Autopsy AFL 2025 First Preliminary Final - Pies v Lions Sat Sept 20th 5:15pm EST (MCG)

[NeverEddie]

Thanks for clarifying that's it's a free kick again.

I did no such thing. That's the second time within this current discussion you have put words in peoples mouths (which is a bit . . . . desperate really . . . . and doesn't really achieve anything other than hardening people against you)

 

[Seeds]

Should this mark of the year have been a free kick against Jonathan Brown?

Back with the flight, eyes on the ball, makes forceful front on contact with a defender.

He marked the ball before he even made contact with the opponent.

The lions player against elliot did not get to the ball first. He mostly got the arms and glazed the ball in the process. If he got to the ball first before making contact with elliot it would of been fine.

 

[RCAB]

Should this mark of the year have been a free kick against Jonathan Brown?

Back with the flight, eyes on the ball, makes forceful front on contact with a defender.

How can you not tell the difference?





One takes the mark, hasn't made any contact prior to the mark.

The other is a player dragging the opposition player who's in the air and taking a mark, while simultaneously bringing them to the ground, and infringing on their arm.

 

[Soggy2112]

Yes incidental... but it wasn't incidental.

He brought Elliot down with force. Not incidental. Seems we agree now.

What do you think incidental means?

Incidental has nothing to do with the amount of force.

It is to do with what was the action itself. In this case it is clear that the action was a legitimate spoil attempt, therefore the contact was considered incidental.

 

[Soggy2112]

He marked the ball before he even made contact with the opponent.

The lions player against elliot did not get to the ball first. He mostly got the arms and glazed the ball in the process. If he got to the ball first before making contact with elliot it would of been fine.

How can you not tell the difference?

View attachment 2436259

View attachment 2436260

One takes the mark, hasn't made any contact prior to the mark.

The other is a player dragging the opposition player who's in the air and taking a mark, while simultaneously bringing them to the ground, and infringing on their arm.

Going frame by frame here is the moment where I believe Starcevich makes contact with the ball.



As you can see, he has not yet made contact with Elliot’s body, and arm to arm contact is simultaneous as you would expect because they are both going for the ball.

 

[RCAB]

What do you think incidental means?

Incidental has nothing to do with the amount of force.

It is to do with what was the action itself. In this case it is clear that the action was a legitimate spoil attempt, therefore the contact was considered incidental.

I know what incidental means, do you think you do?

I know why rule 18.5.3 was brought in and roughly when, do you?

Pulling someone's arm down while they're in the air trying to take a mark...

Is

Not

Incidental.


Incidental is usually for slight touches, for example, hands in the back which are not pushes.

This was a clear free kick in 2025, 1995 and 1975.

Anyway I posted the replay multiple times. It's an obvious free kick when you watch it.

 

[RCAB]

Going frame by frame here is the moment where I believe Starcevich makes contact with the ball.



As you can see, he has not yet made contact with Elliot’s body, and arm to arm contact is simultaneous as you would expect because they are both going for the ball.View attachment 2436297

It doesn't matter if he slightly touches the ball here, he forcefully drags Elliot's arm down later. Even slighter body contact in the air than this... are seen as free kicks when a player is in the air, as opposed to when they're on the ground. This was not slight and very forceful.



Elliot is pulled off the ball. Illegal contact, not incidental.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

This is what you get when youre too worried about the repercussions of pulling up a nuffy that posts 150 times in a controversial thread.
Suddenly they believe everything they spout is gospel.

 

[NeverEddie]

It doesn't matter if he slightly touches the ball here, he forcefully drags Elliot's arm down later. Even slighter body contact in the air than this... are seen as free kicks when a player is in the air, as opposed to when they're on the ground. This was not slight and very forceful.

View attachment 2436313

Elliot is pulled off the ball. Illegal contact, not incidental.

the nice word to describe what you are saying is "poppycock". Every single point you make above . . . poppycock!

 

[Soggy2112]

I know what incidental means, do you think you do?

Incidental contact in our game refers to contact that is made as a result of a player making an attempt to get the ball.

What do you think it means?

I know why rule 18.5.3 was brought in and roughly when, do you?

I don’t actually, do you have some info that’s relevant to this conversation that would help? If so, please provide it as I’m happy to be proven wrong if I’ve missed something.

Pulling someone's arm down while they're in the air trying to take a mark...

Is

Not

Incidental.

The rule says deliberately interferes with an opponents arms. As Starcevich puts his arm up to spoil the ball, and does not bring his arm down or make any sort of swinging motion towards Elliot’s arm, I think it’s false to say he deliberately interferes with Elliott’s arm. Their arms do make contact, but that is a byproduct of Starcevich’s genuine attempt to spoil.

