Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 25, last 28th August)

[LoBu]

I'm not disputing that, but there's a hell of a lot more quality midfielders that come from Victoria than SA.

yes, but they also have more clubs to share around, it's just that the bigger clubs do better than the St Kilda and Norths which make it seem worse.

 

[Billy Cart]

That's a common misconception. The procedure is to review every goal, not every score. The kick was deemed a point and therefore not subject to review under procedures in place at that time.

Plus, the bloke behind the goal with his phone wasn't part of the ARC unfortunately.

Well someone got it wrong in a match I saw featuring the Crows, the umpires reviewed whether the ball hit the point post or went through for a point.

 

[AFC979810]

I'll take 15th with a tough draw over 11th with an easy draw every day of the week.

Its a pretty idiotic thing to not want your club to play prime time games.

Players want to play in em, fans want to watch em, it brings more money to the club, more exposure to the brand.

 

[1990crow]

Its a pretty idiotic thing to not want your club to play prime time games.

Players want to play in em, fans want to watch em, it brings more money to the club, more exposure to the brand.

You know what would help with exposure, brand, money, fans etc?

A premiership.

 

[feenix67]

Well someone got it wrong in a match I saw featuring the Crows, the umpires reviewed whether the ball hit the point post or went through for a point.

Im talking about the ARC. If the umpire doesnt call for a review, the ARC only automatically reviews goals. In your example, the umpire called for the review

 

[Vader]

Well someone got it wrong in a match I saw featuring the Crows, the umpires reviewed whether the ball hit the point post or went through for a point.

Every goal is reviewed automatically. Behinds are only reviewed if the umpire specifically requests a review.

... at least that was the process last year. They may have changed it this year, in light of the Sydney/Adelaide fiasco.

 

[AFC979810]

You know what would help with exposure, brand, money, fans etc?

A premiership.

You know what would help even more with exposure, brand, money, fans etc?

Winning the next 20 premierships in a row.

Calm the farm Tik Tok motivational bro.

 

[crow2crow]

We got KC advice and were told we had no grounds according to Olsen at the time.

Bullshit they did. I know he said that but its bullshit.

 

[crow2crow]

Who was the 'suitor' Berry had, and what is your source? You really think Collingwood put an offer in front of him?

pies were into him but didnt want to pay much if any draft capital. he wanted certainty. nix loves him. personally would have taken a third for him. dont rate him at all 4/5 games. his fumbling and kick wont improve now

 

[Samcro24]

relapse

On what planet was this not conclusive?

First angle shows a clear gap between ball and post, the only thing unclear is if it brushes the padding.

Side angle shows it was nowhere near the padding.

 

[DangerSloane]

Well someone got it wrong in a match I saw featuring the Crows, the umpires reviewed whether the ball hit the point post or went through for a point.

The umpires can review anything that could be a score IF THEY CHOOSE.

Mr Magoo chose not to because he was certain it was a point when in fact it was a goal.

 

[GROTTO]

The umpires can review anything that could be a score IF THEY CHOOSE.

Mr Magoo chose not to because he was certain it was a point when in fact it was a goal.

Correct.

It was his arrogance that he believed he was 100% correct and had absolute zero doubt which f**ked me off the most.

 

[relapse]

You've said this before and its not true. Its quite clear on the replay that it doesn't hit the post.

Then why were the media showing the fan footage from behind the goals to 100% prove that it was a goal if it was so clear on the broadcast footage?

I remember them spending at least 20 minutes going over and over the footage on Fox Footy after the game talking about whether the ball hit the post or not, the ARC only has about 90 seconds to 2 minutes to make a call.

The rules with the reviews are that there must be very clear evidence for the decision to be overturned, keep in mind too that there was also no edge available.

All I am saying is that given the time constraints, edge not being available and the footage not being 100% conclusive that there was a 50/50 chance that the ARC might have erred on the side of caution and ruled umpire's call as the decision.

 

[Dc9798]

Soooo, any player movement rumours and speculation today....

 

[fuic08]

Soooo, any player movement rumours and speculation today....

Bont to the Crows, heard it here first

 

[Samcro24]

Then why were the media showing the fan footage from behind the goals to 100% prove that it was a goal if it was so clear on the broadcast footage?

No idea.

All I know is you'd have to be daft to look at the two angles and not be able to tell.

Like I said, the front angle quite clearly shows a gap - the entire time - the only ambiguity is whether it hits the padding. And that's completely debunked by the side angle.

 

[relapse]

View attachment 2100341

View attachment 2100340


relapse

On what planet was this not conclusive?

