- Thread starter
- #7,726
Dogs have lost the plot.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m tuning in and they are winning.Of course Hawthorn plays like garbage now
If you needed anymore proof of teams “getting up” for us, then tune into the Hawks Dogs game
Why are the Daicos family tut tutting that comment?The footy gods waggle their finger and sternly tut tut at your scorn.
The reason for this is because the vision is good enough to give a definitive answer. It's not for most AFL calls, definitely on touched ball calls.Cricket uses different protocols for different situations. For run outs and stumpings, which are probably the most similar in that the umpire is the one calling for the review, there is no soft signal and it's totally decided by the third umpire.
Catches are the other one where they don't use umpires call. Although they're always controversial too and cricket are only beginning to work it out.The reason for this is because the vision is good enough to give a definitive answer. It's not for most AFL calls, definitely on touched ball calls.
Originally it was a behind if they could not tell definitely that it was a goal. They then changed it so that umpires had to make a call and defaulted to the umpires call if the vision was indeterminate. Personally l prefer the current method where the umpires make a call and it can only be overturned if the vision is clear to overturn.Catches are the other one where they don't use umpires call. Although they're always controversial too and cricket are only beginning to work it out.
The issue with the umpires call rule is that the umpire has to make a call either way, even when they have sent it upstairs, because they don't know whether it was touched or not. Personally, I'd like the goal to get the benefit of the doubt. If it hasn't clearly been touched it should be a goal, just as it's a mark if someone might have got a finger in before it was caught.
I’m tuning in and they are winning.
Originally it was a behind if they could not tell definitely that it was a goal. They then changed it so that umpires had to make a call and defaulted to the umpires call if the vision was indeterminate. Personally l prefer the current method where the umpires make a call and it can only be overturned if the vision is clear to overturn.
You're in some bad form. I hope you're not a punter.They won
First quarter they played like absolute shite.
Depends..... who is playing would change my viewI don't mind it for whether it's crossed the line or not. I think that's where using umpire's call is fine if the vision is inconclusive, but whether or not the player got a finger to it well inside the line, the umpire has sent it upstairs because they don't know - just go by the footage, and if you can't see it clearly touched - call it a goal.
A Lott of worry about Carlton round here, they won’t do damage in September.
When the whips are cracking they will crumble.
It’s actually good they will make it as it will be sweet when they win 10 in a row then lose the elimination final.
Port on their way to a 10 goal win.Yep I posted about that. We need to lose our last 2 by an average of just under 10 goals and port would need to win by an average of about 10 goals. Incredibly unlikely as I have said. But unlikely doesn’t equal impossible. I do agree it won’t happen though.
Yeah thought the same, pretty bog average bottom of the 8.I don’t think anybody in the bottom half of the eight will do any damage. The only decent team outside the top four is Geelong and their season is almost cooked.
Looks like a 10+ winPort on their way to a 10 goal win.
Some of the plodders we've kept (who'll be cut at the end of the year anyway) should have gone before him.Poulter having a Good Game