Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 25

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I could be having a Mandela moment here.

Does anyone else remember the first score review called? The umpire wasn't sure, so called a review, and the review was inconclusive, so they palmed it off back to the umpire. There was no contingency in place if the review was inconclusive, so the umpire didn't make a call first. Everyone stood around for a minute with their dicks in their hands because no one knew what to do.

After they they implemented the 'soft call'.

It's hilarious that it wasn't planned for. Who are these people working at the AFL?

Sent from my Nokia 7.2 using Tapatalk
 
they made a grand final and subsequently won their first premiership on the back of a dubious goal umpire decision. I'd say the Crows are well in front on the bad-decision-ometer
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Channel 7 has been caught up in a fake social media post that claims Adelaide’s controversial loss to Sydney could be replayed.
The post emerged on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday morning and immediately spread, claiming that the Crows — who were denied a goal after there was no goal review conducted on a late Ben Keays kick that the goal umpire, who has been stood down, called as hitting the post — and Sydney “will be made to replay the final 71 seconds of their Round 23 match behind closed doors … during the pre-finals bye”.
But the network is adamant that the post is a fake. The post included a graphic “explainer” which said teams would play at Adelaide Oval on September 1.
 
On one of the FOX shows they showed that Callum Mills hit the goal post padding with his hand at the exact moment the ball passed the post. This is obviously what the goal umpire heard and since it was extremely close to the post he must've thought he didn't need a review because it seemed obvious to him that it hit it.

They also brought up an interesting solution, which is it gets reviewed automatically and if it was found to be wrong, they simply inform the umpire at the next stoppage and the time resets. Apparently the NHL already does this. Given it would rarely happen we wouldn't often see this, but just the fact that they have the capability to do it would seem to be a reasonable solution. Now just put 120fps 4K cameras on the goal line and we'll be set.
 
On one of the FOX shows they showed that Callum Mills hit the goal post padding with his hand at the exact moment the ball passed the post. This is obviously what the goal umpire heard and since it was extremely close to the post he must've thought he didn't need a review because it seemed obvious to him that it hit it.

They also brought up an interesting solution, which is it gets reviewed automatically and if it was found to be wrong, they simply inform the umpire at the next stoppage and the time resets. Apparently the NHL already does this. Given it would rarely happen we wouldn't often see this, but just the fact that they have the capability to do it would seem to be a reasonable solution. Now just put 120fps 4K cameras on the goal line and we'll be set.
Four drones, one hovering 15m above each post, camera pointed directly down. Have two sets, swap em over at each quarter break so they don't go flat during play.
 
Perfect opportunity to change the whole damn rule.

If it goes through the goals, regardless of whether it hits the post on the way through (ya know, like every other code), it's a goal. If it hits a post 'flush' and rebounds onto the field, it's play on.

How much more exciting would it be. Let alone how many more goals would be scored in a game.
 
Absolutely a deviation on that angle. Not necessarily from hitting the post, but there is.

Goal umpire half vindicated.

No there isn’t. It’s just the arc of the kick.

I love how they zoom in on the ball like they’ve cracked the case without any regard for the third dimension. It’s probably gone 5m past the post by that point.
 
No there isn’t. It’s just the arc of the kick.

I love how they zoom in on the ball like they’ve cracked the case without any regard for the third dimension. It’s probably gone 5m past the post by that point.
spy-kids-lemme-zoom-in-on-that.gif
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Perfect opportunity to change the whole damn rule.

If it goes through the goals, regardless of whether it hits the post on the way through (ya know, like every other code), it's a goal. If it hits a post 'flush' and rebounds onto the field, it's play on.

How much more exciting would it be. Let alone how many more goals would be scored in a game.
Let’s trial this during next year in the 2024 pre season’s Ansett Cup games!
 
Channel 7 has been caught up in a fake social media post that claims Adelaide’s controversial loss to Sydney could be replayed.
The post emerged on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday morning and immediately spread, claiming that the Crows — who were denied a goal after there was no goal review conducted on a late Ben Keays kick that the goal umpire, who has been stood down, called as hitting the post — and Sydney “will be made to replay the final 71 seconds of their Round 23 match behind closed doors … during the pre-finals bye”.
But the network is adamant that the post is a fake. The post included a graphic “explainer” which said teams would play at Adelaide Oval on September 1.
 
The League last week sent a survey to all clubs asking for feedback on a range of list management and player movement ideas and concepts.
Included within that was the possibility of an additional list spot for veterans which, if approved, would allow clubs to have one veteran listed outside of the primary list. The idea has been put forward as the AFL revisit a veterans list to avoid other players being forced into premature retirement due to their club's having a list squeeze.
The criteria put forward by the AFL in the scenario is the player would have to be over 32 years old and to have served at least 10 years at that same club, with his money still being included in the salary cap.
List sizes should be expanded by 2 over the next 2 years and cut again when the 19th team is introduced.
 
Perfect opportunity to change the whole damn rule.

If it goes through the goals, regardless of whether it hits the post on the way through (ya know, like every other code), it's a goal. If it hits a post 'flush' and rebounds onto the field, it's play on.

How much more exciting would it be. Let alone how many more goals would be scored in a game.
Genuine question on this scenario - if a player has a shot after the siren and it hits the post and bounces back onto the field is this then no score?

I would think that if a player is having a shot after the siren to win a game with scores tied, the ball hit the post and was considered no score there'd be just as much outcry generated (though, far less funny unless it was Adelaide again).
 
Absolutely a deviation on that angle. Not necessarily from hitting the post, but there is.

Goal umpire half vindicated.

From that angle you can see why the umpire was sure it hit the post.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top