Round 23: the other games. The prelude to finals and the prelude to Mad Monday.

[longmile]

Boy's Own stuff from Max Gawn. Goal after the siren to deliver Melbourne’s first minor premiership since 1964.

I'm not complaining but what was that 50 for?

Dogs not making the top 4 is poetry

[Thunder Shaker]

1964 Grand Final: Melbourne trailing by two points. A backman kicks a goal in the final minute. Melbourne wins the premiership by four points.
2021 Round 23: Melbourne trailing by two points. A ruckman kicks a goal after the final siren. Melbourne wins the minor premiership by four points.

And the rest of the round has been one of the most epic final rounds I can remember. Brisbane winning by just enough to finish fourth. Richmond drawing with Hawthorn. Eddie Betts finishing his career with a final goal to remember.

It continues tomorrow. I suspect the Saints-Fremantle game will end up being a dead rubber if Essendon defeat Collingwood. Even Adelaide-North Melbourne has some interest - can the Roos get one more win to end the season with the most premiership points by any wooden spooner since Brisbane won five and drew one in 1998?

[Matty10]

I'm not complaining but what was that 50 for?

I could understand the 50 being awarded if the ball had bounced, but I am not sure you can penalise a player for spoiling a ball just over the boundary. Plenty of players try and mark a ball when it has gone over (playing to the whistle as it were), so I didn’t see the action as being any different or worthy of the penalty. The Fox crew didn’t seem to have a problem with the decision though.

[Meg]

I could understand the 50 being awarded if the ball had bounced, but I am not sure you can penalise a player for spoiling a ball just over the boundary. Plenty of players try and mark a ball when it has gone over (playing to the whistle as it were), so I didn’t see the action as being any different or worthy of the penalty. The Fox crew didn’t seem to have a problem with the decision though.

Equally though - what about the immediately preceding free against the Dees for a ‘not sufficient attempt’ ball that went out of bounds as the Melbourne player desperately tried to kick the ball into his forward line in the last two minutes?

[KTigers]

Very nice send-off for Eddie last night with the Giants wearing their indigenous jumper. 350 games, it's quite something.

[rb4x]

Commentators got it wrong about what Lions needed to win by to get to fourth. Needed only about a three point win and easily into fourth.

[Matty10]

Equally though - what about the immediately preceding free against the Dees for a ‘not sufficient attempt’ ball that went out of bounds as the Melbourne player desperately tried to kick the ball into his forward line in the last two minutes?

I might go against the grain on that also - although I probably would have paid a free against Selwood for the same thing. The quick kick that gains metres and yet is angled towards the line is not infrequently penalised. I don’t particularly like the rule, but I didn’t think the decision was egregious.

[Nico]

I could understand the 50 being awarded if the ball had bounced, but I am not sure you can penalise a player for spoiling a ball just over the boundary. Plenty of players try and mark a ball when it has gone over (playing to the whistle as it were), so I didn’t see the action as being any different or worthy of the penalty. The Fox crew didn’t seem to have a problem with the decision though.

As far as I saw it, it was for insufficient attempt to keep the ball in play. Or was it for wasting time in that a throw in would have meant a stoppage? Very strange decision or was there some lip from a Geelong player? The umpire didn't hesitate in giving the 50.

[Thunder Shaker]

Commentators got it wrong about what Lions needed to win by to get to fourth. Needed only about a three point win and easily into fourth.

No, this is not correct.

To overhaul the Bulldogs, the Lions needed to make up three points, then score about four points for every three their opponents scored because the Bulldogs had a percentage of 132.8. In other words, the required margin grows as the scores do.

A table showing how Brisbane's required winning margin grows with the scores:

3 to 0 (3)
16 to 10 (6)
30 to 20 (10)
43 to 30 (13)
56 to 40 (16)
70 to 50 (20)
83 to 60 (23)
96 to 70 (26)
109 to 80 (29)
123 to 90 (33)
136 to 100 (36)

The actual game: 119 to 87 (32). Brisbane actually scored 125 to win by 38.

[barry]

The results for this round couldn't have gone better. Just need dons to win today. (Best chance of knocking dogs out in week 1)

[Blue Sun]

Suck eggs, Bulldogs! So many people in the media crying this morning because the Bulldogs were ‘robbed’. Get a grip. Go back and rewatch the 2016 preliminary final and grand final if you want to see some robberies.

[Thunder Shaker]

The results for this round couldn't have gone better. Just need dons to win today. (Best chance of knocking dogs out in week 1)

As long as Essendon doesn't lose while Fremantle wins, Essendon is in. That's about a 75% chance.

The Western Bulldogs have suffered the little-known Swans curse. This is where a side that's doing well and considered a contender loses to Sydney and then their form declines after that loss. Bulldogs before Sydney game (round 17): 12 wins, 3 losses. Lost to Sydney. After Sydney game: 3 wins (Gold Coast by 11, Melbourne by 20, Adelaide by 49) and 3 losses (Essendon by 13, Hawthorn by 27, Port Adelaide by 2).

Another example. St Kilda in 2004 had 10 wins and no losses and were 3 games clear on top. They lost to Sydney in round 11. After that game they won 6 games, lost 5 and finished third.

I would love to see Essendon in 8th because they defeated the Bulldogs in round 21 and are a good chance to defeat them again.