AFL Rd 3 2023 Post Game Prognostications Giants vs Carlton

[Baggers]

It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating,  jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.

I strongly suspect, Pauly, that it's not so much the questioning it's the manner of the questioning. Pretty confident that had Coniglio (or any player really) asked the ump 'why' quietly and calmy (respect) rather than remonstrate, he'd have been fine. Remonstrating comes across as a public challenge to the umps decision which implies all manner of disrespect. Whitfield asked the question with respect. Coniglio did not.

All players know the risks of moaning, whining and remonstrating to the umps about their decisions. Them thar the rules, like it or not. Leadership would require from Coniglio that he understand and respect this rule of the game, indeed, all players should and most do. I'm pretty sure after this episode that players will really 'get' buttoning it when disagreeing with an umps adjudication.

And you have to ask yourself what useful purpose does it serve to give the ump a belligerent questioning. None. The message/rule is clear... respect the ump and his/her decision, regardless of your opinion of the adjudication or non-adjudication.

[DJC]

It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating,  jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.

Dissent is cheating by intimidating the umpire.  If Cripps gave away a 50 or free I’d be p1ssed off with him, not the umpire or the rule.

Players know the rules.  Coniglio is a serial offender and was demonstrative in his dissent earlier in the game.  Perhaps he will keep his trap shut now.

[DJC]

Where’s the outrage at the failure to pay Harry a free for forceful front on contact in a marking contest in the first quarter?

Swings and roundabouts!

[northernblue]

Where’s the outrage at the failure to pay Harry a free for forceful front on contact in the first quarter?

Swings and roundabouts!

On that point, Harry in particular needs to enforce the ball drop zone, it’s his space and like in your example he allows opponents to get in his way…

[DJC]

On that point, Harry in particular needs to enforce the ball drop zone, it’s his space and like in your example he allows opponents to get in his way…

In that instance Harry was leading his opponent to the ball when Flynn(?) shirtfronted him.  Nothing Harry could do.

It was a brave/foolish man who got in Fev’s way.  Harry needs to inspire similar respect.

[northernblue]

In that instance Harry was leading his opponent to the ball when Flynn(?) shirtfronted him.  Nothing Harry could do.

It was a brave/foolish man who got in Fev’s way.  Harry needs to inspire similar respect.

As you say, you need to make them think long and hard about doing it again.

[madbluboy]

It's a terrible decision. Imagine if we lose a GF because Cripps questions an unpaid free. The AFL needs to find another way of dealing with this. It's not an infringement where players are deliberately doing illegal things to alter the state of play in their favour. There's no cheating,  jumper holding, deliberate OOB etc. You can't have this tiggy touchwood nonsense affecting a result. Hand out heavy fines, suspend the player for the following match etc. But don't change the outcome because some player says boo.

Our players never question free kicks. All the video of our players waving their arms about is CGI from the Carlton hating media.

[PaulP]

https://www.afl.com.au/news/895460/no-ch...n-t-change

"Just like we have some players or coaches who occasionally get emotional, or become overly expressive when under pressure, we also have umpires with differing levels of temperament," Richardson said.

Right, so if we need to take the individual temperament of umpires into account, and one umpire may award a free and another may not, then we should also take player temperaments into account - so it you're an Italian hot head like Coniglio (a personality type for which I have considerable sympathy), then he should get more BOD than mild mannered, unruffled types like Whitfield or Marc Murphy lol.

Cogs was metres away from the ump. There's nothing threatening or rude or disrespectful about what he did.

[Lods]

Can of worms
You cant have umpires discriminating on the basis of personality.
They would have little idea of the  majority of players personalities.
If Coniglio whinges all day, that should count against him rather than for him in the judgement.

On the other hand....
Umpires interpret passages of play differently all the time.
One umpire will pay a free when another will call play on.
So that's just part of the game.

If it's determined there was 'little wrong' with Coniglio's actions then it's a free for all for questioning umpires decsions all over the field.
That then floats down to junior football.

You can't have one rule for 10 metres from goal an another for 70 metres from goal.


The AFL have set themselves on a course of action to stop dissent.
Perhaps the most effective way to fast track that is through events such as last weekend where the decision has strongly impacted the result.
A strict follow-up this weekend will reinforce that. I suspect they'll go hard.
Only a complete dill will be questioning an umpire's decision in round 4.

[Gointocarlton]

I strongly suspect, Pauly, that it's not so much the questioning it's the manner of the questioning. Pretty confident that had Coniglio (or any player really) asked the ump 'why' quietly and calmy (respect) rather than remonstrate, he'd have been fine. Remonstrating comes across as a public challenge to the umps decision which implies all manner of disrespect. Whitfield asked the question with respect. Coniglio did not.

All players know the risks of moaning, whining and remonstrating to the umps about their decisions. Them thar the rules, like it or not. Leadership would require from Coniglio that he understand and respect this rule of the game, indeed, all players should and most do. I'm pretty sure after this episode that players will really 'get' buttoning it when disagreeing with an umps adjudication.

And you have to ask yourself what useful purpose does it serve to give the ump a belligerent questioning. None. The message/rule is clear... respect the ump and his/her decision, regardless of your opinion of the adjudication or non-adjudication.

As Ol Mate Pacino says in "Any Given Sunday",  "Its a game of inches". You add up all the little positives and subtract all the little negatives and the net result is either winning or losing. If you are disciplined enough in every small facet of the game (training, weight, diet, behaviour on and off the field etc), the reward at the end can be huge. Rules are rules, some are missed, some are got, some are costly, some are not. As I said earlier, I hope our coaching staff drill into our guys how costly Cog's action was (whether we like it or not) and that could have indeed been a GF. If we don't learn anything from it (including Cogs), we may as well pack our bags and go home. Despite what we may all think/say, the game is about more than just kicking a ball through the two  larger posts more often than the other mob. How many games have we won recently with us having at least one goalless qtr? I'll hazard a guess and say one, Saturday's. Why? "Its a game of inches".