titan_uranus

He may well have given a free away there that wasn't paid - fair chance he grabbed his jumper. I felt at the time we were lucky not to get a free against. Have to say, I loved Fritsch getting the front on contact free from Andrews early in the fourth and then Harmes doing something kinda similar to Robinson and they didn't get a free. That was pretty lucky for us, and I loved every second of it.

As I said above, if this game-changing footage shows that the only contact was with his hand, then all that does is reduce the suspension from 6+ weeks to 2-4. He should be suspended for his actions. The way he remonstrated with, walked in a direct beeline towards, and either actually or nearly walked through him with his shoulder, should be considered blatantly inappropriate.

I'm not singling you out Mel, but honestly, it's amazing how some people perceive certain players. Almost anyone else on our list gives up at least 4 goals to Cameron and they're harangued on here. Joel Smith does it and he gets praised. Cameron was threatening every time he went near it. He'd have kicked more than 5 if Brisbane had had more of the ball in their forward half.

You're comparing what Greene did to this?

Are you saying he didn't touch him at all? If the contact was less than it first looked, all that means is a 6+ week suspension can be reduced to 2-4. Acting in that manner towards an umpire is disgraceful.

Show me said footage. It shouldn't matter. He walks directly into Stevic's path, Stevic is stationary. He's acting in a completely inappropriate way towards an umpire. If what Viney did was a "bad look for the game" and was worthy of two weeks, so is this.

Yep I was surprised. But he's had 13 clearances and 581 metres gained so he wasn't totally ineffectual.

I said I believed Smith went to Cameron at the first bounce and I was surprised the boundary rider said Salem was on him. I've now gone back and taken a look at the footage and I can't see Salem on Cameron for any of his three early goals, but I can see Smith on him for two of them. Are you sure you saw Salem running with Cameron? It just doesn't make sense to me.

This is the contest before Cameron's third goal. Neither Smith (right, next to Berry) or Salem (with ball) are on Cameron (off to the left somewhere). Hard to know who was supposed to be on him here.

Cameron's second goal. Smith's on him again.

This is Cameron's first goal. Smith's on him but goes up into the contest.

Can anyone who was at the ground tell us if Salem or Smith was on Cameron at the start of the game?

Are you basing that off the boundary rider's comment, or were you at the ground? I'm fairly sure Smith was on him from the start. Like would we really put Salem, our distributor and loose defender, on Charlie Cameron? By the way, even if Smith only was on him after the first 3 goals, he's not the reason Cameron was quiet from there. He was quiet because they couldn't get the ball into their forward half. But he was dangerous every time he went near it.

Can anyone who went to the game confirm this? I heard the boundary rider say that but I'm confident he is wrong, as I'm sure Smith went to Cameron at the first bounce and trailed him to one of his first three goals.

6 - Oliver 5 - Gawn 4 - Petracca 3 - Lever 2 - Viney 1 - Fritsch

Smith was destroyed by Cameron. The experiment failed. But our PF opponent may dictate what we do. If we get GWS, Hibberd held him well earlier this year and I'd make the switch. But if we get Geelong, we may feel like having just beaten then with Smith we can do it again. If Hunt's fit he could take Bowey's spot. TMac stays. He and Brown work together and although he struggled today, we still put up 28 scoring shots. Leave the forwards and back TMac in to be fitter after the week off. I don't want us to be relying on Jackson or Gawn to get forward and be a second tall forward marking option on a big Optus Stadium in a prelim.

He should be cited by the MRO for that front on contact on Gawn. Not looking at the ball, just turns his body and bumps a player trying to take a mark with no regard at all for the contest. He is a dead set fl*g.

YOU BEAUTY! We are built to play finals footy and it showed tonight. Their midfield was on top early but Gawn wrestled control back from McInerney and from there we controlled play for most of the match. Had we kicked straight in the second and Brown nailed his third quarter miss we could by that stage have been 10 goals up. Fitness again coming to the fore I reckon. McStay's injury doesn't impact their ability to run the game out as the sub negates the lack of a rotation, but in the fourth quarter we had all the running. Our A-graders carried us but some of our lesser lights were stand outs. Langdon's first half was terrific, Rivers was rock solid, Sparrow might have played his best game in his career, and the much-maligned Brayshaw, Harmes and Viney all played great games I thought. We bullied a full strength dominant clearance midfield and held the highest scoring side in the comp to their second-lowest number of scoring shots and second-lowest score of the year. We kept the king of the fl*gs, Daniher, goalless for the first time this year. And we put up 93 points and 28 scoring shots when everyone says our scoring is our weakness. Now we get the week off, which is invaluable this year, we avoid Port Adelaide in Adelaide, and we set ourselves up for a shot at the big dance. Get the [censored] around us!

Same as last year though. Richmond got past Port Adelaide in the prelim. We can avoid this unfairness by winning tomorrow, too.

Except for our best performance of the year, when we beat Port Adelaide.

They cocked it up last year when they got the ride of home games, won the first final and hosted a side who'd been hubbing all year. But clearly we do not want to lose tomorrow and be sent to their prelim.

1-8 in the first week of finals since 2011, including five straight years of making the finals and losing the first final.

So this will mean Geelong is now 6-14 in finals since the 2011 flag.

A 6-day break to play Port on their home deck is really not the ideal finals draw. Chris Scott wanted to downplay the importance of our game last week but for an old side like Geelong, they surely would have wanted the extra day off and the chance to avoid Port.

Geelong continuing to play Dahlhaus and Higgins when Narkle and Constable can't get a game is pretty odd.