Do Collingwood need to enter a rebuild phase?

[CarmenSandiego]

As I have previously stated, if you simply go by stats and final margin, Carlton were 'better performed' in the 2024 Elimination Final than Collingwood were in the 2025 Preliminary Final.

But anyone who actually watched both games knows that wasn't the case.

what the shit are you on about?

carlton lost every single meaningful statistic in that game, just like collingwood did.

you're now arguing that carlton were 'contenderz' in 2024 just like collingwood were in 2025. well done.

 

[Fadge]

what the shit are you on about?

carlton lost every single meaningful statistic in that game, just like collingwood did.

Oh.

So Collingwood in the 2025 Prelim were equally as bad as Carlton were in the 2024 Elim?

Gotcha.

you're now arguing that carlton were 'contenderz' in 2024 just like collingwood were in 2025. well done.

Yeah... that's what I'm 'arguing'.....

 

[CarmenSandiego]

Oh.

So Collingwood in the 2025 Prelim were equally as bad as Carlton were in the 2024 Elim?

Gotcha.


Yeah... that's what I'm 'arguing'.....

neither team gave it a nudge. collingwood were more competitive, as the key stats & final result indicate.

 

[doppleganger]

So based off the fact Starcevich only ever had eyes for the ball, he was deemed to be contesting, thus the play on call, as per the rules.

The rules say nothing about a players eyes.

But yes it was deemed that his sole objective was to contest or spoil Elliott's mark, hence play on in this instance.

Also if you bother to check the rules properly, 'front on' isn't actually a thing, it's called 'marking interference'.

The specific marking contest rules are below for you.

As I already detailed 18.5.2 (d) specifically states front on contact, just like 18.5.2 (c) refers to deliberate interference with the arms aka "chopping the arms".

So yes, according to the rules umpires can determine a player didn't deliberately "chop an arm" or that a player made front-on contact but the sole objective was to spoil and thus call play on.

Why people were surprised is because the free is awarded for front on contact the majority of the time, even when players do everything right and are obviously just trying to spoil the ball, which is what Starc was doing.

According to the letter of the law it should be almost impossible to pay a front on contact free in a marking contest, as the defender is always trying to contest or spoil the mark (they are just in a woeful starting position) and hence the player in the clear gets the free for front on contact.

Front on contact is for protecting players with their head over the ball.

No, that is a different section altogether.

You are referring to 18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT

Rule 18.3.2 (k) notes a free kick shall be awarded of a player bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

Perhaps why you are confused

You can't bump a player who's head is over the footy and you usually can't make front on contact in a marking contest. It is just a silly out to say they were trying to spoil, as all defenders are trying to spoil when making front on contact, if they weren't trying to spoil no contact would have been made.

 

[Cyclops]

Brisbane were fit and in form, we had a dream second quarter (and some frees to Brisbane not paid, the umps get excited too).

However the Elliot free was a definite mistake. At no point did Starcs hands get as high as Elliots. He could not have reached the ball without hitting Elliot first, plus his body hit our blokes body. Chopped the arm after the ball spilled is still chopping.

We would have DOUBLED our chance of winning from 1% to 2% had it been paid.

 

[HeathySure]

mate, you were outplayed all game except for 1 quarter - every single meaningful stat & indicator backs this up; including final score & scoring shots.

just because you had a burst, and you've won games like that against much inferior opposition in the past, doesn't equate to you being just as likely to win that game, therefore consider it unlucky.

we were outplayed in many games we won because of our system. I am not saying we would have won the prelim, but we had to play an unnatural game to score and thats why the defence leaked.

 

[HeathySure]

He should've had eyes for the ball instead of running to engage Rioli, then he would've actually got a free for Rioli preventing him from getting to the ball.

Regardless, as explained on previous pages, Starcevich didn't infringe Elliott.

right oh

 

[HeathySure]

y

The umpire put the whistle away in Q4 of a PF, it happens.

No, what a horrendous take.

Collingwood had stopped Brisbane's momentum.

It was the Pies who were enjoying a strong push and should have scored - forget the free, Membrey himself could/should have had a set shot from 35m out to put us back within 1 goal with 10 minutes left and the crowd going bananas urging them on.

With Pies somehow not scoring, the Lions quickly rebounded and scored their first goal for the quarter and it was a 12 point turn-around.

That play was pivotal in seeing the momentum go from the Pies to the Lions.

yeah membrey stuffed that up 100 percent , but that doesnt change the ump decision

 

[bzparkes]

The rules say nothing about a players eyes.

But yes it was deemed that his sole objective was to contest or spoil Elliott's mark, hence play on in this instance.

The specific marking contest rules are below for you.

