Freo robbed !!! Ball was clearly touched. AFL media trying to cover up the obvious umpire error

[Billy_01]

I broke my self-imposed ban and actually watched 360 last night because I thought they might be half a chance to show the "down the ground" footage from behind the goals.

You know... 360'.... Footy from ALL angles.

They did show a number of quick-edited replays from a variety of angles.

They even showed half a second of the crucial footage from the camera behind the goals. Only problem was they deliberately snipped the bit where the ball took a huge deflection off Aish's arm. We only got to see the ball land on Cotterell's chest.

Amazing omission! They refuse to show us. They're suppressing the footage just like a Chinese news channel.
They're only showing us the side-on and close-up angles which make it look like a small umpiring error, easily missed, etc etc.

Gerard "Bootlicker" Whateley repeated Kane Cornes's obfuscations from the weekend when he said the ball flicked Aish's hair.

What a world we're living in where the AFL media sanitises a simple umpiring controversy and won't show us the really damning footage, sparing the AFL & umpires from further embarrassment.

F**k the AFL

Mate relax. 360 clearly showed it was touched. Everyone knows it was touched. There’s no censoring conspiracy.

 

[Toump Ass]

What if play is continuing?

A player would challenge a call, not a non-call.

Give me an example before going off your head and we’ll work through it.

 

[FreoFan85]

Have a look at on the couch then. They go into it in minute detail. They play audio of the closest umpire saying three times that he didn't call touched and they also show footage of Clark walking towards the umpire as Cottrell kicks the goal and yelling at him (must have been at the exact time that Clark claims that he swears at himself?).

Gerard Wheatley was very much of the view that freo was dudded but merely pointed out that the most incriminating footage wasn't available till the next morning. Robbo on the other hand thought that freo cost themselves and should probably stop whinging about it.

Clearly the ball was touched. Umpire didn't see it so couldn't call it. No umpire called touched as some have claimed. Clark abused the umpire. Carlton got lucky.

It'll happen against us some day. I'll complain like the rest of our supporter base at the time. I hope that none of us carry on like pork chops for the next week as if we have personally been picked on like the supporter base of freo supporters on here seem to be.

You are very gullible if you believe this. You think they don’t have any footage. They literally bring up footage of people being hit behind play 60 meters off the ball…. But they don’t have footage of where the direct action is???

 

[BigFrizz36]

No. no. no... You don't get it. On all these fricken shows, they go into minute detail and they talk about it at length (making excuses for the umps and basically saying "Get the f**k over it. Move on"

Except they won't show the damning footage from behind the goals. WHY NOT?!?!? How many times do I need to point this out?

They have cameras behind the goals at both ends of the ground. I'd be happy for them to show either. Preferably both.

On the live telecast, they used the camera angle from behind the goals when players were milling about waiting for the ball-up. Then they cut to the regular camera angle from centre wing. They showed Cotterell kicking it through for a goal using the down-the-ground camera angle from other end of the ground

After the free kick for dissent, they showed a replay of umpire Whetton setting the mark and pointing to Matthew Kennedy, saying "Your free" while the free defenders were pushing Jordan Clark away from the scene.

They are deliberately sitting on the footage of the ball taking a huge ricochet off Aish's arm. They have 2 angles, but they won't show it to us. It's blatantly obvious the AFL has gone into damage control and told the Fox Footy producers not to show the most damning footage. Instead we get these side-on angles and close-ups with Whateley, Cornes, Lyon, etc, bullshitting us by saying "These things happen all the time. Umps are only human, blah blah blah..."

Gerard Whateley is being a shifty campaigner when he talks about how the "incriminating footage" was only available on the Sunday. That close-up replay from behind Hewett which he's referring to shows the ball hitting Aish's arm, but it doesn't show how much the ball looped upward and deviated to the left.

On the couch showed the behind the goal vision of Clark abusing the umpire.

There is nobody doubting that the ball was touched however from the game footage at the time it was almost impossible to see apart from someones hair moving. I have seen three angles of the ball coming off aish's arm so far. Why would you rabbit on about them withholding it? Nathan Buckley said he could clearly see it deviate from where he was sitting.

