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.
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.