First angle shows a clear gap between ball and post, the only thing unclear is if it brushes the padding.

Side angle shows it was nowhere near the padding.

I'm on a planet where the following story was written

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/new-...cision-in-adelaides-loss-to-sydney-c-11645092

"A fan captured the moment on video from a perspective that sheds new light on the issue.

A new fan-shot camera angle of Ben Keays’s denied shot at goal against Sydney on Saturday night has confirmed beyond all doubt that it should have been called a goal.

Further replays indicated that it might have been a goal with there appearing to be daylight between the ball and the post at all times.

It’s understood the ARC’s Edge technology was unavailable because a Sydney defender touched the post so even if a review was called, it couldn’t determine whether it hit the post or not.

But the new angle, shot from a fan behind the goals, shows a clear gap between the ball and goal post for the entire trajectory of the kick, confirming beyond the shadow of a doubt that it should have been called a goal."

The article pretty much says that from the footage looked like it could have been a goal, but it wasn't definitive however the fan footage 100% proves it which is exactly what I have said about it.

 

[1970crow]

Not quite. It's not like any other bad umpiring decision. The correct take would be to protest, not the goal umpire's decision itself, but the AFL and umpires failing to apply their own legislated procedures to instigate a goal review, which clearly would have avoided the problem. I would have thought that would be legally tenable.

Is that what happened though? If the goal umpire didn't think it needed review, he's not supposed to call for one. The question then is whether other umpires can call for the review if they thought it needed one. But if none of them thought it required review, then they've made the right decision based on the rules to not call for one. The AFL system apparently reviews all goals during the break in play, but that wasn't a goal. End result, I'm not sure they failed at all in application of their rules.

 

[Samcro24]

I'm on a planet where the following story was written

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/new-...cision-in-adelaides-loss-to-sydney-c-11645092

"A fan captured the moment on video from a perspective that sheds new light on the issue.

A new fan-shot camera angle of Ben Keays’s denied shot at goal against Sydney on Saturday night has confirmed beyond all doubt that it should have been called a goal.

Further replays indicated that it might have been a goal with there appearing to be daylight between the ball and the post at all times.

It’s understood the ARC’s Edge technology was unavailable because a Sydney defender touched the post so even if a review was called, it couldn’t determine whether it hit the post or not.

But the new angle, shot from a fan behind the goals, shows a clear gap between the ball and goal post for the entire trajectory of the kick, confirming beyond the shadow of a doubt that it should have been called a goal."

The article pretty much says that from the footage looked like it could have been a goal, but it wasn't definitive however the fan footage 100% proves it which is exactly what I have said about it.

Yeah, or you know, you could look at the broadcast replay and see for yourself.

 

[1970crow]

also helps that Geelong don't appear to have to worry about a salary cap either

What I find interesting about Geelong is that a lot of posters have been calling their downfall imminent for years and yet they seem to have accumulated a list who's value is way beyond the actual TPP.

 

[1970crow]

Several field umpires should have been able to see that it was a goal and should have called for a review. Also.the two ARC angles were enough to clearly show was a goal, so the guy's mobile was not required.

Surely you want field umpires watching the players potentially breaching rules rather than duplicate the goal umpire's job whilst focussing half way up a goal post.

 

[1970crow]

Its a pretty idiotic thing to not want your club to play prime time games.

Players want to play in em, fans want to watch em, it brings more money to the club, more exposure to the brand.

When it's going to result in us finishing 5th instead of 2nd, I'll probably lean in the other direction. But until we're talking flags then unlucky losses, bad draws, kicking poorly costing wins and getting better draft picks is all preferred above getting a dream draw and being a mathematical chance all the way to round 24.

 

[relapse]

Yeah, or you know, you could look at the broadcast replay and see for yourself.

Confirmation bias has you believing that the broadcast footage was 100% clear however it doesn't change the fact that I am not alone in thinking that the footage available (without edge) didn't offer irrefutable evidence that it didn't hit the post.

The article I posted pretty much says the same thing.

It may have been overturned, it may not have and that's something that we'll never know.








.

 

[1970crow]

View attachment 2100341

View attachment 2100340


relapse

On what planet was this not conclusive?

First angle shows a clear gap between ball and post, the only thing unclear is if it brushes the padding.

Side angle shows it was nowhere near the padding.

I don't understand what stills actually achieve. In both of those images, the ball could have hit the post prior to the capture.

 

[1970crow]

Bont to the Crows, heard it here first

You forgot the bit about it being a salary dump and their first coming with him.