If we were spanking these guys by 10 goals like we should, the umps could make 9 mistakes costing us goals and we'd still get up.

_________________
Congratulations CK95

Ooooh.............








DIZ-zeeee...........!


kindest regards tommi

_________________
that'siti'mnotchangingthistagain......!

Well you may be onto something...the scum have always been long odds in recent meetings....

_________________
"Truth, for the tyrants, is the most terrible and cruel of all bindings; it is like an incandescent iron falling across their chests. And it is even more agonizing than hot iron, for that only burns the flesh, while truth burns its way into the soul"     — Lauro Aguirre

[quote="Cazzesman"]Actually something just came to me about the indicent. The umpire indicated Pears had handballed the ball after the tackle hence no free. If he was blindsighted how could he adjudicate he handballed it.

The plot thickens my dear Watson.

i agree.... Umpire Chambermaid motioned that he successfully executed a handball.... so if he was unsighted as the Giesh has said.....?????

that's a man that couldn't play....couldn't coach...... and we give him a third crack at it and make him the head of the umpires....

I've seen a lot of bad decisions made by umpires over the years but that one rates in the top 5 of all time. Just absolutely ridiculous and directly costing a goal.

_________________
Don't blame it on the sunshine, don't blame it on the moonlight, don't blame it on the good times, blame it on the WIGGINS!

Some of the worst umpiring I have seen in a long, long time and all against us. No use admitting to them now however because they did us good and proper when it counted. Chamberline suffers from short man's desease as well. Doubt they would have made a difference to the result however.

The Russell free is one of the worst decision I have ever seen.

Agree, i lost it completely in front of the TV. Wife was genuinely shocked

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

I think its about time the club did a semi James Hird, subtely suggest the fact we are playing 25 in the week leading up to games against Essendon*. I reckon you could make a documentary on the $hit decisions we've had to endure in the last 6 encounters.

_________________
"I will rejoice in their anguish, delight in their failure and revel in our success"

We are Carlton, @#$%&! the rest !!!!!!

Blind-sighted ?

WTF?????

Typical umpiring department response. It would be way too emotionally secure to come out & say - "A clear error was made. The umpire was in the correct position to adjudicate - and unfortunately, an obvious rule misinterpretation was made".

I don't need an apology - just a mature acknowledgement of human error.

Well it counts for little, but finally seeing an admission that the Yarran chase/tackle has been acknowledged as a free kick is something. I had heart palpitations and increased blood pressure all over again when I heard the handball theory.

Even though the umpires had a shocker last week, and don't kid yourselves, they were equally bad for both sides I reckon, the point is we controlled our own destiny. Hammer is right, we had a side more than capable of beating Essendon* and beating them well, so the players and coaching staff have to wear this one completely.

However, when a free kick like the Yarran one is missed it just completely erodes any confidence in the umpires. There are three of them on the field and Yarran's efforts should have been as obvious to at least one of the umpires as it was to virtully all of the 70,000+ crowd. This is probably another example of allowing boundary umpires being able to make decisions as well. Surely one of the two boundary umpires would have had a clear vision of that incident.

The odd cock-up by the umpires is fair enough, but free kicks as blatant as Yarran’s just should not be missed. It is simply unacceptable and should not be tolerated or excused by anyone at AFL house or in the umpiring fraternity.

As a side note, good to see some common sense in the Lenny Hayes contact issue as well.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

Same here - I had some Bomber supporters with their head in the hands quite embarrassed at that soft goal. It was fantastic work by Russell to spoil and not interfere with the player.

Likewise with Yazz, it was a classic run-down tackle and that cauliflower of an umpire should hang his head in shame.

_________________
end of message

I wasn't aware that was the rule Marciblue. I am not disputing it but if that is the rule then the rules committee have effectively made the drop kick illegal. And if that is so, then how come a year or two back, Matthew Lloyd kicked a drop kick goal against us whilst he was being tackled in the goal square. IIRC that goal pretty much won them the game - under the rule applied last week it should have been deemed incorrect disposal.

_________________
“Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you're a mile a way and you have their shoes."

The drop kick is still legal, but he plays for Brisbane now.

_________________
"One of my favorite philosophical tenets is that people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people's minds." - Frank Zappa

Some interesting decisions came on the weekend and no one is happy. I'm sure your not as angry as this coach though. This is gold - http://www.thebigtip.com.au/afl/44-opinion/247-ice-hockey-coach-goes-nuts ha

I have always known and was taught that when you're being tackled the drop kick is not allowed as the ball hits the ground first and it is incorrect disposal (or dropping the ball as we taught many years ago!)

I think the drop kick would still be legal, just not when you're being tackled

As for Lloyd, no surprise that gimp master got away with it!!!

_________________
C'mon Blueboys!

Surely, this outrage that you can't dropkick when tackled is tongue-in-cheek? When's the last time any AFL player intentionally executed a dropkick. The funny thing is that a common theme is to lambast lawyers for exploiting technicalities, but non-lawyers are perfectly happy to try to exploit this "technicality" to defend an obvious breach of the rules. It's not a recent thing - I remember players being pinged even when they managed to get a foot to the bouncing ball in a tackle back in the 80s. Should we allow players who drop the ball when they're tackled to argue that they were intending to kick a place kick, and were waiting for it to come to rest before completing their kick?

There are other examples of frees being paid to the tackler where the player with the ball wouldn't be pinged if it happened outside a tackle. The most obvious is bouncing the ball. And another one is where the impact of the tackle results in the ball leaving the hand of the player in possession who hasn't had his prior opportunity - if that player punches the ball in mid-air, he'll be free kicked for a throw. He has to catch it again before he punches it or let it drop to the ground to avoid being penalised.

Perhaps the action with the other arm looked suspiciously like a handball before the ball spilled loose?

I hear Razor Ray often handballs without the ball. Maybe he has his eyes closed at the moment it spilled loose.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

what rubbish.

the worst of the lot, was the in-the back, when yarren clearly jumped over the bloke that was already on the ground ffs.

there was no where near an in the back decision.

_________________
Got to love the stare Down by Setanta on Llyod