As I already detailed 18.5.2 (d) specifically states front on contact, just like 18.5.2 (c) refers to deliberate interference with the arms aka "chopping the arms".
View attachment 2534948
So yes, according to the rules umpires can determine a player didn't deliberately "chop an arm" or that a player made front-on contact but the sole objective was to spoil and thus call play on.

Why people were surprised is because the free is awarded for front on contact the majority of the time, even when players do everything right and are obviously just trying to spoil the ball, which is what Starc was doing.

According to the letter of the law it should be almost impossible to pay a front on contact free in a marking contest, as the defender is always trying to contest or spoil the mark (they are just in a woeful starting position) and hence the player in the clear gets the free for front on contact.

No, that is a different section altogether.

You are referring to 18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT

Rule 18.3.2 (k) notes a free kick shall be awarded of a player bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

Perhaps why you are confused

You can't bump a player who's head is over the footy and you usually can't make front on contact in a marking contest. It is just a silly out to say they were trying to spoil, as all defenders are trying to spoil when making front on contact, if they weren't trying to spoil no contact would have been made.

So, under part (d), we can agree Starcevich's sole objective was to spoil the ball, considering you can see his head following the ball the entire way and he makes contact with the ball when it reaches Elliott's hands.

That rule doesn't state that if you make front on contact with a player, it's automatically a free kick.

You also left the below out of your snip.



'Front on' contact has become confusing to spectators because the commentators clearly don't understand the rule. They sound all perplexed when a player, as in Starcevich's case, legitimately makes an attempt to contest the ball from 'front on', which is not a free kick.

There is no specific rule stating that if you make 'front on' contact in a marking contest it's deemed an automatic free kick. This seems to be where the confusion is stemming from. It's a sub-rule that if the player is deemed not to be making a legitimate attempt to contest the ball then it's a free kick to the player receiving contact, otherwise it's play on as in the Starcevich case.

In fact, this case should be shown to umpires to ensure they understand exactly what is deemed a free and what isn't.

 

[Fadge]

neither team gave it a nudge. collingwood were more competitive, as the key stats & final result indicate.

LOLOL.

The 'final result' was Collingwood losing by 29 points, and Carlton losing by 28 points.

You're not very good at this...

 

[Dtennent94]

So, under part (d), we can agree Starcevich's sole objective was to spoil the ball, considering you can see his head following the ball the entire way and he makes contact with the ball when it reaches Elliott's hands.

That rule doesn't state that if you make front on contact with a player, it's automatically a free kick.

You also left the below out of your snip.

View attachment 2534982

'Front on' contact has become confusing to spectators because the commentators clearly don't understand the rule. They sound all perplexed when a player, as in Starcevich's case, legitimately makes an attempt to contest the ball from 'front on', which is not a free kick.

There is no specific rule stating that if you make 'front on' contact in a marking contest it's deemed an automatic free kick. This seems to be where the confusion is stemming from. It's a sub-rule that if the player is deemed not to be making a legitimate attempt to contest the ball then it's a free kick to the player receiving contact, otherwise it's play on as in the Starcevich case.

In fact, this case should be shown to umpires to ensure they understand exactly what is deemed a free and what isn't.

Either the rule should be rewritten (if it’s deemed important for safety) or we should barely ever seen it paid unless someone just rams the marking player without trying to spoil or mark the ball (which is exceedingly rare).

It’s just very unfortunate for Collingwood that the rule was correctly adjudicated for once.

 

[bzparkes]

Either the rule should be rewritten (if it’s deemed important for safety) or we should barely ever seen it paid unless someone just rams the marking player without trying to spoil or mark the ball (which is exceedingly rare).

It’s just very unfortunate for Collingwood that the rule was correctly adjudicated for once.

If Starcevich one one second slower or faster, it would've been a free. It's unfortunate for Collingwood that he arrived at exactly the right time but that was simply a great piece of play by him, whether it was intentional or not.

Realistically they just need to properly educate the commentators every season so they properly know the rules and how to explain them.

 

[Fadge]

Realistically they just need to properly educate the commentators every season so they properly know the rules and how to explain them.

And the umpires, so they properly know the rules and how to apply them.

 

[Dtennent94]

If Starcevich one one second slower or faster, it would've been a free. It's unfortunate for Collingwood that he arrived at exactly the right time but that was simply a great piece of play by him, whether it was intentional or not.

Realistically they just need to properly educate the commentators every season so they properly know the rules and how to explain them.

It should be worded to say that if the player legitimately contests the ball (getting the timing right) then it’s fair game as long as they don’t do any excessive. Basically the same as going for a speccy.

The way it’s worded right now implies that if your intention is correct (to spoil or mark), your timing doesn’t matter.

