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

[Brett C]

Front on contact is not automatically a free kick, but when you "cannon" into a player and chop his arm, it's a free kick.

Logic isn't your strong suit.

Here it is again.

View attachment 2432875

Where did he chop his arm?

You’re allowed to spoil the ball and that action happens dozens of times a game

O for 3 now and it’s getting worse for you little buddy.

 

[RCAB]

Where did he chop his arm?

You’re allowed to spoil the ball and that action happens dozens of times a game

O for 3 now and it’s getting worse for you little buddy.

 

[Brett C]

View attachment 2432877

Cool, take me through the rule and what Starc did wrong?

You haven’t actually have your NDIS support worker read it to you yet have you?

 

[Full Wingspan]

I know the rule has already been analysed in great detail in this thread and anyone with decent comprehension skills and who actually watched the footage appreciates that Starcevich clearly did not infringe Elliott. Additionally, I also want to highlight that sub-rule 18.5.2(d) provides:

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player ... (d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark;​

​

To offend this sub-rule, a player needs to not only make front-on contact but also have the sole objective to not contest or spoil a Mark. This is quite a high threshold and even contemplates that a defender may have another objective i.e. to push or bump the attacking player (legally).

As we know, the indicators that the umpires look for when determining what a defender's "sole objective is" are typically (1) the defender's eyes not being on the ball and (2) the defender not actually contesting or spoiling.

I can't see any reasonable argument to suggest Starcevich's sole objective was to not contest or spoil Elliott's attempt to mark in circumstances where he actually did spoil the ball, kept his eyes on the ball at all times and did not otherwise infringe on Elliott. In this regard, there was no 'arm chop' as Starcevich's arms were vertical and upwards rather than swinging down (i.e. chopping) on Elliott's arms.

TL;DR: Starcevich did not illegally infringe on Elliott. This is because the AFL rules do not disallow front-on contact to be made in a marking contest provided it is not your sole objective to not contest or spoil the ball.

 

[ceebsaf]

Front on contact is not automatically a free kick, but when you "cannon" into a player and chop his arm, it's a free kick.

Logic isn't your strong suit.

Here it is again.

Front on contact is not automatically a free kick, but when you "cannon" into a player and chop his arm, it's a free kick.

Logic isn't your strong suit.

Here it is again.

View attachment 2432875

fist on ball first. Eyes for ball only. Hits side of player. Play on.

 

[RCAB]

I know the rule has already been analysed in great detail in this thread and anyone with decent comprehension skills and who actually watched the footage appreciates that Starcevich clearly did not infringe Elliott. Additionally, I also want to highlight that sub-rule 18.5.2(d) provides:

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player ... (d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark;​

​

To offend this sub-rule, a player needs to not only make front-on contact but also have the sole objective to not contest or spoil a Mark. This is quite a high threshold and even contemplates that a defender may have another objective i.e. to push or bump the attacking player (legally).

As we know, the indicators that the umpires look for when determining what a defender's "sole objective is" are typically (1) the defender's eyes not being on the ball and (2) the defender not actually contesting or spoiling.

I can't see any reasonable argument to suggest Starcevich's sole objective was to not contest or spoil Elliott's attempt to mark in circumstances where he actually did spoil the ball, kept his eyes on the ball at all times and did not otherwise infringe on Elliott. In this regard, there was no 'arm chop' as Starcevich's arms were vertical and upwards rather than swinging down (i.e. chopping) on Elliott's arms.

TL;DR: Starcevich did not illegally infringe on Elliott. This is because the AFL rules do not disallow front-on contact to be made in a marking contest provided it is not your sole objective to not contest or spoil the ball.

18.5 (C) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player

Here I'll zoom in and slow it down for you



Also

18.5 (E) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark which interferes with an opposition Player

Starcevich never gets to the ball (you can see he misses it) and chops his arm (clear free kick even without front on contact) and drags Elliot to the ground in the marking contest. Clearly Elliot takes that mark if

a) Starcevich doesn't make illegal front on and unrealistic contact

b) chops Elliot's arm

c) drags Elliot down

That's three things he does wrong and never touches the ball either.

 

[ceebsaf]

18.5 (C) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player

Here I'll zoom in and slow it down for you

View attachment 2432902

Also

18.5 (E) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark which interferes with an opposition Player

Starcevich never gets to the ball (you can see misses it) and chops his arm (clear free kick even without front on contact) and drags Elliot to the ground in the marking contest. Clearly Elliot takes that mark if

a) Starcevich doesn't make illegal front on and unrealistic contact

b) chops Elliot's arm

c) drags Elliot down

That's three things he does wrong and never touches the ball either.

perfect spoil. Play on

 

[Daniel_Rich]

Seriously, is this the greatest spoil of all time? I think so

 

[Humblebob]

I did thanks, did you enjoy the game as much as I did?
The cliff is coming...

