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

[blue harvest]

Jenkins' opinion isn't really relevant.
As well as looking at replays in his 23 seconds, is the reviewer also meant to lip read all the players in the area?
What if Jenkins thinks it hit the post, another player thinks it didn't hit the post, another player thinks it didn't even go through the goals, another one has no idea? Which one does he use? Does he do a poll of players? How much weight do the players' opinions get compared with the goal umpire? What about the field umpire or the people in the front row?

 

[JP Sauce]

Jenkins' opinion isn't really relevant.
As well as looking at replays in his 23 seconds, is the reviewer also meant to lip read all the players in the area?
What if Jenkins thinks it hit the post, another player thinks it didn't hit the post, another player thinks it didn't even go through the goals, another one has no idea? Which one does he use? Does he do a poll of players? How much weight do the players' opinions get compared with the goal umpire? What about the field umpire or the people in the front row?

I was on the hill and thought it was a goal. Most around me did too. Our opinions matter!

Therefore it’s a clear goal.

 

[Craze]

Really feel for Port. After last year's effort by Shuey to initiate high contact and drop to his knees, and now this. Robbed in two crucial games. I'd be ropable if it were the Tiges.

 

[blue harvest]

This is farcical because it can only have been a deliberate decision to_not_undertake a review of the proportions required using multiple angles, when one considers the context.

Both team should be given two points

There was still well over 2 minutes of play left. Crows may have kicked 2 more, or Port 3 more, nobody knows. Unless it's the last play of the day then nobody knows.
At the G yesterday there were 3 goals inside the last 2 minutes.

 

[Norwood1878]

Jenkins' opinion isn't really relevant.
As well as looking at replays in his 23 seconds, is the reviewer also meant to lip read all the players in the area?
What if Jenkins thinks it hit the post, another player thinks it didn't hit the post, another player thinks it didn't even go through the goals, another one has no idea? Which one does he use? Does he do a poll of players? How much weight do the players' opinions get compared with the goal umpire? What about the field umpire or the people in the front row?

Exactly. Next Ken will be asking why he can't see any stars and suggesting multiple light sources and trickery for the shadow on the goal side of the post.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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

 

[Starburns_]

All this talk of improving the technology is amusing, there are over a dozen camera angles used at each game. What more do people want, drones hovering directly above each goal post?

I will move on when the afl can show me that it didn't hit the post.

They don't have to do this. The goal umpire made a decision, the video review was used to check the accuracy of the call, no evidence that it hit the post was provided, so the call from the person in the best position stood.

The greater 'injustice' would have been were the Crows stripped of the goal despite a lack of evidence. But I don't expect the melty Port supporters to understand that.

 

[blue harvest]

The fact there are people on here saying it definitely deviated and then people saying they didn't see any deviation, and there are even people saying it didn't pass through the goals - this just all shows it was inconclusive and the correct call made.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Didn't they try that at first then all umpires calls ended up as behinds because it wasn't a goal?

They have never done it that way.

 

[From The Pocket]

They have never done it that way.

Might have only been NAB Cup

 

[tonygeeks]

The replay they used during the telecast was unclear but there is another camera shot where the ball clearly deviates and flicking the post alters the ball spin


I couldn't give a toss who won

Great game though , hopefully the Freo boys can dig in and give us a derby to match


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ozaddy]

Lol

What is so funny, why can't we see all the "relevant angles"

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Norwood1878]

 

[ozaddy]

The replay they used during the telecast was unclear but there is another camera shot where the ball clearly deviates and flicking the post alters the ball spin


I couldn't give a toss who won


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

Which is what the commentators must have seen as they were pretty adamant it hit the post

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[jimbob12]

View attachment 538371

Do they have a camera on the scaffolding behind the goals? Where is that footage.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Norwood1878]

Do they have a camera on the scaffolding behind the goals? Where is that footage.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Do you think some other footage would magically show the ball going behind the post or that it changes direction?

 

[1990crow]

Next port fans will be asking for footage from the man on the grassy knoll.

 

[BlueE]

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.

 

[ozaddy]

Do you think some other footage would magically show the ball going behind the post or that it changes direction?

The video reviewer didn't say umpires call, so the footage should be quite obvious that it missed. That's all we are asking to see. Why can't we see that and why wasn't it broadcast?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[falcons2]

As frustrating as it is, you cant control the umpiring decisions. Its tough, but Wines missed an absolute soda from 10m out that would have put Port 16 points up with about 5-6 minutes to play. This was the variable Port had control over and they fluffed it!
As for goal review I am 100% against it. There are dozens of instances in each game that on reviewing may lead to a change in umpiring decision so why only for a goal. For example, a forward pushes the defender in the middle of the back in the goal square. Forward marks, turns and goals. On review it is a text book infringement but its outside the scope of goal review so its a goal.

 

[1990crow]

The video reviewer didn't say umpires call, so the footage should be quite obvious that it missed. That's all we are asking to see. Why can't we see that and why wasn't it broadcast?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Rubbish. All views showed inconclusive. Reverted to umpires call. It really isn’t that difficult.

 

[ozaddy]

It wasn't umpires call, they showed it as a goal

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[tonygeeks]

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.

So Ballas DID win the derby that time Haha I knew it


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ozaddy]

Rubbish. All views showed inconclusive. Reverted to umpires call. It really isn’t that difficult.

What all views? Did I blink and miss them showing other views?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[Cobbler]

Do you think if you guys argue for another 20 pages the AFL will take the decision back and allow you to play the remaining time again?