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

[chazwazza]

Of course there isn't.

What can happen though is improving the system and technology that's currently in place which has barely been improved over the last 10 seasons, unlike with cricket and hawkeye in tennis the systems in place have always been improved since it was put in place.

Improvement to the MCG standard that still offers up non definitive outcomes?
This is complaining for the sake of it.

 

[El_Scorcho]

There’s no technology that will give you a perfect system, there’s too many variables, angles and area to be covered. There’s no such thing.

There isn't, but other sports manage to get a hell of a lot closer than this.

The camera footage available of the goalpost was manifestly inadequate. This is a massive sports league, a billion dollar industry. Have a second goal umpire at each end or invest in high quality cameras for the posts so these decisions are easy.

 

[Papa G]

Why is this thread still going? (well I can see the bottom feeders who are posting so I guess there is the answer).

The Crows won. They have the 4 points, that ain't changing.

What does need to change is that if we are going to have a goal review system, we need to have one that actually works properly. "Inconclusive" or just plain wrong decisions to me don't really seem like the system is working at all.

 

[chazwazza]

There isn't, but other sports manage to get a hell of a lot closer than this.

The camera footage available of the goalpost was manifestly inadequate. This is a massive sports league, a billion dollar industry. Have a second goal umpire at each end or invest in high quality cameras for the posts so these decisions are easy.

You’re kidding yourself if you think either of these things will make things easier or better.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Improvement to the MCG standard that still offers up non definitive outcomes?
This is complaining for the sake of it.

Or improving the technology like cricket, soccer, tennis, American football and every other big money major sport has.

 

[El_Scorcho]

You’re kidding yourself if you think either of these things will make things easier or better.

If you don't think better quality, higher frame rate camera footage trained on the goalface would make a difference to goal reviews, I'm not really sure what else to say to you.

 

[chazwazza]

Or improving the technology like cricket, soccer, tennis, American football and every other big money major sport has.

I can’t comment on American Football as I don’t watch it. As for cricket and tennis the technology is centred mainly on a small static area where the play is focused, in tennis it’s the court with cameras and sensors around a small area and rarely hampered by the competitors getting in its way. In cricket it’s mainly focused on the pitch, again focusing on a small area. Obviously there’s catches that are looked at also and this can be as inconclusive as goal review, in this case it goes back to the umpires decision.
Soccer tried VAR and it wasn’t overly conclusive.

In footy there’s players running everywhere, numerous umpires and runners, play happening in all angles and balls kicked from different areas and angles often touched off the boot 40m-50m out, how do you expect this to be reviewed? It is so chaotic and on such an expansive playing field it is nearly impossible to implement. Nothing definitive will ever happen.

From many years of judging and operating photo finish cameras and programmes at horse races I have some understanding of how technology can help judge outcomes but still has its limitations, again, this is judging an outcome in a very small and defined area and it will still have its issues.

 

[chazwazza]

If you don't think better quality, higher frame rate camera footage trained on the goalface would make a difference to goal reviews, I'm not really sure what else to say to you.

Yes it would make a difference, much of a difference is debatable. Do you think these cameras have made anything more definitive at the MCG?

 

[Sanders]

So have Port produced their secret footage proving it hit the post yet?

Or is it filed with their secret footage proving SPP was framed?

Filed in bullshit, we-made-it-up, land

 

[Sanders]

Kochie in on the act now too?

Where is this magical footage they are using to say it was wrong? Why don't Port release it so we can all see it clearly hit the post?

You know why

 

[Sanders]

Why is this thread still going? (well I can see the bottom feeders who are posting so I guess there is the answer).

The Crows won. They have the 4 points, that ain't changing.

What does need to change is that if we are going to have a goal review system, we need to have one that actually works properly. "Inconclusive" or just plain wrong decisions to me don't really seem like the system is working at all.

The system worked perfectly.

Perfectly

 

[ok.crows]

What does need to change is that if we are going to have a goal review system, we need to have one that actually works properly. "Inconclusive" or just plain wrong decisions to me don't really seem like the system is working at all.

The system worked fine. The goal umpire was in line with the flight of the ball and it passed directly over his head, so he was in a perfect position to make a call. He called a goal, but he knew it was a close call, so he asked to have it confirmed. The video review found zero evidence his call was wrong, so they confirmed his call.

Where is the problem? The correct call was made ... not once but twice. Firstly by the goal umpire (who was in the best position of anyone just 3m away from the goalpost and directly in line with the ball flight), and then again by the video review.

The only person who was wrong was Jenkins who apparently thought it might have hit the post.

So in what way exactly do you contend that the system was not working?

 

[Sanders]

If you don't think better quality, higher frame rate camera footage trained on the goalface would make a difference to goal reviews, I'm not really sure what else to say to you.

Where you go wrong, and you are wrong, is your biased premise that there was something wrong to find.

There is zero evidence, even in hindsight to suggest a mistake was made.

That a mistake couldn’t be found, even though in your heart you know there must have been one, is evidence that the technology and the people aren’t good enough to find what you so desperately want to be true

There isn’t even a question mark here, not a whimper of doubt that the wrong outcome occurred.

A perfectly placed, trained official made his call. The footage inspected by another perfectly placed, trained official agreed that there was nothing to suggest a wrong call had been made

We’re not even left with a mistake to lament. The right call was made, the right way

 

[El_Scorcho]

Where you go wrong, and you are wrong, is your biased premise that there was something wrong to find.

There is zero evidence, even in hindsight to suggest a mistake was made.

That a mistake couldn’t be found, even though in your heart you know there must have been one, is evidence that the technology and the people aren’t good enough to find what you so desperately want to be true

There isn’t even a question mark here, not a whimper of doubt that the wrong outcome occurred.

A perfectly placed, trained official made his call. The footage inspected by another perfectly placed, trained official agreed that there was nothing to suggest a wrong call had been made

We’re not even left with a mistake to lament. The right call was made, the right way

Not really sure why you quoted me because I didn't say any of the words that you're putting into my mouth.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Where you go wrong, and you are wrong, is your biased premise that there was something wrong to find.

There is zero evidence, even in hindsight to suggest a mistake was made.

That a mistake couldn’t be found, even though in your heart you know there must have been one, is evidence that the technology and the people aren’t good enough to find what you so desperately want to be true

There isn’t even a question mark here, not a whimper of doubt that the wrong outcome occurred.

A perfectly placed, trained official made his call. The footage inspected by another perfectly placed, trained official agreed that there was nothing to suggest a wrong call had been made

We’re not even left with a mistake to lament. The right call was made, the right way

You know what, my last post wasn't strong enough.

You're an idiot.

I posted that we needed better technology because the available technology is insufficient, you quote my post and say that I'm wrong, then go on to say that there is no doubt that the right outcome occured, something I wasn't posting about.

You might be the only person in the country who is sure whether the ball hit the post or not, because nobody else is arguing about the right outcome occuring. We're arguing about whether the technology and process followed allows for the right outcome to occur.

 

[MrChow]

What would be A cheap technological fix is embedding small lapel microphones 30-40 cms apart the whole length of the post on the inside of each post. Each microphone would pick up the sound/vibration of any ball hitting the post.

They could use a snicko display to show it.

They could also cross check it, with the timing of each microphone to ensure they got the right sound, as the further the ball is away from a microphone the longer sound takes to travel.

 

[chazwazza]

What would be A cheap technological fix is embedding small lapel microphones 30-40 cms apart the whole length of the post on the inside of each post. Each microphone would pick up the sound/vibration of any ball hitting the post.

They could use a snicko display to show it.

They could also cross check it, with the timing of each microphone to ensure they got the right sound, as the further the ball is away from a microphone the longer sound takes to travel.

Oh FFS.
How do they go out in the weather?
How do they differentiate between the ball hitting it and anything else?
How does it define a touched ball?
What about around the padding?
What if the ball goes higher than the goal post?
Here’s 5 legitimate issues off the top of my head that can arise from your suggested “fix”, which it isn’t. There are no fixes as there’s too many variables, nothing is perfect.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Oh FFS.
How do they go out in the weather?
How do they differentiate between the ball hitting it and anything else?
How does it define a touched ball?
What about around the padding?
What if the ball goes higher than the goal post?
Here’s 5 legitimate issues off the top of my head that can arise from your suggested “fix”, which it isn’t. There are no fixes as there’s too many variables, nothing is perfect.

Your whole attitude towards this is so dumb.

"We can never make it perfect so let's not do anything".

Why not work towards making it as good as we possibly can?

 

[Power Raid]

If Ollie kicked the goal this issue would be a moot point

Further if port can’t beat the crows, they aren’t a finals contender

 

[chazwazza]

Your whole attitude towards this is so dumb.

"We can never make it perfect so let's not do anything".

Why not work towards making it as good as we possibly can?

It’s not dumb, it’s called being realistic. The sooner you realise that the perfect solution you are crying out for is unattainable the better.
You haven’t answered my previous question.
Do you think the higher frame rate cameras at the MCG has stopped wrong decisions being made? If so by what percentage?

 

[El_Scorcho]

It’s not dumb, it’s called being realistic. The sooner you realise that the perfect solution you are crying out for is unattainable the better.
You haven’t answered my previous question.
Do you think the higher frame rate cameras at the MCG has stopped wrong decisions being made? If so by what percentage?

I don't have the stats in front of me.

Better quality cameras by definition are more likely to be able to tell us definitively whether a ball hit a post or not.

Hell, Channel 7 have just inherited a sport that uses super slow motion and hot spot. Either of those will pretty much solve the poster issue moving forward.

Why does it have to be perfect? I'd be happy with not shit. Is it wrong to strive for adequate?

 

[Jakksynn]

Yeah our current goal review system may as well be non existent for all the good it does. Instead of using channel 7s shit quality cameras for goal reviews, maybe specialised high quality cameras would make things a bit less controversial. But hey what do I know

 

[MrChow]

It’s not dumb, it’s called being realistic. The sooner you realise that the perfect solution you are crying out for is unattainable the better.
You haven’t answered my previous question.
Do you think the higher frame rate cameras at the MCG has stopped wrong decisions being made? If so by what percentage?

My solution would have sorted out the Jenkins goal/point. Higher frame rate and greater resolution cameras would sort out others.

Don't be afraid of technology, if you learn how to use it, and learn how to think creatively, you might find life opens up to you.

 

[MrChow]

What about a conductive double skin on all surfaces of the goal posts. There is conductive paint, so some form of skin and spacer should be possible. When the ball hits the outer layer, it connects to the inner layer sending a signal via an electrode of some sort. Different parts of the posts could be coded, cross checked with vision to identify ball/player impact

 

[Golumless]

That was hilarious.