Match Day Rnd. 6. Carlton V Sydney. MCG 14.10 pm.

[Steve]

Can anyone explain to me the situation when Cripps was given two shots at goal in the 3rd qtr? I was about 75 metres away and it looked to me as if he played on - got in trouble then the umpire blew the whistle. I thought, OK that is a 50M penalty or why else blow the whistle. Then the umpire gives him another go and he proceeded to kick that into the man on the mark

A Carlton teammate tried to shepherd our man on the mark.

It's a crazy outcome - the umpire resets the mark, effectively telling that player from the team in possession 'you've done the wrong thing, but it's OK, your teammate can just go back and take his kick again'.

They should change it so it's a free kick against if they transgress and try to shepherd the man on the mark.

[Aprilbr]

Match Day Rnd. 6. Carlton V Sydney. MCG 14.10 pm.

I too was there today. A long day! One of the areas that I have noticed with the team this year is our inability to stick the tackles. This used to be a key feature of our game but this year too many tackles are missed or the tackler is allowed to get their arms free and dish off a handball. Carlton were far better than us at sticking tackles today and this has been a trend in other games. We are also being killed in centre breaks with our lack of ruck strength and that really hurt us today as well. Our once mighty midfield is now very average and is just not giving our forwards enough opportunities. All in all we are down in most areas but it needs to start with out intensity at the contest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Markwebbos]

I think what happened was that a carlton person came in to Shepard the swans player on the mark. cripps played on and the ump stopped play to tell the carlton player he cant do that. cripps continued on and kicked the ball but as play was stopped it had to go back and kick again.

That's correct. SPS tried to shepherd Smith on the mark and the umpire blew up for it. First shot was after whistle went

[Foreign Legion]

I think what happened was that a carlton person came in to Shepard the swans player on the mark. cripps played on and the ump stopped play to tell the carlton player he cant do that. cripps continued on and kicked the ball but as play was stopped it had to go back and kick again.

If he can't shepherd the player on the mark isn't it still play on? Otherwise if the Swans player is being illegally blocked then it is a free to the Swans surely. Bizarre.

[Foreign Legion]

A Carlton teammate tried to shepherd our man on the mark.

It's a crazy outcome - the umpire resets the mark, effectively telling that player from the team in possession 'you've done the wrong thing, but it's OK, your teammate can just go back and take his kick again'.

They should change it so it's a free kick against if they transgress and try to shepherd the man on the mark.

To take this decision to a crazy situation - could this be repeated multiple times - with time on? Effectively running down the clock for minutes? I assume it was time on as Cripps was about to kick the ball in general play.

[gazza]

thank goodness for the babies, heeney,mills,hayward, hewett, melican,newman , jones atleast they tried hard.
parker and hannerberry nothing like their true form.
concerned that kennedy is trying to do too much and getting caught because he is captain

[MattW]

The contrast between the reserves last night and the seniors today was marked. It's as if the seniors are playing in silence. They are not playing as a team and not cracking in. It's more than confidence or fitness (or losing Mitchell or whatever); there appears to be discord. It kind of feels like they don't like each other, particularly the core mids.

Also, the team still looks patchwork. It's kind of ridiculous that Aliir isn't playing - a rare dude in the squad who drives the team forward. Neither Brandon Jack nor Rose look any better than when they last underwhelmed in the seniors. I don't want to cruel, I don't mean to be, but I am not sure why Jack plays the game - he finally gets to back to the seniors and he runs away from the ball, freezes when he has it.

Largely, we have too many passive players. Papley's disposal and decision-making is woeful, but at least he has a crack. Heeney, Melican and Mills are playing with some steel.

I have lowered my aspirations for the season to seeing Parker or Hannebery smile. Six weeks ago, I was aspiring to a successful bloody trip to Melbourne.

[ugg]

A Carlton teammate tried to shepherd our man on the mark.

It's a crazy outcome - the umpire resets the mark, effectively telling that player from the team in possession 'you've done the wrong thing, but it's OK, your teammate can just go back and take his kick again'.