So we keep hearing…. I’m sure you’ll pop out again to remind us when circumstances suit lol

Weak as piss you are, the life of full time troll!! I enjoyed my time at the G and the beers that followed last night, always good to have your team at the pointy end.

Have fun in the draft!!

 

[spotthedog1]

I know the rule has already been analysed in great detail in this thread and anyone with decent comprehension skills and who actually watched the footage appreciates that Starcevich clearly did not infringe Elliott. Additionally, I also want to highlight that sub-rule 18.5.2(d) provides:

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player ... (d) makes contact to an opposition Player from front-on and whose sole objective is not to contest or spoil a Mark;​

​

To offend this sub-rule, a player needs to not only make front-on contact but also have the sole objective to not contest or spoil a Mark. This is quite a high threshold and even contemplates that a defender may have another objective i.e. to push or bump the attacking player (legally).

As we know, the indicators that the umpires look for when determining what a defender's "sole objective is" are typically (1) the defender's eyes not being on the ball and (2) the defender not actually contesting or spoiling.

I can't see any reasonable argument to suggest Starcevich's sole objective was to not contest or spoil Elliott's attempt to mark in circumstances where he actually did spoil the ball, kept his eyes on the ball at all times and did not otherwise infringe on Elliott. In this regard, there was no 'arm chop' as Starcevich's arms were vertical and upwards rather than swinging down (i.e. chopping) on Elliott's arms.

TL;DR: Starcevich did not illegally infringe on Elliott. This is because the AFL rules do not disallow front-on contact to be made in a marking contest provided it is not your sole objective to not contest or spoil the ball.

First off, when watching live, I thought it was an obvious free. It's only on replay that I am less sure.

The problem we have is that we have the Laws and we have the "Interpretation". And by the laws of the game, it isnt a free. By the interpretation all season, it probably 60/40 was a free.

This is Swanny's big challenge. Get rid of the stupid grey area rule interpretations. Who on earth thought "you can push in the back, but only a little bit" was a good idea!?

 

[Full Wingspan]

18.5 (C) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player

Here I'll zoom in and slow it down for you

View attachment 2432902

Also

18.5 (E) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark which interferes with an opposition Player

Starcevich never gets to the ball (you can see he misses it) and chops his arm (clear free kick even without front on contact) and drags Elliot to the ground in the marking contest. Clearly Elliot takes that mark if

a) Starcevich doesn't make illegal front on and unrealistic contact

b) chops Elliot's arm

c) drags Elliot down

That's three things he does wrong and never touches the ball either.

In what universe does sub-rule 18.5.2(e) apply?

Starcevich did actually spoil the ball. So it cannot be considered unrealistic. Even if your view is that he didn't actually spoil the ball, do you actually think his attempt was unrealistic given he must have been millimetres from spoiling it?

I don't agree that sub-rule 18.5.2(c) applies either. This is because he did not deliberately interfere with Elliott's arms. This is because he actually struck the ball first (with the spoil) or he made a realistic attempt to spoil the ball (for the reasons outlined above).

In this regard, Starcevich didn't look to take out the arms by 'chopping them', rather his arms (in the vertical) came into contact with Elliott's arms (also in a vertical position). If we were to apply your interpretation that this action is illegal interference with the arms, then most contested marking contests would be considered illegal.

 

[Section 5]

First off, when watching live, I thought it was an obvious free. It's only on replay that I am less sure.

The problem we have is that we have the Laws and we have the "Interpretation". And by the laws of the game, it isnt a free. By the interpretation all season, it probably 60/40 was a free.

This is Swanny's big challenge. Get rid of the stupid grey area rule interpretations. Who on earth thought "you can push in the back, but only a little bit" was a good idea!?

The thing is most of the frees for front on contact during the years are very obvious.
So, no real interpretation required.

What Starcevich did i liken to say an individual goal that players could not replicate after 100 tries.

Starcevich probably would not have had that same determination to spoil had Elliott been having a quiet game.

 

[dean33]

So we keep hearing…. I’m sure you’ll pop out again to remind us when circumstances suit lol

Weak as piss you are, the life of full time troll!! I enjoyed my time at the G and the beers that followed last night, always good to have your team at the pointy end.

Have fun in the draft!!

