most of the game.
GWS are the softest, most poorly led soulless team in the comp and we would want to deliver better vs Nth or we will get knocked over.

[Professer E]

Still struggling to ascertain what Fishers role is.

[PaulP]

The dissent rule, like the deliberate out of bounds rule and many others, requires interpretation. It will never be black and white. I thought it was a poor interpretation of the rule, and I would be screaming blue murder if it was against us. If you listen to the end of the umpire / Whitfield conversation I referred to earlier, Whitfield says. "so that's worth a goal, is it ?", and shakes his head in disbelief.  If we're being consistent with the Coniglio decision, that's also dissent IMO, and another free kick should be awarded.

[ElwoodBlues1]

Still struggling to ascertain what Fishers role is.

He is lucky that there isn't much pressure from players in the twos and the skipper is his mate.
I wouldn't mind seeing Fogarty get a few games although I expect Martin to come back in next week for the injured Owies

[Mav]

Let’s not fall into the trap of conceding that Harry should have been penalised and that set the scene for a controversial free kick.

At no stage had Harry taken possession of the ball and it took only a split second for it to get away from him after it hit his left thigh as his left leg was striding forward. He may have tried to soccer it out of the air but Taylor then applied a tackle around the hips and continued to pull Harry down to the ground. In short, Taylor tackled Harry when he didn’t have the ball and prevented him from going after the ball which was close to him. Why wasn’t Harry given a free kick 15 metres out?

In fact, on the commentary Hudson said as the tackle was applied, “Curnow gives a little gift for Harry who is tackled maybe without the ball by Taylor”. As he was saying that, Garry Lyon was oohing and said, “How is that not a free kick!” although he may well have been reacting in the same way as Coniglio. We don’t know for sure as the dissent free kick then became the point of interest.

Yes Taylor didn’t realise Harry didn’t have the ball, but that has never mattered. Thousands of free kicks are paid every year against unlucky tacklers who incorrectly assumed the opponent had the ball. Moreover, the tackler is usually penalised when the tackler’s initial contact with a player in possession of the ball knocks it out of that player’s hands and the tackler continues the tackle assuming the ball was still in possession. That type of free kick really pisses me off. In any event, 9 times out of 10 the free kick is usually paid to Harry.

The argument that would be raised in favour of Taylor is that Harry is a magician who is capable of taking possession and then feeding the ball out for a kick all in the space of a nanosecond and Taylor was entitled to start the tackle during the ball drop. Even on this argument, Harry had no prior opportunity and failure to make contact with the boot should have resulted in a play on call.

In either case, Coniglio’s reaction that the umpire should have given Taylor a free kick was entirely wrong-headed. Part of the backlash against the dissent free-kick is the unstated assumption that Coniglio’s reaction was understandable as he’d witnessed an outrageous non-call and the umpire should have eaten a serving of humble pie by letting it go. Wrong on all counts. If anything, Harry should have been the one going off like a 2 bob watch. Kudos to Harry that he did the right thing.

Should any non-Carlton fan try to wind me up by saying we stole the win, my response will be that we were robbed of a goal to Harry immediately before and that just made up for it.

[Baggers]

The dissent rule, like the deliberate out of bounds rule and many others, requires interpretation. It will never be black and white. I thought it was a poor interpretation of the rule, and I would be screaming blue murder if it was against us. If you listen to the end of the umpire / Whitfield conversation I referred to earlier, Whitfield says. "so that's worth a goal, is it ?", and shakes his head in disbelief.  If we're being consistent with the Coniglio decision, that's also dissent IMO, and another free kick should be awarded.

I guess not knowing the expletives that Coniglio apparently used, and their context, has us jumping at shadows and assumptions.

I also think Wingman MAV's point re Harry not getting a free is worth noting.

In the bigger picture... how many frees are missed or soft, depending on who you barrack for. It's just that this free to Mots/against Coniglio happening at a critical stage, which should be irrelevant.

Yes, we would be up-in-arms had that been against us, but if we later found out that Crippa swore at the ump and aggressively challenged his decision, then we'd turn our attention to our Skipper... and not be impressed.

Whether we like it or not, the dissent rule is there and will be used and players know it. Simple... keep your mouth shut, the ump aint gonna change his/her decision because you object. Self discipline. Ask what it was for (in a reasonable manner), but don't question it... waste of time and effort, and is an unnecessary risk.