If you’re a Fremantle fan – and I’m basing this on the social media reaction to what happened on Saturday afternoon at the Adelaide Oval as well as that of the one Dockers supporter I know – chances are you’re feeling pretty jilted right now.
It’s bad enough to lose a game you’ve led for 105 minutes in the last minute. To add a controversial non-decision to that, plus the added indignity of giving up the sealer for umpire dissent in the same crazy minute, just rubs it in further.
Which is why it’s a dangerous game to run with the headline I’ve rocked with here, and to say this: sure, one or two decisions at the death didn’t help, but Fremantle were their own worst enemies against Carlton.
It’s internally, and internally alone, where the blame game should begin for Justin Longmuir and his coaching staff.
For a previously watertight defence to give up five goals from 11 final-quarter inside 50s, having conceded five from 37 in the first three quarters, to an opponent that didn’t do a whole lot different to suddenly become more prolific, is a problem. To once again be so dominant from clearances – Freo finished with a 44-27 stoppage differential over last year’s most potent clearance team – yet unable to capitalise on the scoreboard with any weight at all is a problem.
Most of all, the way the Dockers bumbled their way through the final few minutes to drop a match which had been theirs to lose from halfway through the first quarter is, you guessed it, a problem.
James Aish speaks with the umpires. (Photo by Michael Willson/AFL Photos via Getty Images)
Let’s begin at what should have been the end: three minutes exactly are left on the clock, and captain Alex Pearce, having won a holding the ball free kick, roosts it long down the line.
A few seconds earlier, the umpire’s decision to deny James Aish the advantage from that holding the ball, with his kick having found Matt Taberner on the wing, is one of the decisions most decried by Freo fans.
To get it out of the way first: it’s a tough one, but Aish’s momentary pause before kicking is, I imagine, why the kick was brought back. As it happens, Aish had thrown it onto the boot trying to gain ground and was under pressure; if that kick gets marked by a Blues player instead, as it very well could have, then no Dockers are complaining about it being brought back.
Call it an issue with the rule if you will – no doubt the Dockers were disadvantaged. But this just wasn’t a horrendous shocker – and as it happens, Freo should still win this game from here.
Pearce’s long kick comes to ground on the wing, with Blues and Dockers alike both scrimmaging for the footy. It’s here where the bigger mistakes start to multiple, and they’re all from the men wearing purple.
To begin with, with the ball in dispute, it’s Nat Fyfe fighting for it against three Blues, and it’s about to become four when Patrick Cripps arrives.
The Dockers have had great success in holding their space around disputed balls; letting one, maybe two, players fossick for the hard ball while Hayden Young and Andrew Brayshaw, among others, wait for the handball receive has allowed them to dominate the clearance count all evening.
Here, though, they needed to take a leaf out of Collingwood’s book: look at all the Magpies’ close games in the last two years and note how many of their players scrap around on the ground to keep balls in tight.
Hell, look at how Carlton did it late in their game against Richmond in Round 1.
Umpires don’t pay holding the balls in scenarios like this, especially when it’s two players from the same team grappling for it. It’s in Freo’s best interest to force ball-up after ball-up, pack numbers around and behind the ball, and chew up the time that’s left.
Fyfe does his best solo, but the ball spills slightly out of the contest, and it’s here that Cripps pounces: with bullocking strength, he fights off a tackle from Young, with Brayshaw closing in, and handpasses out of congestion. The best players make things like this happen.
His handball reaches Zac Williams, waiting out the back of the stoppage – and unlike Freo, he’s able to do that because the Blues have adequate numbers directly attacking the ball – and he takes a risk. Rather than whacking the ball forward from that stoppage, the kind of kick Luke Ryan has intercepted all afternoon, he spies an opening between a trio of Dockers, and bolts through it.
First, he nimbly skips clear of Luke Jackson’s despairing lunge; then, more problematically, he gets through a gap between Brayshaw and Bailey Banfield. Banfield touches him but can’t tackle him, while Brayshaw, for reasons known only to him, doesn’t even attempt one. He’s had a great game, but this is a moment he’d love back.
As Williams finally kicks long – from 65 rather than 80 – the Dockers’ next mistake, this one from Longmuir, becomes clear. With so little time left, and two deadly forwards in Charlie Curnow and Harry McKay to contend with, Freo don’t have a spare behind the ball.
It’s poor on two fronts: one, it should be a given at this stage of a tight game that a Josh Treacy or Jy Amiss should be stationed behind the ball. Most teams do it. And secondly, you do it ESPECIALLY when your second key defender is a guy in his third game standing Curnow.
Williams’ kick is to the perfect spot: Pearce, standing McKay, hasn’t had time to rush over from where he was when taking the free kick, while Ryan is also caught out of position, having anticipated a kick closer to the boundary line. At the hot spot, it’s Curnow versus Draper; and of course Curnow marks, via a spectacular one-handed grab.