We've just come off a dynasty champion, you're one and done with an old not good enough list facing a rebuild while tassie enter.
I've been posting after you beat the crows it was a false economy and you laughed, thats ok as we all laughed at you lot last night.

 

[Osho]

if you have a support worker with you get them to read page 52 rule 18.5

Ouch!

 

[Humblebob]

We've just come off a dynasty champion, you're one and done with an old not good enough list facing a rebuild while tassie enter.
I've been posting after you beat the crows it was a false economy and you laughed, thats ok as we all laughed at you lot last night.

“just come off a dynasty” 5 years ago now champa!! I’ve seen this team sign off on one 2 years ago, always around the mark.
Make some adjustments and we’ll be back again, no need to gut the joint like your mob did. Flash in the pan and back to being irrelevant, enjoy your death rides for the foreseeable future lol

Easy being a troll when 17 teams lose every year.

 

[dean33]

“just come off a dynasty” 5 years ago now champa!! I’ve seen this team sign off on one 2 years ago, always around the mark.
Make some adjustments and we’ll be back again, no need to gut the joint like your mob did. Flash in the pan and back to being irrelevant, enjoy your death rides for the foreseeable future lol

Yes your 1 flag, 1 grand final dynasty was something historians will be talking about for years to come

 

[Humblebob]

Yes your 1 flag, 1 grand final dynasty was something historians will be talking about for years to come

The only one going on about dynasties is you ya flog, trolling for relevance lol

Make a nuisance of yourself in a thread that you have nothing riding on. Coward type areas

4 good years out of 40, flash in the pan!

 

[brutus76]

If umpire (who had less than a second to adjudicate) deemed he got his hand on the ball first in that spoil = PLAY ON SON

From my Dad who senior umpired for 2 decades

Who gives a fluck about the slow mo at milliframes per second? Decision was made IN THE MOMENT

Is cross-eyed Ralphy still sooking and whingeing?

 

[Soggy2112]

Just stop.

Showing a "still" picture shows you have no idea about what you're talking about.

Okay, show me the replay and show me where an arm chop occurs.

I’ve watched it multiple times, Starcevich has eyes only for the ball, his fist makes contact with the ball and any contact occurs simultaneously or after the spoil, therefore incidental.

Btw, you’re the one arguing it’s a free kick. Play on is the default call so it’s up to you to prove it should have been a free, not the other way around.

 

[Soggy2112]

Front on contact and hit is arm with force. Free kick every other week or decade

View attachment 2432868

Where in the rules does it say that you cannot make contact with your opponent as part of a legitimate spoiling/marking attempt?

If Starcevich missed the ball it would be a free. But he didn’t, so it’s not.

 

[Soggy2112]

Front on contact is not automatically a free kick, but when you "cannon" into a player and chop his arm, it's a free kick.

Logic isn't your strong suit.

Here it is again.

View attachment 2432875

A. He didn’t chop his arm.

B. The rules say nothing about “cannoning” into a player.

The clear distinction it makes is around whether it is a legit attempt on the ball or not. If a player has eyes for the ball, and makes contact with the ball first, before contacting the player, that is clearly a legitimate attempt on the ball.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Why is no one discussing the unbelievable head high free not paid to Ashcroft in the second quarter? Cost Brisbane a goal. Arguably the most obvious head high free not paid ever.
Why is that not being discussed?

 

[Humblebob]

Why is no one discussing the unbelievable head high free not paid to Ashcroft in the second quarter? Cost Brisbane a goal. Arguably the most obvious head high free not paid ever.
Why is that not being discussed?

Do you want to talk about the multiple throws in front of goal or are you only here to troll?

Umpires had stuff all to do with the result, Brisbane dominated and if Collingwood won it would have been highway robbery. Take out the second quarter and some fortunate decisions and it’s probably 8-9 goals. Never had a sustained period where they controlled any portion of play.

With the natural improvement of 4-6 contenders from this year it will be interesting to see what the club does with game plan, recruiting and veterans next year. Can’t see us contending if I’m honest.

Lions are in the midst of run that should see them at the pointy end for the foreseeable future, big ask next weekend though, Cats are in supreme form.

 

[iBeng]

Why isnt anyone talking about the goal Collingwood got where the goal umpire literally says "I didnt see a thing but I say its a Collingwood goal" wtf was that about?

 

[Seeds]

View attachment 2432877

Clear massive contact with the arm. So forceful it even knocks elliot to the ground on his back.

Anyone saying that was legal is suffering massive cognitive dissonance.

Then 5 seconds later the brisbane player deliberately hand balls it out of bounds 15 metres from collingwoods goal and no free for collingwood.

Pies were robbed of opportunity to get back into the game. Robbed.