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

[DowJone23]

Show us the footage.

Can’t be serious

 

[demondavey]

Add to that, the Trac goal against the Blues, and the 8 would look like this:
Pies
Dees
Lions
Power
Saints
Giants
Blues
Crows

Given that the Crows have thrashed both the Saints & Power in recent times, they'd certainly find themselves in a prelim against the Dees.

To answer the question, how to stop it happening again? Hopefully this new chick, I forget her name and title, football operations manager or something like that, at the loony bin, i mean afl house. Good luck to her. Can a boys club have a girl in it? Also, given that it was a KPI of the goal umps to not refer to the arc, but instead to back their own judgement, I'd say instead of penalising the goal ump who screwed up last week, penalise the knuckleheads above him, which I guess would be the umps coach, who's name I don't know, and above him of course is Gil, who addressed the issue in a dog park wearing his civvies.

Spot on.

 

[demondavey]

Ah but the technology didn't show that, did it?

What you just can't admit to yourself is we've seen all the AFL's official footage and none of it definitively shows (look that word up and make quite sure you know what it means; one day when you're over 18 you may be called to serve on a jury in a court of law) the goal umpire was wrong. So the decision stands.

Mate, I really rate you as a poster, but that didn’t hit the post. If there was so much uncertainty then it should have been reviewed.

 

[demondavey]

Ah yeah, big font size in bold will win any argument.

Frankly it terrifies me to think you might serve on a jury one day.

So you can't point me to the AFL's footage that definitively shows the umpire was wrong. OK.

Again, tell me which part of my post # 1941 above you're having trouble understanding, or stop replying.

The umpire was unequivocally wrong.

 

[demondavey]

The new footy GM hasn’t really said much about sorting the issue out. She’s referred to some junk about mark of the year. It’s pretty obvious she’s a mouthpiece from within the AFL to continue the standard executive trends.

 

[demondavey]

It’s actually something really important for Adelaide. All those young players will miss out on finals experience, it’ll also impact them as traditionally you need to play a few years if finals before contending for a flag.

With an ageing Walker, 2024 would have been ripe for the Crows if they’d played an EF and SF this year.

Only an unprofessional sport like the AFL where over inflated executive wages are prioritised over full time umpiring, technology and player wages could this happen.

 

[imagifED]

I think we also played everyone at their best.
Carlton when they were 3-1-0.
St Kilda when they were 6-2.
Fully fit Richmond very early in the season who were still a decent team.
Western Bulldogs in Ballarat during their best streak/run of form.
Gold Coast in Darwin during their best run of form.
Geelong in Geelong during their best run of form.
Sydney in finals contention and not during their down patch.
Essendon before their collapse.

and that's without getting to the top 4 who we played twice in Collingwood, Brisbane and Port.

Along with being the highest scoring team and the goal post debacle, I really can't comprehend how we're not playing finals.

 

[Elixuh]

Someone just ran the numbers had Adelaide made the finals and found the most probable outcome.

 

[Number37]

Weird how Adelaide played 11 games against the top 8 after finishing 13th .. and the Swans only played 10, after getting their pants pulled down in the GF last year

But but but .. Adelaide played 2 games against WC

It's not weird at all, everybody knows that the AFL has it in for the Crows.
So much does the AFL hate the Crows that the AFL figured out who would be in the top 8 at the end of the 2023 H&A season in 2022.

 

[Number37]

That’s been all over socials. If you’re on here enough I’m sure you’ve seen it.

The reviewers don't have access to social media posts, nor do they have access to vision supplied by random people who were sitting behind the goals.
They can only use the official vision.

 

[Number37]

Yeah, it absolutely is and you know it. And it’s definitive!

I never said anything about it being definitive.
Have another go.

 

[PowerBaz]

The reviewers don't have access to social media posts, nor do they have access to vision supplied by random people who were sitting behind the goals.
They can only use the official vision.

Correct, doesn’t mean footage that’s out there isn’t wrong either - I thought you wanted to see it or are you being a little too clever here.
I gather then you’ve seen that footage and know it was miles from the post so I wonder what’s your point?

 

[PowerBaz]

Actually, it I was wrong

Adelaide actually played 12 games against the current top 8 with a W/L record of 5/7

We finished up with a much harder draw .. second only to Collingwood

I think you’ll find Port had a pretty stiff draw from where we finished.

Alden pissing and moaning about playing the top for teams was a decent laugh, you okay us twice every year and those games are generally close.

You also played West Coast twice, didn’t hear him mention that.

 

[PeterSalt]

I think you’ll find Port had a pretty stiff draw from where we finished.

Alden pissing and moaning about playing the top for teams was a decent laugh, you okay us twice every year and those games are generally close.

You also played West Coast twice, didn’t hear him mention that.

No .. Syd and a few other posters have though

 

[PeterSalt]

It's not weird at all, everybody knows that the AFL has it in for the Crows.
So much does the AFL hate the Crows that the AFL figured out who would be in the top 8 at the end of the 2023 H&A season in 2022.

Why would I think that ..?

The fixture is done based on the previous years results and final ladder positions.

Seems to me you're projecting

 

[Ravin Crow]

So, you can't show me any definitive footage. Got it.

Ummm, how about this footage which clearly shows daylight between the ball and the goal post through every rotation of the ball until it gets to the padding. The footage ends on a frame showing the ball was well past the goal post when at the same height as the padding so couldn’t possibly have hit the padding.

If the ball did in fact hit the goal post, it would be impossible to capture footage from any angle showing daylight between the ball and the goal post through every rotation of the ball.

This is definitive footage; Parallax does not assist you here.

View attachment 1788889

Yeah.
Nah.


That's not official footage.

Yeah, it absolutely is and you know it. And it’s definitive!

The reviewers don't have access to social media posts, nor do they have access to vision supplied by random people who were sitting behind the goals.
They can only use the official vision.

I never said anything about it being definitive.
Have another go.

Number37, rewatch the clip. It absolutely is official footage (not social media footage supplied by random people as you seem to be claiming). It has the scores stamped in the top left corner, “7 live and free” stamped in the top right corner and finishes on a score review frame comparing this footage against the goal line footage at a point in time.

I never said you claimed it was definitive, but it is unequivocally definitive all the same. Like I said, if the ball did in fact hit the goal post, it would be impossible to capture footage from any angle showing daylight between the ball and the goal post through every rotation of the ball.

 

[Number37]

Why would I think that ..?

The fixture is done based on the previous years results and final ladder positions.

Seems to me you're projecting

You're the one claiming the Crows played more top 8 teams than the Swans, when the draw is done on the previous years ladder, so no conspiracy theory. ie there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Woe is the Crows is not the reasonable explanation.

 

[Juddernaut08]

A lot of wrong calls are made every game. Crows weren't good enough, simple as that.

 

[Number37]

Correct, doesn’t mean footage that’s out there isn’t wrong either - I thought you wanted to see it or are you being a little too clever here.
I gather then you’ve seen that footage and know it was miles from the post so I wonder what’s your point?

The point is, the people who would have done the review can only look at the official vision supplied to them.
ie using vision that the reviewers would not have seen as evidence the decision would have been overturned on review is ridiculous.

That's not me saying it wasn't a goal.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Ummm, how about this footage which clearly shows daylight between the ball and the goal post through every rotation of the ball until it gets to the padding. The footage ends on a frame showing the ball was well past the goal post when at the same height as the padding so couldn’t possibly have hit the padding.

If the ball did in fact hit the goal post, it would be impossible to capture footage from any angle showing daylight between the ball and the goal post through every rotation of the ball.

This is definitive footage; Parallax does not assist you here.

View attachment 1788889

No, that is not definitive footage, and no, we can't see daylight between the ball and the goal at every point, because at one point the goal post is blocking our full view of the ball.

It certainly looks like a goal, and I have always said that.

But do you understand the crucial difference between scrutineers looking at official footage and saying "it sure looks like a goal" and them saying "this here is definitive proof the goal umpire was wrong"?

What keeps getting overlooked is that the goal umpire got himself in the only perfect position to adjudge this shot (and had no hesitation in calling it a behind). Definitive footage proving him wrong, therefore, would have to be from behind him (and thus behind the goals), showing at all times clear daylight between the ball and the post.

Given none of the official footage shows that, a review would have shed no further light, thus the call should rightly stand.

 

[PeterSalt]

You're the one claiming the Crows played more top 8 teams than the Swans, when the draw is done on the previous years ladder, so no conspiracy theory. ie there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for it. Woe is the Crows is not the reasonable explanation.

I'm sorry, I am not to blame if that is how you chose to interpret my original comment

The fact still remains that by the end of the H&A season Adelaide played more games against top 8 sides with both a far better W/L ratio and % against them.

You are the 1 who added the idea that the number of games played against top 8 teams as a conspiracy to the conversation. Not me.

Would you have comprehended my original comment more clearly it I had written "Weird how the season unfolded" .. or would you have found another way to jump to conclusions you could be offended about?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That’s been all over socials. If you’re on here enough I’m sure you’ve seen it.

Well, no, it hasn't.

I'm aware of two bits of fan footage from behind the goal umpire - one in which the ball partially disappears out of frame at a crucial point and is thus then useless (though it didn't stop Channel 7 running it with the caption that "this shows once and for all the umpire was wrong"), and the other which appears to show it actually did graze the post, though being phone footage, the resolution is not good enough to say for sure.

But no official footage could be classed as definitive.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Can’t be serious

Oh yes I can.

 

[PowerBaz]

The point is, the people who would have done the review can only look at the official vision supplied to them.
ie using vision that the reviewers would not have seen as evidence the decision would have been overturned on review is ridiculous.

That's not me saying it wasn't a goal.

It was very clear based on 2 x angles wither their vision it wasn't a goal either, there isn't even a shadow.... and where it looks close to the padding is debunked by the side angle where at the height of the top of the padding its well past it.

Not sure the fuss, it wasn't a goal any day of the week, you still think there is confusion from the AFL views?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Mate, I really rate you as a poster, but that didn’t hit the post. If there was so much uncertainty then it should have been reviewed.

Thanks mate, I rate you too, but I'm not being a dick here.

Not that anyone on here was to know it, but the other week I was posting images on the Swans board showing that our Braeden Campbell most certainly did deserve his one-match suspension.

So it's not about partisanship. I just have this weird obsession with reality. And as I've already stated, a review would have showed us nothing definitive.

Unless the AFL starts installing dozens, if not hundreds of cameras in the stands behind the goals of every single stadium they use in Australia, (including those quaint little regional ones, because obviously we have to have a consistent level of match adjudication at every stadium), they are going to have to rely on their umpires to use their faculties. (Or else, as some have suggested, change the rules so that if the ball goes through the goalposts, it's a goal, regardless of whether it hits a post on the way through - I'm pretty sure this is the case for every other code of football.)

People are not thinking this through - judging whether a ball crossed a goal line is in most cases a simply two dimensional matter.

Judging whether a ball, journeying through a moving arc, touches a straight line at any point is a three-dimensional question, and to be able to give definitive answers in every possible angle, would require an absurd number of cameras.

People say the AFL has tons of money (they are right). People say the AFL is an arrogant organisation that does what it wants. (Again they are right.) People then wrongly conclude the only reason the AFL hasn't installed better camera technology at the scores of stadia it operates out of is because they're too cheap. But even a rich and supremely arrogant organisation still makes sensible decisions based on reality from time to time.