He goals. With two minutes and 17 seconds left, the Blues are within a kick.
From the next centre bounce, the Blues surge it forward – but this time, the Dockers should be prepared. Treacy, at last, has moved behind the ball, and as Adam Cerra’s kick wobbles inside 50, he’s perfectly placed, without a Blue jostling him, to intercept.
He drops it cold.
A ball-up ensues inside 50 – it’s still a danger zone, but the Dockers have dominated clearances all day. Multiple ball-ups ensue as both teams to hammer and tong, until at last, one team cracks.
It just so happens Freo crack in the most extraordinary way.
For reasons I’m still unclear of, the Blues decide Cripps will nominate for the ruck contest, with Tom De Koning standing nearby. Why? No clue, but if the idea is to lure Jackson into a false sense of security, it succeeds.
Naturally, Jackson wins the tap, and wins it easily, but his hitout proves the meaningless of that stat line – it’s a wild, bouncing tap back inboard, exactly the opposite of where he should be hitting. He should either be tapping straight at his feet and then scrimmaging, or whacking it as far away as he can towards the boundary line.
As it happens, George Hewett is the first onto the loose ball, and he hacks a kick forward.
Yes, his kick does brush Aish’s shoulder on the way through, but get real: there’s no chance an umpire can notice that, similar cases probably happen dozens of times every weekend with no issues raised, and there’s no mechanism currently in place to overturn such a call.
It certainly pales in comparison to the amount of errors Freo have been making, and continue to: Clark is slower to react than his opponent, Cottrell, to judge the fall of the ball from the quick snap, and takes a chest mark away from the Docker’s despairing spoil.
We all know what happens next. Cottrell goals to give Carlton the lead, Freo continue to debate the touched call, and eventually, the umpire pays a free kick for dissent. Matt Kennedy, from the same spot, drills the sealer.
At the time of writing, it’s unknown what was said, or even really by whom – Treacy is the prime culprit – to trigger the free kick. But already, the accusations are flying. The umpires are soft. It’s a ridiculous rule. Freo were robbed.
Consider that the Dockers had been questioning the decision for a minute prior with no 50 metre penalty awarded for dissent; it was only after the goal was kicked that the line was deemed to be crossed.
God knows if we’re ever going to fully know what happened, but even if this was an overly harsh ruling, it’s worth remembering that Freo had already sacrificed the lead when it happened.
This was a game lost by Fremantle far, far more than any umpiring decision.
The last few minutes could scarcely have been played worse by the men in purple. And they paid the ultimate price.
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
Umpires are too weak to call holding the ball 50 times a game, but are happy to kill a game cause their feewings got hurt by a bad word. I blame the woke AFL and equity appointment Laura Kane the most. They instruct these sooks …
Knackaz
Roar Rookie
In order to defeat a good side, let alone smash them, a team needs to kick 20 goals, not 9 …
flyboy2000
Roar Rookie
And many seem to overlook that Carlton was in front on the scoreboard before the dissent call....
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
I am referencing that off/ told story of how Simmo (and Border) identified certain players who they thought could be the bedrock of the rebuild @. Geoff Marsh and Merv the obvious examples. Then Healy. I guess I have always seen Peter Who as part of that, a good citizen, sold his wicket dearly, could bowl to a plan, and provide continuity across formats. There isn’t much else to support his repeated selection.
flyboy2000
Roar Rookie
Freo scored 6 of their 9 goals from free kicks directly in front of goal. At least three of those wouldn't be paid most weeks....
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
I could go back and find J Benaud and read it, but that would feel like actual research!
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
yes all true but it's at that moment that Simmo gets on the panel. presumably the coach discussed with his skipper who he did and didn't want in the sheds? -- it reads better and is more accurate as a classic "Border-era" defensive pick?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Cue the opening theme from the "X Files". The truth is out there. or "I want to Believe".
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Prior to the 21st century, Test captains had very little - if any -say in selections. And that is especially true of Border's time as captain in the mid 80s. So Peter Taylor was in no way "a classic Border pick". In fact at the time, for all that Border was doing on-field individually comparative to nearly everyone else, he absolutely did not hold any position of influence over the old-school approach to off-field selection being separated from team execution on-field.
adamkiwi
Roar Rookie
Look as a Freo fan, it's a loss in the books. Personally, think we need to kick way more goals, and smash this bloody blue money bag team of Melbourne town. Some time soon. They have the wood on us mentally, it's above the bloody shoulders this one. As Don has said a lot here, Freo were bloody good, but not good enough. Motivation to see these bastards in the finals and wipe them from the floor is what I want to see from Freo in response. We need to learn to smash Carlton, not just beat them. Smash them.
