- Aug 24, 2020
- 9,697
- 8,953
- AFL Club
- Carlton
he dropped the ball because of the tackle. why else would he drop the ball if he was just tagged. clear dropping the ball. The head of the umpiring department, Stephen McBurney, will be contact by the MFC on Monday for this pathetic interpretation of the rules as well as a written apology regarding the Rooyen howler.
People that say there's a deeper political reason behind the horrendous umpiring against the dees vs Carlton I don't completely agree with but I also don't blame them. We don't have to go far if we remember when Petracca kicked a goal against Carlton from 50m to win the game and they called touched despite it being clearly a goal. So even though the soft call should've been goal the ump went with touched. Just more data added to that theory. Carlton need the umps most times to get across the line.
Dropping the ball because of a tackle does not make it HTB. It is actually a tactic that I see Melbourne FC pull a lot when pressure is applied to them to avoid disposal of the ball. Dropping the ball is part of the kicking motion so most times is disguised as that and umpires will usually go nowhere near paying those. Largely besides the point though. The issue with the “tackle” is that it was not a tackle but would have probably been paid if this was touch footy. Seems clear.
In regards to the Petracca non-goal from last year, that was ages back and I don’t really need to comment on that. What I will say is that the umpire was way closer to the action than any of us and could see the play right in front of them. The umpire made a soft call on what they saw (as they should). It got reviewed and it did not get overturned so I don’t think there was anything “clear” about it at all. I’d trust the goal umpires judgement in the scenario that any other observer or player on the ground.