 

[Mr Meow]

And the umpires, so they properly know the rules and how to apply them.

It wasn't a free kick and the rulebook happily, accurately justified it. Time to get over the stop being an incredibly sore loser looking for excuses.

 

[Mr Meow]

It should be worded to say that if the player legitimately contests the ball (getting the timing right) then it’s fair game as long as they don’t do any excessive. Basically the same as going for a speccy.

The way it’s worded right now implies that if your intention is correct (to spoil or mark), your timing doesn’t matter.

That's the whole issue about it supposedly being a FK though. Starcevich did nail the timing. 19 out of 20 players miss it by a fraction and that's when the infringement is clear. At absolute worst, intent, timing and execution make it a judgement call on the decision. Cries of a "clear free kick" clearly ignore or misinterpret the actual rules, and how Starcevich's action fit.

 

[Worm4]

A lot of discussion about a bit of play that had no bearing on the result of a game. Are you all merely just bored today ?

 

[Fadge]

A lot of discussion about a bit of play that had no bearing on the result of a game. Are you all merely just bored today ?

Clearly it did, otherwise why the discussion?

That's what happens when there are big moments for big teams in big games.

We have to go back nearly 50 years to 1979 for the most recent of these Carlton 'discussions'... and guess who the other team in that game was?

Back in the days when Carlton were a 'big team'.

 

[JustaBattler]

Collingwood shoudl take a leaf out of Carltons book and sign up Pendles for another 8 years and SIdey for 5.

 

[Fadge]

Collingwood shoudl take a leaf out of Carltons book and sign up Pendles for another 8 years and SIdey for 5.

If Carlton get half as much out of Walsh's career as Collingwood have Sidey's career, let alone Pendles, they will have done well.

 

[JustaBattler]

If Carlton get half as much out of Walsh's career as Collingwood have Sidey's career, let alone Pendles, they will have done well.

I wont settle for anything less than 2/3rds !

 

[doppleganger]

There is no specific rule stating that if you make 'front on' contact in a marking contest it's deemed an automatic free kick.

The way the AFL rules are written deliberately allow for interpretation and nuance, they are not black and white.

This seems to be where the confusion is stemming from. It's a sub-rule that if the player is deemed not to be making a legitimate attempt to contest the ball then it's a free kick to the player receiving contact, otherwise it's play on as in the Starcevich case.

The confusion is because players who are caught out of position, like Starcevich was, who run back to try and spoil (which is what all defenders do, their sole objective is to contest the ball and attempt to prevent theor opponent from marking the ball) but end up making front on contact are usually penalised.

That is how umpires have interpreted the rule.

Starcevich himself was pinged for front on contact against Lewis in Rd24, but he was just trying to spoil the ball.

'It's a contact sport': Commentators flummoxed as Hawk kicks key major

Brisbane players and commentators are left baffled as Mitch Lewis earns a free kick and converts the set shot after a heavy marking contest

www.afl.com.au

In fact, this case should be shown to umpires to ensure they understand exactly what is deemed a free and what isn't.

Sure, if at the start of the season they put out a front on marking contest example video and called that play on...but they didn't.

The problem is they hadn't interpreted it like that for the majority of the season, and as Razor Ray explained, the way umpires have been coached to enforce the rule isn't about eyes on the ball it is flushing a clean spoil...and hence in his opinion the umpire should have paid a free kick.

 

[JustaBattler]

@Dopegangler mate - you are a wasted talent- write a novel.

 

[CarmenSandiego]

LOLOL.

The 'final result' was Collingwood losing by 29 points, and Carlton losing by 28 points.

You're not very good at this...

Ok have it your way, Collingwood were just as competitive as Carlton in their respective finals losses to Brisbane.

Fine by me. Either way nobody remembers clubs just making up the numbers in random years, unless you’re a biased as **** one-eyed supporter who is convinced their club was genuinely ‘contending’ because their team had a good 15 minute patch in a prelim final that one time.

 

[Fadge]

Ok have it your way, Collingwood were just as competitive as Carlton in their respective finals losses to Brisbane.

I think you missed the point (unsurprisingly) - it's not me that is saying this, it's you guys who assess a game by a stats sheet and final score line...

Fine by me. Either way nobody remembers clubs just making up the numbers in random years, unless you’re a biased as **** one-eyed supporter who is convinced their club was genuinely ‘contending’ because their team had a good 15 minute patch in a prelim final that one time.

'Nobody remembers'... except the dozens or so people who have been discussing a very controversial play in a big game between big teams.

All eyes are on the big teams when they're contending for flags. And that's why 'nobody remembers' many recent Carlton games.

Except Owen 60. (Which being a monor final, isn't really a big game, but a hilarious one nonetheless).