Anyway I posted the replay multiple times. It's an obvious free kick when you watch it.

Great, so it’s a free kick because you say so. Glad you cleared that up.

It doesn't matter if he slightly touches the ball here, he forcefully drags Elliot's arm down later. Even slighter body contact in the air than this... are seen as free kicks when a player is in the air, as opposed to when they're on the ground. This was not slight and very forceful.

View attachment 2436313

Elliot is pulled off the ball. Illegal contact, not incidental.

See it’s interesting you mention later, because if you watch the slow mo vision from behind Elliott, it actually shows the opposite, and that Elliott is the one who pulls Starcevich’s arm.









These pictures clearly show that if anyone pulls on anyone’s arm, it is Elliott.

 

[RCAB]

Incidental contact in our game refers to contact that is made as a result of a player making an attempt to get the ball.

Ok, I think we're done.

Cya. There's point then discussing this any longer with you.

 

[Soggy2112]

Ok, I think we're done.

Cya. There's point then discussing this any longer with you.

What do you think incidental contact means?

 

[ceebsaf]

Ok, I think we're done.

Cya. There's point then discussing this any longer with you.

yea cos ur wrong

 

[RCAB]

What do you think incidental contact means?

20,000 words essays and you don't understand the definition of the word incidental.

I'll just repeat it for you again...

We're done.

 

[SSwans2011]

It astonishes me that someone can post the same gif over and over yet repeatedly inaccurately describe what happens in said gif.

And across dozens of posts fail to provide a definition for "incidental" despite rejecting several correct definitions.

What do you think incidental contact means?

Credit for trying to cultivate a reasonable discussion, but I read the post prior to this as one of the more pathetic "I've been checkmated" statements I've ever seen.

It's just categorically not a free kick under the Laws of the Game and a fantastic call from the umpire (I thought it was a free live too).

 

[Soggy2112]

20,000 words essays and you don't understand the definition of the word incidental.

I'll just repeat it for you again...

We're done.

Could you provide me with yours then?

 

[RCAB]

Could you provide me with yours then?

I told you to let it go, because I don't want to embarrass you any longer, this whole time you didn't even understand the definition of incidental.

It's obviously a waste of time talking to you now. I can just put you on ignore, is that preferable?

 

[Soggy2112]

It astonishes me that someone can post the same gif over and over yet repeatedly inaccurately describe what happens in said gif.

And across dozens of posts fail to provide a definition for "incidental" despite rejecting several correct definitions.

Credit for trying to cultivate a reasonable discussion, but I read the post prior to this as one of the more pathetic "I've been checkmated" statements I've ever seen.

It's just categorically not a free kick under the Laws of the Game and a fantastic call from the umpire (I thought it was a free live too).

Yep, I thought it was a free live as well, which is the point I was making to start with.

Umpires cop a lot of shit, but this is an instance where despite the pressure of the crowd, he got a very difficult decision 100% correct. But even still, he’s still copping criticism.

I also think it’s really disappointing that Starcevich showed immense courage and desperation to make a spoil that 9 out of 10 times he probably doesn’t get to, and instead of praising him, all we’re talking about is the umpire. Starcevich halted the momentum and executed one of the most difficult things to do in our game, it is actually a pretty good way to sum him up as a player so props to him.

 

[Soggy2112]

I told you to let it go, because I don't want to embarrass you any longer, this whole time you didn't even understand the definition of incidental.

It's obviously a waste of time talking to you now. I can just put you on ignore, is that preferable?

Dude, if my definition of incidental is wrong, what is the right definition?

 

[RCAB]

Dude, if my definition of incidental is wrong, what is the right definition?

I don't think you're debating on good faith so that's why we're done. Have a good one.

 

[Soggy2112]

I don't think you're debating on good faith so that's why we're done. Have a good one.

Mate, I don’t know how I can convince you of this, but if I’ve missed something I genuinely want to know.

That is legitimately my understanding of what incidental contact means. If I’m wrong, could you please explain what the correct definition is?

 

[Rod Stroker]

 

[NeverEddie]

Mate, I don’t know how I can convince you of this, but if I’ve missed something I genuinely want to know.

That is legitimately my understanding of what incidental contact means. If I’m wrong, could you please explain what the correct definition is?

Forget him Soggy. You cannot argue with someone who cannot or will not make OR accept a valid case supported by logic and evidence.

 

[Kram]

That guy is just a strange unit and best ignored.

 

[Thedeftouch]

The posts from RCAB are interesting. The stills and footage he posts actually demonstrate the exact opposite of his point, yet he dismisses genuine debate. iMy first “ignore” poster.