Opinion AFL 2025 Finals Week 3 - Weekend Wrap & Liked, Learnt, Hated PRELIMINARY FINALS EDITION

[flamethrower]

Liked - 2 enjoyable, well played finals

Disliked - Injuries - Tom Stewart, Scott Pendlebury

10

Scott Pendlebury

Age

37

Ht

191cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.5

5star

K

13.2

5star

HB

13.3

5star

M

4.1

4star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

25.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

12.9

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

2.3

3star

CL

3.6

4star

D

12.4

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

4.8

4star

M

5.8

5star

T

2.6

4star

, Jarrod Berry

7

Jarrod Berry

Age

27

Ht

193cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.4

4star

K

8.5

3star

HB

8.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

7.6

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.1

5star

CL

2.9

4star

D

10.6

3star

K

4.4

2star

HB

6.2

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.8

5star

CL

0.8

3star

and the Hawthorn gastrointestinal tract once the Felines turned up the distemper.

Learnt - Time for a ballot for preliminary finals tickets AKA the People's Grand Final. Anecdotal evidence appears to show that the Ticketek system favours those with cutting edge technology, the absolute latest 5G smart phones, quantum computers and light speed fast internet. There should be equal opportunity for all eligible members - rich, poor, city, country and those still stuck with dial up internet.

 

[voorhees]

liked- Brissy making it back to the big day..well done Fagan.
-both games had huge crowds with great atmosphere.
-Dangerfield great game..well played

learnt- not to much..both games were enjoyable

hated- chol cops 3 games

 

[DangerSloane]

Liked: The lions 2nd half...when Collingwood had all the momentum the lions pushed back and said "not on our watch".
My Hawks...showed plenty of guts to try and stay with Geelong in the 2nd half when a 60+ point flogging looked on the cards.

Learnt: A "B" grade midfield ain't gunna win you sh7t, a few Hawks players are guilty of going missing in big games and are repeat offenders.
Collingwood has a 1 man forward line..forget the "Free Kick Cost Us" rhetoric...they kick 6 in the 2nd quarter and 4 in the other 3.

Hated: The absolute arse kissing commentry on Friday night and Saturday...Sweet jesus it was sickening.
The big fella getting 3 weeks....staggering.

Try having a D grade midfield

 

[Angus Young]

I have a question.
The non- free to Eliott. If you watch it closely- Is it actually very good defending and a great decision by the umpire?

Does the Brisbane defender actually make front on contact to the Elliot´s body????
There is no arm chop like Collingwood supporter I mean commentator David King was carrying on about when crying.

I mean everyone assumes it´s a free straight away because they pay this all the time wit just assumption.

But technically is it actually great defending and incredibly good umpiring???

Should Collingwood supporters be more upset about the pies player choosing to pass and kicking a hospital ball that hung in the air too long giving the defender time.

Does the umpire actually deserve credit here for getting it right and having balls? And if so should be awarded the grand final for his professionalism.
Or is it simply the wrong decision?

There is a ot of contact when the player shit the ground after the fact but that´s incidental.

Interested in non-emotional people´s thoughts on this decision.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

I have a question.
The non- free to Eliott. If you watch it closely- Is it actually very good defending and a great decision by the umpire?

Does the Brisbane defender actually make front on contact to the Elliot´s body????
There is no arm chop like Collingwood supporter I mean commentator David King was carrying on about when crying.

I mean everyone assumes it´s a free straight away because they pay this all the time wit just assumption.

But technically is it actually great defending and incredibly good umpiring???

Should Collingwood supporters be more upset about the pies player choosing to pass and kicking a hospital ball that hung in the air too long giving the defender time.

Does the umpire actually deserve credit here for getting it right and having balls?
Or is it a wrong decision?

There is a ot of contact when the player shit the ground after the fact but that´s incidental.

Interested in non-emotional people´s thoughts on this decision.

100%

 

[Billy ray]

 

[Jeremy McLovin]

It's very clearly a correct called based off the rules as written. The most compelling argument I've seen against it is the dozens of other incidents just like it that get paid, but even that is a poor argument.

The rules as written say it's fine. If it's fine, improve the umpiring in other incidents. If it's not fine and the correct call is to pay the free, change the rule to make it clear.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Liked: Dangerfield showed us all what a "footballer" is, we don't see it very often from anyone these days, but what a performance it was, he's a bulldozer out there. I hope he has one more similar game in him?

Don't think I've ever seen a player as elite in so many facets - contested ball, leaving contest, ground ball, contested marking, clutch moments, big stage performer. Maybe Kouta? But obviously his peak was so much shorter.

 

[Viceregal]

Don't think I've ever seen a player as elite in so many facets - contested ball, leaving contest, ground ball, contested marking, clutch moments, big stage performer. Maybe Kouta? But obviously his peak was so much shorter.

Was Kouta as good a diver/manipulator of umpires or do you mean the non-cheating elements of Dangerfield's playing DNA?

 

[DangerSloane]

I have a question.
The non- free to Eliott. If you watch it closely- Is it actually very good defending and a great decision by the umpire?

Does the Brisbane defender actually make front on contact to the Elliot´s body????
There is no arm chop like Collingwood supporter I mean commentator David King was carrying on about when crying.

I mean everyone assumes it´s a free straight away because they pay this all the time wit just assumption.

But technically is it actually great defending and incredibly good umpiring???

Should Collingwood supporters be more upset about the pies player choosing to pass and kicking a hospital ball that hung in the air too long giving the defender time.

Does the umpire actually deserve credit here for getting it right and having balls? And if so should be awarded the grand final for his professionalism.
Or is it simply the wrong decision?

There is a ot of contact when the player shit the ground after the fact but that´s incidental.

Interested in non-emotional people´s thoughts on this decision.

The reason supporters are upset is because the interpretation seemed to change for this one.

I think most would agree that the contest provided by Starcevich should NEVER be a free kick, but the problem is they have paid it most of the year, even when eyes were on ball and ball was contested/touched by the defended.

It shouldn't be a free kick according to the laws of the game, but it probably should have in the context to the rest of the season.

It was great defending and Starcevich clearly thread the needle on what he could get away with.

The umpires (either by themselves or by instruction) have allowed any front on contest to be assumed as infringing.

 

[Ian Dunross]

Was Kouta as good a diver/manipulator of umpires or do you mean the non-cheating elements of Dangerfield's playing DNA?

Danger is no more a flopper or diver than Franklin, Ablett Snr and other legends of the game.

 

[p4p1]

It's very clearly a correct called based off the rules as written. The most compelling argument I've seen against it is the dozens of other incidents just like it that get paid, but even that is a poor argument.

The rules as written say it's fine. If it's fine, improve the umpiring in other incidents. If it's not fine and the correct call is to pay the free, change the rule to make it clear.

Obviously I can be called biased but I agree it is a bad argument. Just because something has been wrongly paid plenty of times (and sometimes has been correctly paid or not paid) doesn't mean that it should continue to be paid. In theory the best umpires are umpiring the finals so it should be expected they won't make as many mistakes once they have managed to be selected for preliminary finals.

The front on contact rule is just about the hardest for us the fans to know with any certainty because it does seem to be umpired inconsistently. Sometimes it is umpired as if there is some kind of right of way for the player leading to the ball, which is not the case.

The biggest issue IMO is the hysteria from the media about one free kick that was, it turns out umpired correctly becoming the entire story of the game. There were missed frees Brisbane didn't get that resulted in Collingwood goals. It happens every game. I know it is done to generate clicks, as most news is today but the media needs to do better. Jon Ralph was embarrassing, just like he was with the Rayner stuff 2 weeks ago.

 

[DangerSloane]

Obviously I can be called biased but I agree it is a bad argument. Just because something has been wrongly paid plenty of times (and sometimes has been correctly paid or not paid) doesn't mean that it should continue to be paid. In theory the best umpires are umpiring the finals so it should be expected they won't make as many mistakes once they have managed to be selected for preliminary finals.

The front on contact rule is just about the hardest for us the fans to know with any certainty because it does seem to be umpired inconsistently. Sometimes it is umpired as if there is some kind of right of way for the player leading to the ball, which is not the case.

The biggest issue IMO is the hysteria from the media about one free kick that was, it turns out umpired correctly becoming the entire story of the game. There were missed frees Brisbane didn't get that resulted in Collingwood goals. It happens every game. I know it is done to generate clicks, as most news is today but the media needs to do better. Jon Ralph was embarrassing, just like he was with the Rayner stuff 2 weeks ago.

Hate to be 'that guy' but its because its a big Vic team.

If it was Sydney, or Fremantle or Brisbane who copped that decision there would be crickets.

 

[Billy ray]

Hate to be 'that guy' but its because its a big Vic team.

If it was Sydney, or Fremantle or Brisbane who copped that decision there would be crickets.

it was gold coast at end of game v port adelaide a few weeks back. non call against mac in front of goal

 

[p4p1]

Hate to be 'that guy' but its because its a big Vic team.

If it was Sydney, or Fremantle or Brisbane who copped that decision there would be crickets.

100% agree which is part of the problem.
I know it is now their job to incite rage to get clicks but even as someone who supports one of the big Vic teams it must get frustrating to be constantly rage baited.

The media seems to do it with Carlton every year. Sets expectations that shouldn't be there and then cash in on the clicks and the calls from pissed off Blues fans.

 

[Carringbush2010]

 

[Angus Young]

The reason supporters are upset is because the interpretation seemed to change for this one.

I think most would agree that the contest provided by Starcevich should NEVER be a free kick, but the problem is they have paid it most of the year, even when eyes were on ball and ball was contested/touched by the defended.

It shouldn't be a free kick according to the laws of the game, but it probably should have in the context to the rest of the season.

It was great defending and Starcevich clearly thread the needle on what he could get away with.

The umpires (either by themselves or by instruction) have allowed any front on contest to be assumed as infringing.

Well said.

They ássume.´And it is a lot easier just to pay it.

I think this umpire deserves a pat on his back for not assuming, not getting caught up in the moment and being incredibly brave and professional.

Just listen to the unprofessional, emotional commentating by David king. Screaming for a free calling it a chop of the arms and front on contact. Was neither.

We often bash umpires and rarely give them praise. This umpire deserves the GF.

 

[Gazza Greatness]

Well said.

They ássume.´And it is a lot easier just to pay it.

I think this umpire deserves a pat on his back for not assuming, not getting caught up in the moment and being incredibly brave and professional.

Just listen to the unprofessional, emotional commentating by David king. Screaming for a free calling it a chop of the arms and front on contact. Was neither.

We often bash umpires and rarely give them praise. This umpire deserves the GF.

Excellent and unbiased post Angus Young:

Once Brandon Starcevich seen Jamie Elliot clear and on his own and more than likely take a mark to kick a critical Collingwood goal, he then turned his head back to the ball and from that point onwards focused his eyes on the ball and never once took his eyes off watching the ball which is rare for a footballer to do that in such a circumstance. Normally at the very least a player in that somewhat hopeless situation will have one eye on the opposition player. So from my perspective, it was such a courageous act by Brandon given his previous concussions issues and knowing Jamie could clean him up if he chose to lead with his knee when jumping in the air to mark the ball.

In normal motion it looked a free kick to be certain but the slo-motion shows Brandon at all times kept his eyes on the ball and put in a tremendous effort to spoil without chopping Jamie's arm or hitting him head-on. A contentious non-decision to be sure but I reckon the right non-call was made and full marks to the controlling umpire as his grand final selection may have been made on that extremely brave non-call.