Umpires are only human and clearly didnt see it and as a result the officiating umpire did not call touched and the nearest umpire paid the mark.

You (and many other Freo supporters) appear to be of the belief that there is some conspiracy against your team firstly by the umpires and secondly by the media.

What happened happened within a split second. You are looking for perfection in a game of imperfections. And please, please, please Freo supporters stop with the sooking.

 

[BigFrizz36]

You are very gullible if you believe this. You think they don’t have any footage. They literally bring up footage of people being hit behind play 60 meters off the ball…. But they don’t have footage of where the direct action is???

If I am gullible you struggle with comprehension. I clearly said that they showed three different angles of the kick being touched. Nobody is denying that it was touched.

They also showed the behind the goals footage of Clark yelling at the umpire.

There is no conspiracy. Only in your head.

 

[Back One Out]

Mate relax. 360 clearly showed it was touched. Everyone knows it was touched. There’s no censoring conspiracy.

Okay then...

So why won't they show us the footage from behind the goals so we can all see just how much the ball deflected off Aish's arm ?

They've got the footage, but they won't show us. They show it from every other angle, but not the footage which is the most embarrassing for the AFL

That's censorship.

Everyone knows it was touched, but everyone is giving the umps a pass, saying "Oh well, these things happen. Lots of marks get awarded when the ball is touched".

Most people wouldn't be so conciliatory towards the umps if they saw how much the ball deviated. This wasn't a "touched off the boot" scenario, nor a Freo player getting a fingernail on it. It was a huge deflection. It was a terrible error by the umpires.

I don't give a rat's arse about Fremantle or Carlton. I didn't lose any money on the game. I honestly don't give a shit about the result.

I just hate the way the AFL have the media in their pockets and they all treat us like we're a bunch of mugs.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Mate, watch this...

This amateur footage below was taken from more than 100m away. Clear as day. Shocking umpiring.

It just needed one of the 3 non-controlling umps to be standing central and they would've got the call right.
I've even heard conjecture that one of them did actually call "touched" but he went into his shell after umpire Whetton paid the mark.

You heard incorrect conjecture then. On the coach showed footage last night where the umpire who was closest says "I did not call touched, I did not call touched".
As the 2nd kick is being taken he is talking to O'Meara and says " I didn't call touched".
And he was the senior umpire so it's highly unlikely that he "went into his shell".

Might be best to check the source of your conjecture.

 

[Back One Out]

On the couch showed the behind the goal vision of Clark abusing the umpire.

There is nobody doubting that the ball was touched however from the game footage at the time it was almost impossible to see apart from someones hair moving. I have seen three angles of the ball coming off aish's arm so far. Why would you rabbit on about them withholding it? Nathan Buckley said he could clearly see it deviate from where he was sitting.

Umpires are only human and clearly didnt see it and as a result the officiating umpire did not call touched and the nearest umpire paid the mark.

You (and many other Freo supporters) appear to be of the belief that there is some conspiracy against your team firstly by the umpires and secondly by the media.

What happened happened within a split second. You are looking for perfection in a game of imperfections. And please, please, please Freo supporters stop with the sooking.

Read my post above to Billy_01

You're being really, really dense about this.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Okay then...

So why won't they show us the footage from behind the goals so we can all see just how much the ball deflected off Aish's arm ?

They've got the footage, but they won't show us. They show it from every other angle, but not the footage which is the most embarrassing for the AFL

That's censorship.

Everyone knows it was touched, but everyone is giving the umps a pass, saying "Oh well, these things happen. Lots of marks get awarded when the ball is touched".

Most people wouldn't be so conciliatory towards the umps if they saw how much the ball deviated. This wasn't a "touched off the boot" scenario, nor a Freo player getting a fingernail on it. It was huge deflection. It was a terrible error by the umpires.

I don't give a rat's arse about Fremantle or Carlton. I didn't lose any money on the game. I honestly don't give a s**t about the result.

I just hate the way the AFL have the media in their pockets and they all treat us footy fans like a bunch of mugs.

They've shown three different lots of footage that I have seen so far from different angles. The broadcast footage (which was almost impossible to tell that the ball had been touched apart from Aish's hair moving) and two other angles that showed the deflection.

That's pretty poor censorship.

 

[Back One Out]

You heard incorrect conjecture then. On the coach showed footage last night where the umpire who was closest says "I did not call touched, I did not call touched".
As the 2nd kick is being taken he is talking to O'Meara and says " I didn't call touched".
And he was the senior umpire so it's highly unlikely that he "went into his shell".

Might be best to check the source of your conjecture.

Obviously umpire Whetton who paid the mark did not call the ball touched...

Why are you even bringing up what he said to the Freo players ? Pfffft.

The conjecture I'm referring to was something Whateley said... (I think it was him)
He said that one of the other three field umps may have called "touched" before Whetton paid the mark.

It wouldn't surprise me.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Read my post above to Billy_01

You're being really, really dense about this.

Your claiming censorship despite 3 different angles of the footage being released and I'm being dense?

Cool take.

 

[Back One Out]

They've shown three different lots of footage that I have seen so far from different angles. The broadcast footage (which was almost impossible to tell that the ball had been touched apart from Aish's hair moving) and two other angles that showed the deflection.

That's pretty poor censorship.

I'll ask once again... Why won't they show the footage from behind the goals?

Why are they sitting on it and not showing it to us?


I've seen the amateur footage on Twitter. I've already seen the ball deflect about 30' off Aish's arm. I just think it stinks the way they keep it from the mainstream and won't show the general footy public who watches the Sunday/Monday panel shows.

It's been a well-orchestated exercise in damage control from the AFL. On the front foot and admitting the error... But deliberately withholding the most embarrassing footage, while all their media lackeys tell us "Yeah, it was touched. Touched his hair, I think... But that's a mark... We always pay those..." Blah blah blah bullshit bullshit..

 

[BigFrizz36]

Obviously umpire Whetton who paid the mark did not call the ball touched...

Why are you even bringing up what he said to the Freo players ? Pfffft.

The conjecture I'm referring to was something Whateley said... (I think it was him)
He said that one of the other three field umps may have called "touched" before Whetton paid the mark.

It wouldn't surprise me.

Oh wow. Umpire Matt Stevic was the umpire stating that he hadn't called touched as he was the officiating umpire during the play (as in closest to the pack and nearest to call it touched)

As a result umpire Whetton paid the mark. Gerard Whateley didn't say that an umpire had called touched. A few Freo nuffies have said that based on some podcast but that has been proven incorrect.

The reason that I am bringing it up as the footage completely shows the officiating umpire stating that he did not call touched hence the mark was paid.

I suspect that I am wasting my time with you though. For someone with no dog in the fight you are doing a lot of barracking for your dog.

 

[Back One Out]

Your claiming censorship despite 3 different angles of the footage being released and I'm being dense?

Cool take.

Yep, you are really dense.

All the close-up replays which they've shown us confirm the ball was touched, but they don't show how much the ball swerved and took a completely different trajectory.

I keep saying the down-the-ground footage shows how big the deflection was
(based on the clip from Twitter which I posted on page 1)

That's my point. The AFL have obviously sent the word to Fox Footy to withhold the damning footage.
Why else won't they show it? Please think about that and tell me why you think they won't show us.

In the meantime, here's the clip from Twitter in case you haven't seen it..

 

[Kappa]

Mate, watch this...

This amateur footage below was taken from more than 100m away. Clear as day. Shocking umpiring.

It just needed one of the 3 non-controlling umps to be standing central and they would've got the call right.
I've even heard conjecture that one of them did actually call "touched" but he went into his shell after umpire Whetton paid the mark.

Its not that easy to pick up in real time, especially when you realise the umps have about 12 big guys running in front of them, unlike the elevated camera angle.

Anyway, umps make mistakes, people need to move on.

 

[The_Todd07]

A player would challenge a call, not a non-call.

Give me an example before going off your head and we’ll work through it.

So raising valid issues with your claim is "going off my head".

Are you saying non calls can't be wrong?
Or are they just in the too hard basket so just implement a half assed system

If you want an example how about this

Scores level, 1 minute to go.
Defender has prior opportunity and is chased down but HTB is not given because the umpire believes it flicked his boot, attacking team adamant it didnt
Ball spills to another defender and a fast break ensues with a high chance of them scoring.

How is your easy solution handling this case?

 

[Back One Out]

Its not that easy to pick up in real time, especially when you realise the umps have about 12 big guys running in front of them, unlike the elevated camera angle.

Anyway, umps make mistakes, people need to move on.

Isn't that why we now have FOUR field umpires?

Maybe the AFL should get a new umpires' coach who can teach them how to position themselves properly when 30 players are packed inside fifty, so we don't get these awful errors.

Would hate to see a repeat performance this weekend. Imagine if Collingwood lose this year's Grand Final because 4 field umpires don't see the ball bouncing 30 degrees up & left off Quaynor's shoulder and Charlie Curnow takes the mark and kicks the winning goal. Oh well. Move on, Pies fans...



Anyway, as I've said a few times, it's not the umpire's error which really bothers me. It's the way the AFL fail to properly own it by getting the media to withhold the most embarrassing footage and trying to minimise the umpire error by acting as though it was a glancing touch and easy to miss.

I wouldn't have a problem if they just put their hand up and admitted it was an inexcusable error and they were doing everything they could to ensure it doesn't happen again. It'd be great to hear them say they were retraining their umpires to spread out in a more effective way, so the 4 umps cover all the angles and don't make these f**k-ups.

The AFL treats us footy fans like we're a bunch of mugs.

 

[Toump Ass]

Are you saying non calls can't be wrong?

I said that if umpires reviewed calls, Carlton would not have been allowed an incorrect mark.
I never said anything about non-calls and I'm not interested in answering the billion hypothetical questions you have for something I never mentioned.

But, to summarise, I think a system that allowed for egregious calls to be reviewed would be better than our current system. Pretty simple.

 

[Captivating]

That's um um um ............captivating.

Maybe we could go back to the days when players wore caps and captains swapped theirs before the game?

Let me just think of a potential issue. Grand final is one point the difference . Player takes a mark in a pack in the square, opposition may have got the slightest touch but probably not. Umpire pays the mark. Opposition claims touched so ball is balled up and siren goes. Replays show that ball was clearly not touched. Wrong team wins the grand final.

Player that appealed gladly takes his 16 game suspension knowing that he cheated a grand final win in his last game before retiring.

Cool system

I doubt that would happen. Players want to win a GF fairly.

 

[BigFrizz36]

Yep, you are really dense.

All the close-up replays which they've shown us confirm the ball was touched, but they don't show how much the ball swerved and took a completely different trajectory.

I keep saying the down-the-ground footage shows how big the deflection was
(based on the clip from Twitter which I posted on page 1)

That's my point. The AFL have obviously sent the word to Fox Footy to withhold the damning footage.
Why else won't they show it? Please think about that and tell me why you think they won't show us.

In the meantime, here's the clip from Twitter in case you haven't seen it..

You are really struggling to keep up aren't you?

On the couch showed the broadcaster footage and then another lot of footage from maybe behind the freo goal (three times) that showed the ball definitively coming off the freo players shoulder. This footage shows the ball deviating and spinning at a different angle than the ball normally would.

Nathan Buckley says that he could see it from the other end of the ground "we were sitting up on the stage and it clearly took a deflection and the ball was travelling differently to what it would be off the boot."
Gary Lyon then says "if you could see it then why couldn't one of the umpires"
Nathan Buckley replies "we've played the game for a long time and how often does it happen - it happens a lot."

They go on to say that a rule change is needed and that the dissent free should be in the middle and discuss the previous dissent run in with Jordan Clark and Michael Pell (anything from pell can be taken with a grain of salt)

And yet you are claiming that the AFL has told Fox not to show the footage (which they have shown three consecutive times) and they have had a full discussion about what happened and yet you are claiming that they have been censored. If you need to check go to last nights on the couch starts at 18.40 in and finishes at about 22.37.

