AFL Rd 3 2023 Post Game Prognostications Giants vs Carlton

[kruddler]

Well if that is the case, then I'll certainly modify my perspective. Perhaps the commentator who said expletives were involved was speculating? That made sense to me -- the penalty -- if the player had added some spice to the questioning, or was aggressive. On the replay Coniglio certainly was animated... perhaps too much so.

The AFL will possibly support the umps decision, as, by the letter of the law, he was correct, especially if Coniglio was belligerent in his delivery/questioning (which he appeared to be by the vision). Either way, a high price for dissent and a far cry from a 50 metre penalty. Clarification is needed for we supporters (and players) as to what happens if the ball is 'dead' and a player dissents.

Swearing or not, its irrelevant.

The dissent rule is not brought in to protect the umpires feelings.
The dissent rule is brought in to teach one and all not to argue with the umpires.

The kids in the ground will never have heard if he swore or not.
They will have seen the arms out, the resulting free kick (and goal) and its potential game changing consequences.
If you can't learn from that, then you'll never learn.

If it wasn't Cogs this week, it'd be someone else next week.

Dunstall said it best when he said if you want to change the way people interact with umpires (which is what the AFL are trying to do with this rule) then you might shoot a few people along the way, but ultimately you will get what you want.
I agree.

In a 50-50 call, err on the side that will help the umpires in the future. Otherwise, you ultimately do more damage by ignoring it.

[kruddler]

But you can't question that JSOS lifted yesterday and was far more effective... the 'old' Jack, who holds his marks and uses his smarts and hard work to good effect was on show compared to weeks one and two.

As i said last week. If he kicked 2.0 instead of 0.2 he would've got in the bests.

His effort has never been questioned...his output was.
Sometimes things won't go your way and you'll have 'down' games, but as i showed last week, by comparison to every other forward short and tall, his output (statistically) hasn't been lacking.

This week he took some marks he dropped last week. Is that a droppable offense?

[Macca37]

Happy to bank the 4 points but that’s where it stops.

Terrible display of what is the highest level of AFL in the country. All jokes aside seen far better skills in a local under 18 games than that display.



How odd is it when you have the previous 2 years Coleman medalists playing together and they consistently compete for the same ball have no clue still how to separate and play with each other rather then spoiling each other and then when they get a unless it on their preferred side under 30 metres out neither of them have any sort of a regular routine to go back and nail the goal. How do you win an award like that and then have no confidence at all to do what you are paid to do.

Completely agree.  Surely after that performance we should be looking for a new forwards coach.  It's hard to believe that Harry and Charlie have ever played together.  We got away with a win against an average side but will be made to pay with a similar performance against stronger sides.

[Baggers]

Swearing or not, its irrelevant.

The dissent rule is not brought in to protect the umpires feelings.
The dissent rule is brought in to teach one and all not to argue with the umpires.

Dunstall said it best when he said if you want to change the way people interact with umpires (which is what the AFL are trying to do with this rule) then you might shoot a few people along the way, but ultimately you will get what you want.
I agree.

In a 50-50 call, err on the side that will help the umpires in the future. Otherwise, you ultimately do more damage by ignoring it.

Swearing goes to belligerence. That's why it would be an issue. And, after watching the replay, a few times, Coniglio certainly remonstrating... let's say, forcefully. Pretty sure that would have been a free and a fifty anywhere on the ground.

The rule wasn't, I believe, brought in to protect the umpires feelings but rather to protect the esteem and respect for umpires and their decisions. And that is imperative. Difficult enough job without being abused for a couple of hours every week, not to mention the example for the other leagues - junior and senior.

I also thought that Jason Dunstall's comments were the most accurate and to the spirit of the law. Garry Lyon though...

[Lods]

As i said last week. If he kicked 2.0 instead of 0.2 he would've got in the bests.

His effort has never been questioned...his output was.
Sometimes things won't go your way and you'll have 'down' games, but as i showed last week, by comparison to every other forward short and tall, his output (statistically) hasn't been lacking.

This week he took some marks he dropped last week. Is that a droppable offense?

Not in itself...
I think what made it even a discussion was that he was subbed off last week.
He didn't appear to be injured.
Given that, at that point of the game it was determined he was the player we could most do without.
He'd had an average start to the year compared to what we know he is capable of contributing.
Now those two factors mean that if changes were to be made for yesterday's game then he may have been in the frame.
Not necessarily the one to make way, but maybe in discussions.
The match committee obviously saw him as a valuable component for the GWS game.
Really there was probably no alternative.
And as it transpired we're all pretty glad he played.
He's played well and probably earned himself a game next week.

Seriously though, when he's on his game he's in most folk's sides every week.

[Gointocarlton]

Well if that is the case, then I'll certainly modify my perspective. Perhaps the commentator who said expletives were involved was speculating? That made sense to me -- the penalty -- if the player had added some spice to the questioning, or was aggressive. On the replay Coniglio certainly was animated... perhaps too much so.

The AFL will possibly support the umps decision, as, by the letter of the law, he was correct, especially if Coniglio was belligerent in his delivery/questioning (which he appeared to be by the vision). Either way, a high price for dissent and a far cry from a 50 metre penalty. Clarification is needed for we supporters (and players) as to what happens if the ball is 'dead' and a player dissents.

Doesnt change my perspective one iota.

[frostydog]

"Acres was banned for one match for rough conduct against Greater Western Sydney's Brent Daniels, which was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact." AFL.com

[LoveNavy]

"Acres was banned for one match for rough conduct against Greater Western Sydney's Brent Daniels, which was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact." AFL.com

Wow. I have no idea when that happened.
What a shame. Blacers has been in great form.

[PaulP]

"Acres was banned for one match for rough conduct against Greater Western Sydney's Brent Daniels, which was graded as careless conduct, medium impact, and high contact." AFL.com

Might be a blessing in disguise. Give his shoulder some extra recovery time.

[northernblue]

Might be a blessing in disguise. Give his shoulder some extra recovery time.

Cmon Paul, surely the first thing should be “Is this a reasonable charge/outcome ?”