AFL Rd 22 2023 Post Game Prognostications Carlton vs Melbourne

[Rick]

If Marchbank says he touch it then that is good enough

[PaulP]

Players tend to react honestly in the heat of the battle. You can usually tell in the split second after an incident if the player drops their head and looks forlorn, or if they jump up and down gesturing maniacally to the umpire.

[laj]

I have had s Geelong supporter and a Richmond supporter tell me today it was a clear goal.

There is no way known anyone watching the replay could say one way or the other. They a full of sh*t if they think it was a clear goal. It was an inconclusive as it gets. Under the pre-review system it was a point because the goal umpire, bloke making the decision 2 metres away, said it flicked his right wrist.

[Professer E]

I watched us lose a game by a ball deflecting from Wiggo's hand from Peter Riccardi, plus Hawkins kicked a goal in a close GF which wasn't.  When it comes to goal umpire decisions Geelong have used up a lot of luck and their supporters should STFU.

[ElwoodBlues1]

re: Petracca...I thought it was a goal initially but also thought Marchbank was interfered with and it should have been a free so no goal awarded.
[member=153]LP[/member] Just the mention of Balme's name gets my blood boiling....

[Lods]

re: Petracca...I thought it was a goal initially but also thought Marchbank was interfered with and it should have been a free so no goal awarded.
[member=153]LP[/member] Just the mention of Balme's name gets my blood boiling....

Let's not talk about the P****, let his behaviour speak for itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKXn-ySUUNg

Best advert for a send off rule ever. >  >  >

[RiverRat]

If Marchbank says he touch it then that is good enough

I would be interested to know if the goal umpire believed it had been touched and just wanted confirmation that it hadn't cleared the goal line before being touched.  If so, there is no controversy because any touching, with whatever part of the body, occurred before the ball crossed the line.

On a separate issue, I thought the umpires did a good, consistent job in a very intense and physical game.  The allowed play to continue without paying soft free kicks and the late frees for kicking the ball out of bounds were both justified and to be anticipated.

[RiverRat]

The dopiest aspect of the so-called controversy was asking Petracca what he thought when he was 50 metres away.

[Lods]

I would be interested to know if the goal umpire believed it had been touched and just wanted confirmation that it hadn't cleared the goal line before being touched.  If so, there is no controversy because any touching, with whatever part of the body, occurred before the ball crossed the line.

What the goal umpire says to the field umpire initially is a bit hard to hear.

But the field umpires direction to the ARC is this....
"Score review...Umpire's call is touched one behind. Please make sure it was touched inside the field."

So from that we can make the assumption that it wasn't whether the ball was touched or not that was being questioned, but whether it was touched in the field of play.
EOS

[Micky0]

The dopiest aspect of the so-called controversy was asking Petracca what he thought when he was 50 metres away.

Almost up there with Damien Barrett yesterday asking Kemp if he HEARD Marchys hand touch the ball ?‍♂️