Anyway that's enough from me. You have been shown to wrong continually (umpire called touched, Fox are censoring at the behest of the AFL) but I doubt you can concede that. The definition of futility is arguing with someone who won't listen. I've been futile long enough.

 

[BigFrizz36]

I doubt that would happen. Players want to win a GF fairly.

Yeah like Colin Robertson and Terry Daniher.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

What if play is continuing?
Do they have to wait for the next stoppage that may not happen for quite a while?
Do they have to stop play?
What if play is stopped while their opponent had a clear advantage and the challenge isn't overturned? Couldn't possibly see that being abused.

Reviewing scoring plays is one thing because it happens at a natural break in play and it's still complained about non stop.
Introducing reviews mid play is far from the "easy" solution you believe it is

This should be so obvious but people are letting their emotions get in the way.

As long as humans are involved there will be errors. No one is saying the AFL can’t or shouldn’t look to improve umpiring, but the addition of a captains challenge would make the game more unwatchable and open an avenue to manipulation. It happens in other sports all the time.

What happens when the review umpire gets the captains challenge wrong because the footage was inconclusive? A double captains challenge? It’s chasing something unachievable.

 

[Back One Out]

You are really struggling to keep up aren't you?

On the couch showed the broadcaster footage and then another lot of footage from maybe behind the freo goal (three times) that showed the ball definitively coming off the freo players shoulder. This footage shows the ball deviating and spinning at a different angle than the ball normally would.

Nathan Buckley says that he could see it from the other end of the ground "we were sitting up on the stage and it clearly took a deflection and the ball was travelling differently to what it would be off the boot."
Gary Lyon then says "if you could see it then why couldn't one of the umpires"
Nathan Buckley replies "we've played the game for a long time and how often does it happen - it happens a lot."

They go on to say that a rule change is needed and that the dissent free should be in the middle and discuss the previous dissent run in with Jordan Clark and Michael Pell (anything from pell can be taken with a grain of salt)

And yet you are claiming that the AFL has told Fox not to show the footage (which they have shown three consecutive times) and they have had a full discussion about what happened and yet you are claiming that they have been censored. If you need to check go to last nights on the couch starts at 18.40 in and finishes at about 22.37.

Anyway that's enough from me. You have been shown to wrong continually (umpire called touched, Fox are censoring at the behest of the AFL) but I doubt you can concede that. The definition of futility is arguing with someone who won't listen. I've been futile long enough.

You still haven't answered my simple question... Why won't they show us the down-the-ground footage?

They have cameras behind both goals. So let's see it... Why won't they show us?


1) Let's see just how much the ball deflected off Aish.
2) Let's see exactly where the 4 blind maggots were standing and why they failed to see it. Pretty crucial, no?

The down-the-ground footage would reveal all.... But instead we get the replays from every other angle which doesn't show us either of the above.

So much has been said about this incident, but has anyone actually told us exactly where the 4 umps where standing and why they failed to see the ball deflect off Aish? All I've heard is a bunch of excuses and rationalisations.


I've made this same point over and over, but for some reason, you refuse to acknowledge this. And you reckon I'm the one who is struggling to keep up... You reckon I'm the one who won't listen... I already answered your points, but you won't answer my simple question.

 

[The_Todd07]

I said that if umpires reviewed calls, Carlton would not have been allowed an incorrect mark

No you didn't, you have twice said players would be in charge of calling for reviews.

The player informs the umpire their decision was wrong, and the decision is reviewed.

I’d say two calls a team could challenge every game would be enough. You’d really only want to challenge a call if it is likely to cost a goal at a critical time.

I never said anything about non-calls

Again, short term memory issues

A player would challenge a call, not a non-call.

'm not interested in answering the billion hypothetical questions you have for something I never mentioned.

But you asked for an example to work through and I obliged.

Give me an example before going off your head and we’ll work through it.

Testing your system against "billions of hypotheticals" is what you need to do to end up with a robust system that doesn't turn to shit, you don't just implement the first "easy" solution that pops into your head

 

[carlton_99]

2) Let's see exactly where the 4 blind maggots were standing and why they failed to see it. Pretty crucial, no?

Why don't we do this for any other incorrect decision that's made in the F50 of a team...?