Kane
Roar Rookie
There are marks paid every week that have been touched
BruserSnr
Roar Rookie
Freo lost the game 'on the scoreboard' and where it matters (Premiership Points). There is a difference between 2nd place and 7th place, on the ladder. However (for what it's worth) they had a moral victory. Please consider the following points: - - Freo in front with a few seconds to go, after an intense four quarters from both sides. - The ball was clearly touched as evidenced by video footage and confirmed by the AFL GM. The mark should never have been paid as evidenced by later video and confirmed by AFL Executives. Perhaps, if such reviews could be subjected to the Video Umpires as in trivial reviews (EG Did the ball touch the point post and out of bounds rather than a point. I believe there was a case of this in the game in question? - There was another umpire, seen to be giving the opposite decision ("play on"). Whose call is it? - If we are to accept the 'mark' as the correct decision (which I don't), who takes the 'dissention' free kick. I would have thought it would have been the closest Carlton player (not Matthew Kennedy). - Where should the kick be taken from? It appears to be the umpire' decision that it should be 30 metres out and not where the 'so-called' offence happened. Shouldn't these be AFL directives and not individual umpires? - I believe Jordan Clark has claimed categorically that his comments were self-chastising and not directly at an umpire or another player. I would imagine this type of comments may be heard in many situations and games. To me, this last kick would be immoral and even illegal. All in all, the whole situation is wrong and "Fremantle Was 'Robbed'".
BruserSnr
Roar Rookie
No, Tim Miller, you're incorrect on many counts. Your quote, "Fremantle are their own worst enemies" is wrong. There were at least 3 blatant umpiring errors which cost Fremantle meterage and score. 2 of these errors were confirmed by AFL Executive General Manager (Laura Kane). Both of these errors cost Fremantle 12 points and the game. If you can believe Jordan Clarke (and I have no reason to not believe him), he showed no dissent towards the umpires or umpiring. It was self-chastising. This went on all day, with many players. I would assume self - chastising would occur in most games. Very few free kicks are paid for this. If the last free kick was warranted (which it wasn't), the umpires had difficulty deciding who was to take the kick and where was it to be taken from. IE Matthew Kennedy didn't appear to be the closest Carlton player, so why was he chosen? How was the point (30 metres from goal), selected? From this, it is the umpire's rule and Not the AFL Rule, which is used. Although not relevant to this situation, I do make the following point. There was video evidence (showing the ball was touched) provided after the game, proving the decision wrong. This was viewed and confirmed by the AFL EGM. Contrast this by 2 decisions required of the Video Umpire. IE: - 1. The decision whether or not a ball touched the point post (out of bounds or a point?). 2. If a ball was 'marked' or crossed the line. There was clear vision of the mark and quickly confirmed by the Video Umpire. As said, I no there is no relevance with these. I also agree that umpires are required to make a split decision, in other cases. I'm not a firm believer in the video system at all. However, if we're to have consistency, these points must be considered. No, Tim Miller you're wrong. In the last few seconds, Fremantle could have cleared with a very different result. It's not a result of Fremantle panicking.
No9
Roar Rookie
I can see this happening in a grand final . The AFL should now introduce a rule for recall of the ball when it's evident a match winning error has occurred . The obvious rule is to recall the ball and bounce it where there is strong evidence of error . Perhaps with one umpire agreement . I note that there is a claim of evidence that one umpire did call play on .
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
And conceding 50% more. Not working very well.
No9
Roar Rookie
No , this doesn't happen to every team every week . The Freo players around the touched ball were in involuntary unison the ball was touched ..and it was of course . The ball should have been recalled and bounced at where the ball was touched ; or at least where the non mark was taken . It was a very bad mistake which cost Freo the game .
Giddy
Roar Rookie
There was also a very questionable free kick given in front of goal to Fremantle for chopping the arms that resulted in goal and that may well have been overturned with a review. Furthermore, I felt the rub of the green went with Freo for the majority of the game. And what about free kicks paid elsewhere on the ground that may also result in goals through that passage of play? Where does it stop? Umpire calls even out over time. The best team will usually end up beating a less talented team and winning the grand final. And in the interim we can be entertained by the best spot in the world. So pull up a chair, sip from a glass half full of your favourite beverage and enjoy life.
13th Man
Roar Rookie
Dillon is a mouthpiece for the VFL .., that is all.
hayboy
Roar Rookie
Didn’t even read the article but know this. When a ball BLATENTLY hits another player, so that the players actually saw it happen and tell the umpire, how about the umpire go to the footage to confirm it and call it as touched. The footage was there (not the one that flicked his hair, there’s another angle which shows the ball clearly change path after hitting Aish in the arm/shoulder.) That’s all I’ll say.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
You need to keep up with the updates. You're half a day behind.