They should change it so it's a free kick against if they transgress and try to shepherd the man on the mark.

Leo Barry might disagree with you on that. Strangely enough the umpire that awarded that free against Leo in 2005 was umpiring today although I don't think he was the one that made the call on Cripps.

[Steve]

To take this decision to a crazy situation - could this be repeated multiple times - with time on? Effectively running down the clock for minutes? I assume it was time on as Cripps was about to kick the ball in general play.

I think what would probably happen in that scenario is that the umpire wouldn't signal time on again until the player had retreated far enough away from the mark. At least after the second time you'd have to assume.

So if he continued to loiter too close, the clock would stay off while the player and ump were in a standoff re: not shepherding the mark.

It is interesting that it must be in the rules that you can't do it - yet it isn't punishable when you infringe against that rule.

Only thing I can think is that all the other examples that come to mind (it happens every now and then), is that the ump sees it in advance and comes in to address it well before the player with the ball plays on. So technically it is perhaps a warning then - but in today's example it is clearly an unacceptable outcome that Carlton just get to re-take the kick.

[kathleenmary]

I was there today as I was on grand final day and I can't help but feel broken by all that has happened and just maybe, the players are too. They looked like it to me. I've been a member for 30 years and the only time I felt worse than today was being at the Gabba in 94/95 when we hadn't kicked a goal before half time, or maybe the final against the bulldogs when they kicked a gazillion in a row - regardless Flat, flat flat flat. I didn't see connection of anytime amongst the group - we looked lifeless and worse, soulless. I'm not going to throw in the towel and am so hoping they haven't. I want Henry, Mills and Hayward to enjoy the footy they deserve. No answers, no theories - just a vent. Blahhhh!11

[Foreign Legion]

I think what would probably happen in that scenario is that the umpire wouldn't signal time on again until the player had retreated far enough away from the mark. At least after the second time you'd have to assume.

So if he continued to loiter too close, the clock would stay off while the player and ump were in a standoff re: not shepherding the mark.

It is interesting that it must be in the rules that you can't do it - yet it isn't punishable when you infringe against that rule.

Only thing I can think is that all the other examples that come to mind (it happens every now and then), is that the ump sees it in advance and comes in to address it well before the player with the ball plays on. So technically it is perhaps a warning then - but in today's example it is clearly an unacceptable outcome that Carlton just get to re-take the kick.

It is very strange Steve. If you logically follow what transpired today then this could be an endless loop. In theory, what happened can be repeated forever until the siren blows. The umpire can't change his decision or the rules surely? If the situation is the same then the decision should be the same. I know this seems petty in the scheme of things but this is an exploitable scenario based on todays decision.

[crackedactor]

I think what happened was that a carlton person came in to Shepard the swans player on the mark. cripps played on and the ump stopped play to tell the carlton player he cant do that. cripps continued on and kicked the ball but as play was stopped it had to go back and kick again.

So if buddy takes a shot at goal and tries to swing on the left foot.and we block the opposition player for getting in buddy space, the worse that can happen is kick a Again?.?

[Hotpotato]

How can any team play in a Granny one year and then lose the first 6 games the next year . That's the first time in history .
Port are on the rise, the Pies played one good game (against us) , the Doggies are still exuberant , West Coast are very hard to beat at home , GWS have a team of Mountains and Carlton are nowhere near as bad as their ladder position suggests.
Some of our veterans are over the hill but will stick around for awhile , there's some promising new talent .
We've had a pretty extraordinary ride , so just like the property market , a slump was coming sometime . Just try running a small business.

We will get through it and play some fabulous footy again .
Stick on .

[RogueSwan]

... No to Kirk for coach. Spiritual guru maybe but his style was suited to his era. Dour defensive and shutdown commitment. Rule changes need something entirely different.

How do you know that is his coaching style? Is it just based on how he played the game? Has he ever coached his own team and if so, how did they play?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Agent 86]

You will find this funny then:
http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/f...468f?width=650

Very good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk