Port Adelaide lose by 3 points after a wrong Goal Review against the Crows in the dying stages

[Rotayjay]

Dunno why Crows fans are bothering to defend this so strongly, you had a shitty decision go your way- take it and move on, it happens. Doesn't mean you deserve the 4 points any less because umpiring mistakes happen regularly in every single game.

Happens in every sport and in every controversial official decision. Unless it's absolutely as clear as day, you always get the winning fans defending the decision to the death and the losing fans swearing black and blue that it was wrong.

We don't deserve to play finals, that's for sure.

 

[Norwood1878]

I think a very simple solution to knowing whether a ball hit the post or not would be to have a heavy coat of any colour paint not white, then put a very thin easily rubbed off layer of white paint over the top.

So that any contact with the post would remove the thin layer of paint where it struck. (might not work in the rain)

The ball could realistically touch the same area of post numerous times throughout a game. Outside the box thinking though. It would simply have to come down to better cameras and positioning in the end.
Lots of frees/50 meter pens end up putting players in front of goals too, these should also be open to VAR, It becomes a farce in the end.

 

[twiggy4PM]

Dunno why Crows fans are bothering to defend this so strongly, you had a shitty decision go your way- take it and move on, it happens. Doesn't mean you deserve the 4 points any less because umpiring mistakes happen regularly in every single game.

Probably because so many people are so insistent that it went through the behinds not between the goals when it obviously didn't and once the goal umpire called it a goal there is no conclusive evidence to overturn that decision.

Its entertaining to watch people sook with so much salt.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Doesn't tennis allow a slight graze of the net as long as the ball still goes into the opponent's court?

Its a free re-serve if so. Works brilliant. Just like their line calls. Though must be said Federer isn't a fan.

 

[BigRed87]

Umpires call. Move on. Stop whining.

 

[quotemokc]

The ball could realistically touch the same area of post numerous times throughout a game. Outside the box thinking though. It would simply have to come down to better cameras and positioning in the end.
Lots of frees/50 meter pens end up putting players in front of goals too, these should also be open to VAR, It becomes a farce in the end.

Have a man with a spray can on a stick for quick touch ups

 

[BigRed87]

The goal is a non issue. The umpire called a goal and the video did not show enough to prove he was wrong.

Finally, some sense! The only mistake that was made was the fact the video umpire called it a goal rather than umpires call.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The only mistake the video reviewer made was saying "goal" instead of "umpires call". But the same result would have come out of it.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Finally, some sense! The only mistake that was made was the fact the video umpire called it a goal rather than umpires call.

SNAP!!!

 

[Norwood1878]

Have a man with a spray can on a stick for quick touch ups

 

[BigRed87]

Port lost the game because of that goal review decision. Not because they had 22 less inside 50s, 17 less contested possessions, 18 less tackles, 10 less clearances and were overall outplayed.

 

[Holy Rioli]

Field umpire called a goal. There was no replay available that could suggest otherwise unfortunately.

Yet the ****ers could find every touched ball off the boot at the MCG.

 

[mick500]

Finally, some sense! The only mistake that was made was the fact the video umpire called it a goal rather than umpires call.

Maybe that wasn’t even a mistake. Maybe with the vision he saw he saw it as a clear goal.

 

[Norwood1878]

Port officials have already dubbed it "the magic Sherrin theory" and are searching for the man on the grassy knoll or as it's otherwise known as "the Hill" seen with a Hasseblad filming the game.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Maybe that wasn’t even a mistake. Maybe with the vision he saw he saw it as a clear goal.

No, it should have been umpires call. The third umpire needs to be 100% certain before making an absolute ruling. Not that it would have made any difference to the result (in this case). I wonder if he would have overruled the goal umpire if he'd called a point? I doubt it myself.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

Did it hit the post? Did it miss? Did it pass through the goals? Through the behind? Is Jenkins truthful? Is it the ultimate troll?

So many mysteries. What truly mystifies me. The one I’ve kept pondering...

How does a bloke being paid bucketloads kick the middle of the ball on a snap from 20m out which would’ve surely sewn the game up. Obviously talking about Wines.

Let’s break it down further. Let’s say he’s conservatively on $500k a season.

Plays 20 games. That’s a solid $25k a game. The guy averages 12.5 kicks a game. Which means each kick he takes is worth a staggering $2k.

That 1 kick is worth substantially more then some bloke sitting in front of a screen getting paid peanuts to make rulings in a 5-10 second window.

However what is clear. What’s not up for debate. Is that Ollie Wines can’t kick.

Staggering.

Doubles Wines' salary and you'll be closer to the mark. That was an almighty balls up.

 

[Taylor]

Great chance for the AFL here to tart up the game.

Have the balls carry a contact charge so if they touch the post the entire thing lights up red like it's big bash cricket.

Or even worse, sensors between all the posts that will detect where the ball travelled and light up the two posts ether side of the scored zone.

 

[gordo2016]

Jenkin's clearly says "Hit the post" when the first player came to hug and congratulate him. Captured in one of the shots. He knew then and wasn't afraid to say so after. point and restart.

Just because Jenkins thought it hit it hit the post, does not mean that it did. As an ex goal umpire, there was a number of times a player would say to me " I thought I missed that" after I had given it a goal. Players make mistakes when they are caught up in the heat of a close game. The answer is simple. If the ball hits the post and goes through the goals, it is a goal. If it hits the post and goes through the points, it is a behind. If it hits the post and comes back into play, it is play on. This is one rule change the AFL should make.

 

[oak79]

Jenkin's clearly says "Hit the post" when the first player came to hug and congratulate him. Captured in one of the shots. He knew then and wasn't afraid to say so after. You play to the rules and the umpire called it a goal and replays were a joke. They could have got better angles and enough vision to see it deviating off the post. However you play to the rules and instead of mega bucks being thrown at technology, perhaps a timely rule change would be better.

I like the suggestion it doesn't matter if it hits the post and still goes through. Then it is a goal. Like every other sport where it hits a post and goes through. If it hits and bounces back into play or through the point post, then stop play, call it a point and restart.

That's one rule change I'd be in favour of. If it goes in, it goes in! Same with the behind post - If it goes through after hitting it, it's a point, if it goes out, it's on the full.

Though if it hits the goal post and stays in, that should be a behind as normal. Imagine a shot after the siren hitting the goal post and not counting as a score.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[oak79]

I'm with you , hopefully that means a retrospective derby win for us

If it bounces back into play ' play on ' for a bit of excitement as well


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

It was touched by Cox as well as hitting the post - so still a behind sorry - still has to come off the boot. No extra derby win for you!

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[magpienato]

Which grand finals are they mate? From memory Wellingham hit the post in 2011 but it was paid a goal....

1979 Grand Final, ball was clearly out of bounds. And 2002 Granny Rocca was rubbed out for a hit as soft as butter. No doubt with the game that close he would've made the difference.

 

[magpienato]

lol it's a terrible analogy anyway, but that is exactly what happens; when a defendant pleads guilty (the equivalent here of Jenkins admitting it hit the post) we 'take their word' and sentence them.

If they plead not guilty then all evidence is examined to come to a verdict.

Neither of the above processes remotely resemble the farce that happened last night.

You're just beating the bush here mate, you know exactly what I mean. Ignore the analogy and take it at face value. Instead of trusting the process of a score review as well as multiple umpires views, you decide to trust the word of a player who had no view of the ball at all, was not in a position to see whether the ball did or did not hit the post? If so then that's just pathetic reasoning you have there. Let's just turn the clock back and go back to no umps and the captains made the calls, what could go wrong?

 

[mick500]

No, it should have been umpires call. The third umpire needs to be 100% certain before making an absolute ruling. Not that it would have made any difference to the result (in this case). I wonder if he would have overruled the goal umpire if he'd called a point? I doubt it myself.

Well that’s both our points. The decision if the umpire had called it a point would have been overruled to goal based on the 3rd umpires ruling. Maybe that’s how he saw it. As a clear goal.

 

[melanChronic]

You're just beating the bush here mate, you know exactly what I mean. Ignore the analogy and take it at face value. Instead of trusting the process of a score review as well as multiple umpires views, you decide to trust the word of a player who had no view of the ball at all, was not in a position to see whether the ball did or did not hit the post? If so then that's just pathetic reasoning you have there. Let's just turn the clock back and go back to no umps and the captains made the calls, what could go wrong?

No, I'm saying that comparing last nights review 'process' to a court of law is ridiculous.
If you are happy to ignore it now then so am I.

 

[ozaddy]

Port have footage of it hitting post and believe score review guy didn't use all footage. Big afl cover up. That's just back fired.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk