the amount of whinging about the umpires - from both sets of supporters - is pretty extraordinary

2 hours ago, P-man said:

The ‘steal’ debate is an interesting one. I get the statistical argument but on the eye test it just felt like a classic game of momentum swings. We arrested theirs when we needed to and took full advantage of ours when we had them.

Not to mention coming home with a wet sail which should be praised in any sport.

As Max himself noted we are often on the other end of those types of battles so a refreshing change and a damn good win. 

This is how I felt watching the game too, other than the third quarter which felt like them dominating but us defending brilliantly and holding them back for most of it (until they got those two goals to push it out to 16 points).

The third felt like the Collingwood QF a little bit. The rest of the game felt like a much more even game. 

We did, though, nail difficult shots at key moments (Brown and Gawn late third, Fritsch late are probably the three big ones) and that helps our xScore go up, whilst they missed some easier shots and their xScore dropped.

We do have to acknowledge the umpiring, too. Sparrow's fourth quarter goal came after two massive throws from Brown and Fritsch. We got a really good run with 50/50% decisions in the first quarter, too.

But then again, they got a goal early from a mark that was further out of bounds than the Higgins goal last week, and they got a goal from the Rozee flop that should never have been a free.

And they can't blame the umpires for Ratugolea's brain fade.

Just now, titan_uranus said:

We do have to acknowledge the umpiring, too. Sparrow's fourth quarter goal came after two massive throws from Brown and Fritsch. We got a really good run with 50/50% decisions in the first quarter, too.

But then again, they got a goal early from a mark that was further out of bounds than the Higgins goal last week, and they got a goal from the Rozee flop that should never have been a free.

And they can't blame the umpires for Ratugolea's brain fade.

And Dixon kicked a goal after the siren and clearly ran off his mark, which is technically not allowed. 
We had a good run from the umpires, but we won because we took our chances and kicked some incredible goals. Port fluffed their chances inside 50, which they had plenty more of than us. 
It’s nice when the shoe is on the other foot. 

1 minute ago, titan_uranus said:

We do have to acknowledge the umpiring, too. Sparrow's fourth quarter goal came after two massive throws from Brown and Fritsch. We got a really good run with 50/50% decisions in the first quarter, too.

But then again, they got a goal early from a mark that was further out of bounds than the Higgins goal last week, and they got a goal from the Rozee flop that should never have been a free.

And they can't blame the umpires for Ratugolea's brain fade.

the maggots had no effect on the result i don't reckon

it was a super game of footy which, in the cold light of a win, i can bask in the glory of watching

There's only one stat that matters and that's the big one on the scoreboard.

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

And Dixon kicked a goal after the siren and clearly ran off his mark, which is technically not allowed. 
We had a good run from the umpires, but we won because we took our chances and kicked some incredible goals. Port fluffed their chances inside 50, which they had plenty more of than us. 
It’s nice when the shoe is on the other foot. 

Just now, whatwhat say what said:

the maggots had no effect on the result i don't reckon

it was a super game of footy which, in the cold light of a win, i can bask in the glory of watching

I'm just noting a few of the moments which did admittedly go in our favour. I forgot the Dixon one going against us.

I think the only time the umpires influenced the game was early, paying frees that were there but which don't always get paid against the home side in a hostile environment. Helped us steady.

57 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

To be fair, I think they've also relaxed the rule to allow some 'natural arc' rubbish that pretty much means you can run off your line the same as if you are playing on and make it almost impossible to umpire as well.

Yep, just another area of greyness added into the game. I think it was pretty much the Buddy Franklin rule to start with.

Gotta look after the super stars

3 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

We do have to acknowledge the umpiring, too. Sparrow's fourth quarter goal came after two massive throws from Brown and Fritsch. We got a really good run with 50/50% decisions in the first quarter, too.

But then again, they got a goal early from a mark that was further out of bounds than the Higgins goal last week, and they got a goal from the Rozee flop that should never have been a free.

And they can't blame the umpires for Ratugolea's brain fade.

Also thought they were on the end of some pretty iffy ones too, so it balances out really.

I don't think that free kick against Rivers gets paid every time.  Max's free on three quarter time was a bit marginal, but if you look early in the play, it's there and I'm sure he has plenty of those paid against him too.

I did think the umpires were equally bad for both teams at points.

1 minute ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Also thought they were on the end of some pretty iffy ones too, so it balances out really.

I don't think that free kick against Rivers gets paid every time.  Max's free on three quarter time was a bit marginal, but if you look early in the play, it's there and I'm sure he has plenty of those paid against him too.

I did think the umpires were equally bad for both teams at points.

The Gawn one was classic "ruck lotto". The rules in those contests are so unpredictable. If that had gone the other way we'd have been ropeable.

I was equally ropeable at the Rozee one, that was horrendous IMO.

13 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

Yes … and it was also a sling. Rivers needs to learn from that.,

I’m not so sure it was a sling Wells. Watched it a few times and Rivers had Rozee around the hips. Rozee used the swinging motion to exaggerate it. T Mac rightly got stuck into Rozee after he kicked the goal.

Edited March 31, 20241 yr by Dee Zephyr

Was a brilliant game of football.

Glad the Demons won!

But geez those Port Power supporters were ferals! 🤯

16 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

The Gawn one was classic "ruck lotto". The rules in those contests are so unpredictable. If that had gone the other way we'd have been ropeable.

I was equally ropeable at the Rozee one, that was horrendous IMO.

Disagree. The port bloke was facing away from the footy with his arms around gawn. That's a free every time. 

13 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

Where are all the whingers who had a go at the club for retaining Tmac and BB 🙄

We are a genuinely good club and we have a genuinely good team, and we need to stop taking that for granted. 

A brilliant result considering we were definitely not always on top. We hung on during the momentum swings against us and were able to grind out a win in the last. 
Kudos to Clarry for lifting in the last. He was clearly hampered by his hand but when the game was on the line, he pushed through. 

Sensational game from ANB, and Windsor just shows elite glimpses. Knowing we got him from the Jackson compo picks makes losing Jackson hurt less.  Howes also quickly becoming a solid defender. 
 

Overall a fantastic performance and a big FU to all the pathetic disgruntled ex employees trying to bring our club down. Suck a big one!

This, especially the last paragraph.

4 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

On expected scores we are probably the 2023 premiers. Except we are not. 
Port let themselves down in front of goal and didn’t take advantage of their inside 50 dominance. 
That’s football. We’ve lost plenty of games we should have won. As Goody said, we were better during crucial moments and took our chances. 

A fantastic victory!

I think there is a risk of a false narrative building around this game.

In particular, that port lost a game they should have won, and that we were lucky to win.

Yes, there were similarities to some of our losses last year in the way port dominated in key stats, in particular inside 50 and time in forward half.

But those numbers are a little misleading in terms of a comparison to our losses last year.

If an opponent had beat us in those areas so comprehensively last season we would have been hammered. Not this season.

That's because our method has  changed and those stats are not as significant as indicators this season.

The other thing is port's supposed  innacracy and the much discussed expected score.

Port won the evexpected score by 34 points, on its face suggesting we were lucky to win and port threw it away.

Last year we lost a number of matches where we were ahead on  expected score. But the differential was usually a result of our woeful inaccuracy.

So, for example in our semi against the blues, using expected score as a metric, we left something like 4-5 goals on the table IIRC.

We should have won that game.

The same is true of our loss to the giants in the Alice, and to a lesser extent our finals loss to the pies.

But that's not true for port last night, as evidenced by their expected score, which was only 11 points more than their actual score.

Meaning they were actually pretty good in terms of their accuracy (expected score is calculated by the percentage of goals from all shots from that spot on the ground from the last 11 seasons).

Port didn't lose because they fluffed their lines like we did in say the giants, pies and blues losses.

It was because OUR kicking for goal, particularly our set shots, was brilliant. That's not lucky, that's skill.

Take three goals as examples.

Browns and maxy's set shot goals from 50 are probably no better than something like 30% under x score.

Fritters set shot from 45 on a 45 degree angle is probably something like 25% of shots from that spot being goals. 

Drilling those, and other goals, was the difference in the game. 

We won the game because our goal kicking was elite. Not because we we were lucky.

We didn't steal the game, we won it

Good kicking is good football.

I'd also add that we clearly ran out the game better. We looked fitter and stronger, and looked the winner from halfway through the last.

As evidence, we got out to a 13 point lead, and had a late chance to make it 19.

We dominated the last 10 minutes and their lucky after the siren goal made it feel a bit more even than it actually was.

Edited March 31, 20241 yr by binman

2 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Disagree. The port bloke was facing away from the footy with his arms around gawn. That's a free every time. 

Exactly right. You have to be facing the ball in a ruck throw in. If you’re facing your opponent in a wrestle you get pinged. Exactly the same way a defender gets pinged for holding if he’s facing his opponent and not the ball (which both teams got pinged for last night). It’s why they always say “eyes on the ball”. 
Finlayson (I think?) turned his body and was holding Gawn around the waist in that contest. You can’t do that. 

37 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

We do have to acknowledge the umpiring, too. Sparrow's fourth quarter goal came after two massive throws from Brown and Fritsch. We got a really good run with 50/50% decisions in the first quarter, too.

But then again, they got a goal early from a mark that was further out of bounds than the Higgins goal last week, and they got a goal from the Rozee flop that should never have been a free.

And they can't blame the umpires for Ratugolea's brain fade.

Don't forget Dixon's "chopping the arms" free directly in front 12 metres out. It was a clear punch of the ball by Tmac or Petty.

14 hours ago, DeeZee said:

Derm just doesn’t rate us , so great to shove it up him.

Gee that was a good battle.

May and Trac and Clarry,  not at their best , Kozzie too.

Away  from home , hostile crowd , huge win bloody huge!

I think Derm rates us, how couldn't he. Derm loathes us though, and it eats him up inside that the Dees are a quality side.

12 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Yes it can as part of the post is behind the goal line.  The goal line runs through the middle of the post yes?

Another example.... if player kicks a very high kick and the entire ball sails just past the line but is then taken by a gust of wind or the ball's being kicked into a howler and it is pulled back toward the post and hits it....surely the goal stands?

It's broken the imaginary plane (line) that runs between the posts.

Once Saw Peter Hudson paid a goal once for this exact same wind circumstance and the ball actually ended out of bounds 

46 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I'm just noting a few of the moments which did admittedly go in our favour. I forgot the Dixon one going against us.

I think the only time the umpires influenced the game was early, paying frees that were there but which don't always get paid against the home side in a hostile environment. Helped us steady.

There was also the HTB against Fritta on the wing in the last Q who had about half a second before he was tackled with both arms pinged and brought to the ground.  That resulted in a goal to Port as well.

Counter balanced by the non HTB call on ANB inside our 50

Swings & roundabouts

Edited March 31, 20241 yr by Demon Dynasty

19 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

Exactly right. You have to be facing the ball in a ruck throw in. If you’re facing your opponent in a wrestle you get pinged. Exactly the same way a defender gets pinged for holding if he’s facing his opponent and not the ball (which both teams got pinged for last night). It’s why they always say “eyes on the ball”. 
Finlayson (I think?) turned his body and was holding Gawn around the waist in that contest. You can’t do that. 

Finlayson was facing Gawn because Max turned him round with a hold / shove of his own. Ruckwork vs strength vs infringement....a fine line. We've seen them call that against Max plenty of times and that's what the Port fans were upset about. 

If we conceded that free at home on the 3q siren I'd be pretty miffed

Overall thought we had the better of the umpiring in some key times....the early lop sided free kick count though was really their lack of discipline. They were just flying in the Port players 

1 hour ago, whatwhat say what said:

the amount of whinging about the umpires - from both sets of supporters - is pretty extraordinary

I actually thought the game was fairly well officiated overall, yes, a few absolute clangers but that's pretty standard, the umps aren't robots.

Just watched the replay. Max was huge, but with six seconds to play at the centre bounce, he hit the ball to a Port player giving them the break forward. Surely the obvious play in the ruck is just to drop it to his own feet or take it out of the ruck and absorb a tackle to force another ball up. I noticed he did the same thing in similar circumstances last year too and I can’t understand why the sensible/defensive play isn’t drummed into him for close finishes or end of quarter contests.

3 hours ago, old55 said:

 

We were fortunate to win IMO. Port were generally better across the match but we hung in which is no small thing.

The Fox Footy [censored] were chipping Max about Goody talking about Expected Score in last year's finals - would he mention it last night when we clearly lost it? But there’s a lot of truth in that.

I was as [censored] off as anyone to lose last year when we should have won, I'm going to eat my own dog food here when the boot's on the other foot.

Very happy to win though.

I must admit, I'm bamboozled by all this expected score nonsense. As I understand it, the metric measures the score both teams would have achieved - if the league's averages for goal kicking capability were to be applied. In other words, it's a measure of what would have happened if the team was average?

Is that correct - or am I missing something?

18 minutes ago, Boots and all said:

I think Derm rates us, how couldn't he. Derm loathes us though, and it eats him up inside that the Dees are a quality side.

i think derm just recalled beating up on us his entire playing career and, as such, considers us inferior

an inherent bias