Play Nice Goal Umpire costs Adelaide a shot at finals, how do you stop it from happening again?

[Kane McGoodwin]

Seeing some other footage, I now believe it hit the post, and a bloke’s life has been unjustifiably ruined.

Shame on you, shame on you, and shame on me. Shame on all of us.

Better go to SpecSavers!

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Yeah. I don't think it's really feasible to expect a) umpires won't be fans of certain sides given their obvious interest in footy, and b) that the AFL have to manage scheduling around that.

There's probably difficulty in getting enough quality umpires as it is and managing schedules. If we go down that road, as you say you might have to rule out umpires officiating a big rival, the club they support(ed), any club competing with their club for finals or a home final or Top 4, and similar for any former players like Rodan or Fisher.

Also, pretty sure we won't hear the end of it anyway, despite him being a Crows fan. The meltdown and entitlement is something to behold.

Still a few entitled Swans fans still melting about the free kicks in the 2016 GF.

You're not one of them...are you?

 

[PowerBaz]

If the goal is correctly given, and a hurricane causes the field to be evacuated, it would just be scored as an Adelaide win.

What we have at the moment is the match has been adjudicated as a win for Sydney on the assumption that a team that hasn’t goaled in about 35 minutes is going to find one in 78 seconds. Nearly all of the time, this is simply an Adelaide win. The least fair outcome is to hand the win to Sydney.

Like Olsen saying you were owed 4 points from Dawson not getting a free kick against the pies.... he'd still have to kick it.

Rather than saying Sydney hasn't scored for 35 min maybe work out whey they killed you for the first 3 quarters.

Not saying it wasn't a howler.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Yeah. I don't think it's really feasible to expect a) umpires won't be fans of certain sides given their obvious interest in footy, and b) that the AFL have to manage scheduling around that.

There's probably difficulty in getting enough quality umpires as it is and managing schedules. If we go down that road, as you say you might have to rule out umpires officiating a big rival, the club they support(ed), any club competing with their club for finals or a home final or Top 4, and similar for any former players like Rodan or Fisher.

Also, pretty sure we won't hear the end of it anyway, despite him being a Crows fan. The meltdown and entitlement is something to behold.

I hold the unpopular opinion that umpires will only negatively adjudicate their supported team in fear of supporting them and being called out for cheating.

 

[Tugga27]

I'm getting tired of repeating myself. There are numerous official videos showing it certainly looks like a goal. I agree it certainly looks like a goal.

There are zero official videos definitively showing the umpire was wrong. Look up "definitive" if you are in any doubt as to its meaning.

In every video, the goal post is in the way, or the image is too blurred when freeze framed.

And then, fan videos are not official videos, and even then, of the two most widely circulated (both from a far better angle than any official footage, ie almost as good as the goal umpire's excellent angle) - in one, the ball disappears from frame at the crucial moment, and in the other one, the ball appears to indeed hit the post, but it is too blurred to say with complete confidence. So the umpire's call stands.

As a follower of a club that copped a two year trade ban from the AFL for no reason whatsoever, I don't care what the AFL says. They threw the umpire under a bus for reasons known only to themselves.

What part of the CEO coming out and saying "after looking at the replay, the decision would've been over turned to a goal" don't you get?

 

[Power Raid]

It will be interesting come week’s end who misses the finals due to this poor decision

 

[Hobbes]

Ah, no. We have a match adjudicated as a win for Sydney on the basis that it was ahead when the match concluded. That's typically how the winner is identified.

Except, if the goal had been at the death it would have been readjudicated.

What we have is a match that was gifted to the rightfully losing team, because of those 78 seconds in which they didn't score a goal.

If you regard this result as something to celebrate, the rightfully losing team is all you are and all you will ever be. I hear that this year's MVP will be announced as this goal umpire.

 

[Roby]

The problem is, judging by his reaction, he was 100% in his call, he signals straight away and doesn't appear to have any doubt.

It would be interesting to hear why he was so certain, because clearly he was wrong.

So I just found out today on SEN radio, that goal umpires have KPI's for how often they go to the ARC. Really? OMG.

Add the fact that commentators and supporters complain when goal umpires go to the ARC when they are unsure, commend them for not going to the ARC, do we wonder why the umpire may have decided to not go to the ARC in the last minute of game?

 

[.Shotties.]

Still a few entitled Swans fans still melting about the free kicks in the 2016 GF.

You're not one of them...are you?

I mean my philosophy is that in both cases, horrendous officiating lost one team a much better chance at victory. We don't get that chance in a grand final back, and the crows don't get this.

 

[Hobbes]

What about the suspect umpiring decisions where the Crows goaled from or right after? Or where we should have had a shot at goal late?

Instead, despite getting back into the game with the help of several questionable umpiring decisions, the focus is on 1 mistake that went against.

I get being aggrieved, but it's a bit much to say the least fair result is a Sydney win.

An Adelaide win would be pleasing in another way too - we could quote back to every Sydney fan who told us to suck it up.

 

[The Tilt]

Except, if the goal had been at the death it would have been readjudicated.

And if your Auntie had bollocks she'd be your uncle.

Games don't get decided on hypothetical scenarios as to what would or might have happened if things had gone differently, even scenarios that involve better umpiring that one we got. They get decided based on what actually happened.

 

[Elixuh]

AFL need to implement the same technology that the virtual keno racing have to make sure this never happens again.

 

[Mattrox]

I don't actually think the AFL want to change the system.

This creates headlines and keeps the AFL in the news cycle. Any publicity is good publicity.

If there were procedural fairness then AFL house do not have any control of the narrative.

At least in the situation they say either:

We investigated ourselves and it's all kosher (halal).

or

We investigated ourselves and there was an error but you just need to get over it.


Either way they control the narrative. They also have the Sword of Democles over the accredited media that can drop at any time.

They will just shuffle out "please explain"s to anyone who bangs on too long about issues. Like they did to Steven Rowe's complete unadulterated hyperbole of "cheating umpires ".

On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mattrox]

And if your Auntie had bollocks she'd be your uncle.

Games don't get decided on hypothetical scenarios as to what would or might have happened if things had gone differently, even scenarios that involve better umpiring that one we got. They get decided based on what actually happened.

At 5 goals, 3 behinds and 4 rushed vs zero goals 1 behind, do you actually realistically think that another outcome is in the realms of possibility.

Sydney spent all their petrol tickets and Adelaide ran over them comprehensively.

When Collingwood do this its heroic and McCrae is a genuis. When a blatant umpire error prevents Adelaide doing it, the Crows didn't deserve it and the outcome is uncertain?


If they could not score in 71 seconds from a fast kick out with half the Crows celebrating a goal, what hope do they have from a centre bounce with everyone paying attention? The argument is dubious and spurious and should be just left alone.

This has an impact not only on the Crows finals chances, coaches and assistant's bonuses, player bonuses and corporate earnings from events it impacts other teams finals chances in the same way.


This is actually serious and not just a "get over it" event. The ramifications are significant, and Gil's presser was embarrassing.



On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Maddo11]

If they could not score in 71 seconds from a fast kick out with half the Crows celebrating a goal, what hope do they have from a centre bounce with everyone paying attention? The argument is dubious and spurious and should be just left alone.




On SM-G781B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Poor logic, they only needed to chip the ball around for a minute to win. Why risk rushing it up the other end and potentially turning it over?

If it had been adjudicated a goal, the ball goes back to the middle and they go like hell for the last minute instead. Who knows what happens then.

 

[The Tilt]

At 5 goals, 3 behinds and 4 rushed vs zero goals 1 behind, do you actually realistically think that another outcome is in the realms of possibility.

See, whether I think the Swans would or wouldn't have scored a goal in the last 78 seconds (had Keays' goal been allowed) is irrelevant. It's just plain absurd to think the AFL should overturn the official result of a match on the basis of a poor umpiring decision along with some assessment of what might have happened had that poor decision not been made. Games of football get decided on the football field, not by football administrators. Sure, what happens on the field isn't always fair, but we football fans just need to live that. It's called being an adult.

Sydney spent all their petrol tickets and Adelaide ran over them comprehensively.

Yeah, not sure i'd describe it as comprehensive. If it was comprehensive you'd have actually won.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

I mean my philosophy is that in both cases, horrendous officiating lost one team a much better chance at victory. We don't get that chance in a grand final back, and the crows don't get this.

I wish we'd had the simple technology in 1997 that we have today. Adelaide possibly would not gave played in the GF that year had it been available.

Swings & roundabouts...

 

[Sarcoidevo]

If the ball goes thru goal after hitting the post (without being touched) it's a goal

If it goes back into play .... then play on

Takes human error and goal technology mostly out of the equation

Would also add an element of excitement if the ball bounces back into play after hitting the post.

if the ball is thought to be touched before going over the goal line then it's referred to the VAR system but it has be deemed definitively touched for it not to be awarded a goal

Simple easy

 

[Port 2004]

See, whether I think the Swans would or wouldn't have scored a goal in the last 78 seconds (had Keays' goal been allowed) is irrelevant. It's just plain absurd to think the AFL should overturn the official result of a match on the basis of a poor umpiring decision along with some assessment of what might have happened had that poor decision not been made. Games of football get decided on the football field, not by football administrators. Sure, what happens on the field isn't fair, but we football fans just need to live that. It's called being an adult.


Yeah, not sure i'd describe it as comprehensive. If it was comprehensive you'd have actually won.

They weren’t too comprehensive for three quarters. The umpires gave them a ride in the last quarter. Lucky they got as close as they did.

 

[Fadge]

Petracca made a very good point on 360 tonight.

Why don't we just simplify the process?

• If it goes through the goals, it's a goal. Regardless of whether it is touched or it hits the post. Like in soccer.
• Same with a behind.
• If it hits any post and remains in play, it's play on.

Then the only decision that needs to be made is whether the ball fully crosses the line, which can be addressed by technology.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Petracca made a very good point on 360 tonight.

Why don't we just simplify the process?

• If it goes through the goals, it's a goal. Regardless of whether it is touched or it hits the post. Like in soccer.
• Same with a behind.
• If it hits any post and remains in play, it's play on.

Then the only decision that needs to be made is whether the ball fully crosses the line, which can be addressed by technology.

So what was his good point?

 

[Fadge]

So what was his good point?

Yeah, sometimes it's difficult for some people to think outside the box.

The biggest problem with our game are the endless grey areas. This removes a number of them in one fell swoop.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Yeah, sometimes it's difficult for some people to think outside the box.

The biggest problem with our game are the endless grey areas. This removes a number of them in one fell swoop.

How does Petracca think that fixes Keays goal?

 

[Fadge]

How does Petracca think that fixes Keays goal?

Because it went between the two big sticks (regardless of whether or not it grazed the goal post or padding on the way through).

 

[killtaker1993]

The club has just got to get over it, we are looking like fools now