Laura Kane - Does Not Impress Me At All !!

[Coach_Required]

I wish this was true, but I really think the AFL couldn't care less.

I have to agree, you only have to look at their defence of the non 50 call 30 mins ago.

They want no accountability for any mistake they make.

 

[Cyclonus]

She's a cretin. As bad as a politician. That crap today about the umpiring was disgusting.

 

[Coach_Required]

"You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid.“

That is the most laughable explanation I’ve ever heard. The stand call has never indicated that a mark has been paid, the whistle does. They will only say stand when a player has made the choice to either man the mark, or if the player hasn’t immediately started to back out of the 5m zone to force them to stand.

We’ve seen plenty of 50’s that have occurred before the stand call has been made anyways from players going over the mark. This is just patently wrong as an explanation

100%

 

[blinkd]

I have to agree, you only have to look at their defence of the non 50 call 30 mins ago.

They want no accountability for any mistake they make.

I'm not sure how it can change. I guess it's down to the clubs and AFLPA to oppose these issues.

 

[Bostonian]

The review happened immediately post draft last year, where GC took advantage of it.

Not unreasonable to assume it was gonna come into play the following year.

You know what they say about assuming...

You shouldn't need to be assuming anything in a well ran organisation.

 

[Roosurgence]

She would have been better off quoting the Castle……

It was the vibe, it’s Mabo, but it’s mostly the vibe LOL

I’m not sure how anyone could sit in front of a camera and deliver that statement without bursting out in laughter at the absurdity of it.

Sticking with the line that the vision on the goal decision was inconclusive was the cherry on top.

Every news outlet in the land has shown the vision and agreed the ball was touched. Pick the odd clown out who is still trying to tell everyone it’s inconclusive? If that’s inconclusive then they sure have made a lot of calls on inconclusive vision this year.

 

[ep12]

The whole AFL management team needs an overhaul.
Hopefully when Goyder retires we will see external people that haven't been groomed by the AFL to become minions take charge.
Would be nice if trhe head of footy ops was someone who has both played and coached the game.

Imo, Daisy Pearce a far better resume for the job than Laura Kane if they more females in management. Could also just pick the best candidate for the job but we don't live in that world anymore.

 

[TW Sherrin]

"You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid.“

That is the most laughable explanation I’ve ever heard. The stand call has never indicated that a mark has been paid, the whistle does. They will only say stand when a player has made the choice to either man the mark, or if the player hasn’t immediately started to back out of the 5m zone to force them to stand.

We’ve seen plenty of 50’s that have occurred before the stand call has been made anyways from players going over the mark. This is just patently wrong as an explanation

she's kidding herself with that. say it was a mistake and people will move on.

doubling down like this makes her look stupid.

 

[tiger_tough]

 

[Roosurgence]

she's is kidding herself with that. say it was a mistake and people will move on.

doubling down like this makes her look stupid.

I think the vision is conclusive, she’s a window licker.

 

[grugyeah]

she's is kidding herself with that. say it was a mistake and people will move on.

doubling down like this makes her look stupid.

I feel for the umpires here, it would be better for them to just say it was a mistake.

Now they are going to have to be so sharp on calling stand for the next week or so... which is frustrating as the stand rule had finally reached a stage where a little common sense came into it, allowing for one or two small steps.

 

[smasha]

Umpies will take it out on Richmond.
Hopefully the bye settles em down but doubt it.

 

[Coach_Required]

The public has spoken.

 

[Drew23]

Laura Kane has all but confirmed the afl is corrupt today. She can see either side of the touched behind not being called? His fingers almost detached from his hand as the ball when past. I'm excited for the three rule changes brought in from next week:

1. consistent with netball where a player is expected to stop on a dime after taking a mark or will get called for stepping.

2. Umpires are to interpret a players assumptions as part of their decision making process and if the players assumptions differed from what actually occurred no free kick or penalty against the player will be awarded.

3. The score review officer as part of their review process will consult their preferred gambling platform to ensure the decision aligns with the preferred match outcome.


North did not deserve to win after coughing up such a significant lead, however these decisions are baffling for any match whether a team is up by 100 points or one point
The most incompetent individual to ever occupy the role.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

The people at AFL house are absolute geniuses. They've chopped, changed and bastardised the laws of the game and made them so vague to the point that they can just waffle anything as a defense to the most egregious decisions and get away with it scot free.

 

[Epictetus]

The explanation is worse than the non decision.

You're essentially saying that the player on the mark can just assume that a player has played on and then charge him. Might as well send two blokes. Why not?

 

[Roosurgence]

Play on!

 

[tiger_tough]

The explanation is worse than the non decision.

You're essentially saying that the player on the mark can just assume that a player has played on and then charge him. Might as well send two blokes. Why not?

Pretty much. She's saying calling 'stand' is the indicator of a mark, not the whistle.

Its completely wrong. Truly bizarre.

 

[MarcMaverick]

Laura, get in the bin

 

[Roachy8]

So it would appear that there is a shift in interpretation...

If a player or players do not hear the whistle all subsequent actions become irrelevant.
If a player or players hear the whistle, but then believe a further decision was not made in time, players are allowed to ignore the umpires first whistle and not be penalised...

From Laura's own mouth today:

"So Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle. A really common discussion around players is play the whistle and when you hear it, wait for what's next. What's next didn't come quick enough so the confusion for those Collingwood players was what to do, as was probably the level of confusion that sat with Bailey himself.

That's right, players are taught to play the whistle, and when you hear it, wait for what's next...

 

[Daka]

I said in this thread she seems impressive but it seems it was all "talk" she is horrendous and needs to be sacked!

 

[MarcMaverick]

So it would appear that there is a shift in interpretation...

If a player or players do not hear the whistle all subsequent actions become irrelevant.
If a player or players hear the whistle, but then believe a further decision was not made in time, players are allowed to ignore the umpires first whistle and not be penalised...

From Laura's own mouth today:

"So Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle. A really common discussion around players is play the whistle and when you hear it, wait for what's next. What's next didn't come quick enough so the confusion for those Collingwood players was what to do, as was probably the level of confusion that sat with Bailey himself.

That's right, players are taught to play the whistle, and when you hear it, wait for what's next...

It's like she's asking kids "What sound does a sheep/cow/pig/dog/cat/chicken make?"

 

[Disco Dew]

What's next didn't come quick enough

She actually said that? I haven’t read through it all yet…so the ump call didn’t come quick enough so the players get to make the call themselves?

Right….

This once great game is genuinely ****ed

 

[Roosurgence]

It's like she's asking kids "What sound does a sheep/cow/pig/dog/cat/chicken make?"

 

[HairyO]

She would have been better off quoting the Castle……

It was the vibe, it’s Mabo, but it’s mostly the vibe LOL

I’m not sure how anyone could sit in front of a camera and deliver that statement without bursting out in laughter at the absurdity of it.

Sticking with the line that the vision on the goal decision was inconclusive was the cherry on top.

Every news outlet in the land has shown the vision and agreed the ball was touched. Pick the odd clown out who is still trying to tell everyone it’s inconclusive? If that’s inconclusive then they sure have made a lot of calls on inconclusive vision this year.

That is why she is well paid. As a lawyer she can lie through her teeth and doing everything that her employer expects of her.

Likely she gets a big bonus after this one.

That the post-game show jokingly correctly guessed her answers, with her being able to deliver with a straight face shows just how good she is. She takes the heat, next week another AFL **** up will replace this one and we will all move on to that shit show.

If you are going to be incompetent, be continually incompetent. Consistency matters.