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

[PowerBaz]

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.

Where's the image you say it grazed the post?

I gather some people think it grazed the top of the padding? So here's the comparison between the fan shot where the ball can still be seen in frame and the AFL view. Both are approx the same height, the AFL view shows the ball well past the padding at this height, so it's only going to be further away at padding height, it was never close to the actual post, not even a shadow.

 

[Ravin Crow]

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.

The only point where the goal post appears to be blocking the full view of the ball is once the ball is in line with the padding. The footage ends on a frame showing three different camera angles at the point in time immediately before the ball is obscured by the goal post padding, with the goal line camera angle confirming the ball was well past the goal post at this time so couldn’t possibly have hit the padding. For ease of reference, here is that final frame of the footage showing the three camera angles:


The footage together with this image of the three different camera angles (the most relevant angles being the top left which is from the footage I posted, frozen on the frame immediately before the ball is obscured by the padding, and the top right which is the goal line camera angle at that time) show definitively and unequivocally that the ball did not hit the goal post.

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"?

I fully understand the difference. While there may be other scenarios where the best we can say is “it sure looks like a goal”, this situation is not one of them. In this case, we have definitive, unequivocal proof that it did not hit the post and that the goal umpire was wrong.

I’ll say again, if the ball did in fact hit the goal post, it would be impossible to capture footage from any angle (behind, in front, above, below, etc.) showing daylight between the ball and the goal post through every rotation of the ball as it passes the goal post.

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.

This is false. The perfect position to observe whether the ball touched the post at any point in time is from anywhere on the plane perpendicular (i.e. 90 degrees) to the imaginary line drawn between the closest points of the goal post and the ball at each point in time. This perpendicular plane exists both in front of and behind the goals. The closer the gap between two objects gets to zero, the more important it is to be on the perpendicular plane to observe if a gap exists.

To be clear, if a gap can be observed from behind the goals, the same gap can be observed from a corresponding position in front of the goals. If there is in fact no gap at any particular point in time (i.e. when the ball touches the goal post) there is no angle you can observe from which would show a gap at that same point in time.

I’ll say again, 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 as it passes the goal post if it had, in fact, hit the post.

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

The official footage does exist and I shared the relevant snippet of that footage for you previously. The AFL have also confirmed that it would have been overturned on review so the call would not have stood. Here is the footage for you again.

View attachment Ben Keays frustrated after Crows robbed of finals hopes in AFL goal blunder | 7NEWS.mov

Not sure why you’re so stuck on your plainly erroneous position here when you seem to ordinarily be a reasonable poster. For what it’s worth, I don’t think you’re being purposefully obtuse so I’m hoping the above provides you some closure on the issue.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Back to the topic on hand......

Will the technology they come up with (allowing for how good it might be) ever be 100% error proof?

One just has to look at DRS in cricket.....sometimes you think the ball is crashing into the stumps, only for the ball tracking to show it missing or bouncing over....and you wonder how ....

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Where's the image you say it grazed the post?

I gather some people think it grazed the top of the padding? So here's the comparison between the fan shot where the ball can still be seen in frame and the AFL view. Both are approx the same height, the AFL view shows the ball well past the padding at this height, so it's only going to be further away at padding height, it was never close to the actual post, not even a shadow.



View attachment 1790071

Slo-mo from about 10 secs then zoom.

 

[PowerBaz]

Slo-mo from about 10 secs then zoom.

Try again, here is the closest the shadow gets as it goes past the post.... 'past the post' - there is no way on this earth it hits it. Are people blind, you could drive a truck through that gap.

Keep trying.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Some posters are still arguing whether it hit the post or not... Gil doesn't like apologising should be the clearest indication it was a goal.

 

[Bloods86]

Some posters are still arguing whether it hit the post or not... Gil doesn't like apologising should be the clearest indication it was a goal.

I think it was a goal. Us Swans fans have known for a while that AFL House can't be trusted though, so not sure of that argument.

 

[Number37]

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?

I made no comment on whether it was a goal or not.
You keep replying with the assumption that I am saying it was not a goal.

Crows fans can scream until they're blue in the face, the scoreboard still says it wasn't a goal.

 

[PowerBaz]

I made no comment on whether it was a goal or not.
You keep replying with the assumption that I am saying it was not a goal.

Crows fans can scream until they're blue in the face, the scoreboard still says it wasn't a goal.

So what is your opinion.

 

[Truetiger]

FFS we still gonna talk about this over all summer aren't we ? SMH

Until it’s over turned, or the final 1min played out. Adelaide still may have lost.

 

[radiojake]

This is a real question. Was Tex left out of the Ballarat trip so he’d play his 250th at Adelaide Oval? That may well have got an extra 4 points and the Coleman.

I don’t recall it being any significant injury.

I think generally the bigfooty board was comfortable with this as most seasons of late Walker has seemed to have 'faded out' , or otherwise picked up niggles which has then rendered him ineffective in games (see 2019/2020 when most thought he was cooked)

Would say it was to manage his workload and I guess a trip to Ballarat was an easy one to pick as a miss - The way we played that day, he wouldn't have made a difference to the result

 

[PowerBaz]

I think generally the bigfooty board was comfortable with this as most seasons of late Walker has seemed to have 'faded out' , or otherwise picked up niggles which has then rendered him ineffective in games (see 2019/2020 when most thought he was cooked)

Would say it was to manage his workload and I guess a trip to Ballarat was an easy one to pick as a miss - The way we played that day, he wouldn't have made a difference to the result

Beg to differ - you were missing him big time around the forward 50.

If it was a final he plays, therefore I think he was rested for the 250th.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

This is a real question. Was Tex left out of the Ballarat trip so he’d play his 250th at Adelaide Oval? That may well have got an extra 4 points and the Coleman.

I don’t recall it being any significant injury.

Tex was struggling with soreness & having less impact before being rested... & he wouldn't have had the great season he did without being managed.

The big mistake was not managing more players during the year, as we has much of the team running in fumes in the last month.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Only pay the behind if there is CLEAR evidence the ball was touched or hit the post.

But isn't the issue here that the goal umpire thought it was clear that it hit the post?

He didn't even flinch. Called it a poster immediately. There didn't appear to be any hesitation whatsoever from him.

 

[Soggy2112]

If it was a final he plays, therefore I think he was rested for the 250th.

Players rest/miss games all the time that if it was a final they would play through it.

That’s not adequate evidence to say he missed that game BECAUSE of his 250th.

 

[PowerBaz]

Players rest/miss games all the time that if it was a final they would play through it.

That’s not adequate evidence to say he missed that game BECAUSE of his 250th.

I beg to differ.....

 

[jenny61_99]

Until it’s over turned, or the final 1min played out. Adelaide still may have lost.

In the context of the game? No way Adelaide would lose. Sydney had scored ONE point for the entirety of the quarter to that point of the game. Adelaide would have scored 5-7 (had Keays goal stood). The crowd were up and about given the miraculous goal Keays had just kicked to take the lead with 70 seconds to go. There is NO WAY Sydney were winning that game.

 

[bomberclifford]

In the context of the game? No way Adelaide would lose. Sydney had scored ONE point for the entirety of the quarter to that point of the game. Adelaide would have scored 5-7 (had Keays goal stood). The crowd were up and about given the miraculous goal Keays had just kicked to take the lead with 70 seconds to go. There is NO WAY Sydney were winning that game.

This is just speculation.

What matters is that it was possible for both Sydney and Adelaide to score again with the remaining time.

If it was given a goal, the centre bounce set up would have been do-or-die for both teams, with both having a very realistic opportunity to score. It is a pity that it didn't come to that because it would have been one hell of a minute of play.

It was given a point, so it meant the Adelaide forwards needed to be on the ball much quicker instead of faffing about with the Skidmark Kid. Even then, there was still time to score again. Especially if, as you say, Adelaide were so dominant.

 

[jenny61_99]

This is just speculation.

What matters is that it was possible for both Sydney and Adelaide to score again with the remaining time.

If it was given a goal, the centre bounce set up would have been do-or-die for both teams, with both having a very realistic opportunity to score. It is a pity that it didn't come to that because it would have been one hell of a minute of play.

It was given a point, so it meant the Adelaide forwards needed to be on the ball much quicker instead of faffing about with the Skidmark Kid. Even then, there was still time to score again. Especially if, as you say, Adelaide were so dominant.

Odds and probability... and a fired up home crowd.... no way we would have lost. And what do you mean "as I say"? We WERE so dominant. The only reason we didn't react to the kick out was because we knew we'd kicked a bloody goal!

 

[bomberclifford]

Odds and probability... and a fired up home crowd.... no way we would have lost.

It was possible for you to lose even if Keays' kick was counted as a goal.
That's reality.

And what do you mean "as I say"? We WERE so dominant.

So you could have easily scored again then. Yes?

The only reason we didn't react to the kick out was because we knew we'd kicked a bloody goal!

Swans players reacted pretty quick once they knew what the goal umpire called.

 

[jenny61_99]

It was possible for you to lose even if Keays' kick was counted as a goal.
That's reality.




So you could have easily scored again then. Yes?




Swans players reacted pretty quick once they knew what the goal umpire called.

And still didn't manage to score - even with half our team out celebrating a goal.

 

[Maddo11]

And still didn't manage to score - even with half our team out celebrating a goal.

Because we didn't need to, and why risk missing and giving the ball back

 

[DanielLaneDC]

I think it's time to move on from what could have happened in the game. It's not being changed. Satifying or not, it's concluded now. Whether anyone now individually thinks it's a goal or a behind is besides the point that it's obviously a controversy we could do without.

In my mind, there are two talking points left now:

Flow-on Effect for Adelaide
I hope Adelaide do not get fixture accomodations, but it will be interesting to see if they get financial ones. I don't really care about this one too much myself, I think it is what it is and we had plenty of opportunities that we didn't capitalise on. I don't think Nicks should be under pressure next season on the back of missing finals, but we'll have to wait and see how long the memory lasts.

Changes to the Game
As time goes by, I keep seeing more and more in the footy media about changes that are being made to the processes and technology now and in the future to help ensure that this situation doesn't happen again. It's possible some of it is just because it's topical and won't actually eventuate. It's possible it won't make the impact it's trying to. But this is the most critical part of this now for me, let's not have another one of these without doing something about it. Hopefully soon we'll see microchips in the ball.

 

[Bloods86]

I think it's time to move on from what could have happened in the game. It's not being changed. Satifying or not, it's concluded now. Whether anyone now individually thinks it's a goal or a behind is besides the point that it's obviously a controversy we could do without.

In my mind, there are two talking points left now:

Flow-on Effect for Adelaide
I hope Adelaide do not get fixture accomodations, but it will be interesting to see if they get financial ones. I don't really care about this one too much myself, I think it is what it is and we had plenty of opportunities that we didn't capitalise on. I don't think Nicks should be under pressure next season on the back of missing finals, but we'll have to wait and see how long the memory lasts.

Changes to the Game
As time goes by, I keep seeing more and more in the footy media about changes that are being made to the processes and technology now and in the future to help ensure that this situation doesn't happen again. It's possible some of it is just because it's topical and won't actually eventuate. It's possible it won't make the impact it's trying to. But this is the most critical part of this now for me, let's not have another one of these without doing something about it. Hopefully soon we'll see microchips in the ball.

I'm not even sure why the Crows think they could get financial or fixture accomodations. They aren't serious suggestions.

It would set a precedent that would create havoc for the AFL in future. An umpiring mistake leading to compensation, well every weekend a new club would be lining up.

Maybe the Crows pursue it still, maybe they hold more sway than other interstate clubs, but it usually doesn't end well if you piss off AFL House.

Definitely technology changes and review process enforcements are needed. Agree, Nicks shouldn't be under pressure, but the Crows would want to win a few more away games and a few more wins in general. Finals would be the pass mark.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

It really is time to move on guys. What's done is done. Adelaide will use this as fuel for 2024.