Certified Legendary Thread Premiers 2016 - BULLIES DEF SWANS.. WE ARE THE CHAMPS!!!!!!!!!

[Fossie 32]

I've always liked the Swans, and likely still would even if we'd lost, but the efforts of their supporters and administrators to belittle and cheapen our premiership has burned through that good will.

What have their admin done?

 

[Doggies1972]

No , prefer them to emulate their efforts from the PF especially Cameron Shaw Mumford and Griffen.
And what about Patton when he took the short steps when he saw Wood coming at him. Weak.

I had to laugh. Shaw was even starting to go off when Dickson kicked that goal where he beat a two on one.... one of them Shaw. After he kicked it Shaw started going off at team mates who wern't even on screen/ in vicinity when he and his sidekick got pantsed.... Libba then shoved him off before he could go full blown ape shit.

 

[Dancing Dougy]

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but I find it quite odd that 3 out of the four finals we had a kick for goal after the siren... What are the odds on that??!!

 

[Dizzy Stuff]

Seriously, the most outrageous umpiring call of the GF actually went in the Swans' favour - the JJ score review. It still shits me that what should have been a classic moment was robbed of its significance. If that had been a momentum changer and we ended up losing the game, it literally would have gone down as one of the most disastrous umpiring decisions of all time.

Good thing Moz and Toydy combined for an even greater classic moment just a minute or two later.

 

[Floridog]

Seriously, there was nothing in the Wood-Hannebery clash. It was unfortunate that Hannebery picked up an injury but Wood was there first and didn't make contact below the knees.

If that was the most egregious example of umpire wrongdoing, they've got nothing to complain about.

The collective delusion has produced a few pearlers. The Swans dropped their heads because they knew the result was a foregone conclusion, the AFL went out of their way to ensure a Dogs flag before the GWS era, the AFL are favouring Victorian clubs, the umpires were variously paid to reach that result/paid to deliver a result fitting a narrative/caught up in the hype etc.

I've always liked the Swans, and likely still would even if we'd lost, but the efforts of their supporters and administrators to belittle and cheapen our premiership has burned through that good will.

I've watched that incident several times now and nobody seems to mention what appears very obvious to me. Even the MRP gets it wrong in my opinion. Hanneberry did not come straight on to the ball. On his last step he pivots almost 90 degrees on his right foot. I expect he was attempting to throw his hip into Wood as is a common tactic in these situations. However, he was a bit late and he ended up just sticking his leg in front of an already diving Wood. If Hanneberry had continued going straight on there would have been little contact and no discussion. Of course, I'm half a world away, so maybe by the time the video of this incident gets to me it has been slightly skewed by the planetary spin or something, but that's how it looked to me.

 

[gangsta deluxe]

Seriously, the most outrageous umpiring call of the GF actually went in the Swans' favour - the JJ score review. It still shits me that what should have been a classic moment was robbed of its significance. If that had been a momentum changer and we ended up losing the game, it literally would have gone down as one of the most disastrous umpiring decisions of all time.

Good thing Moz and Toydy combined for an even greater classic moment just a minute or two later.

The right thing happened in the end. That goal will be the defining memory of the grand final - like Chapman's snap, Leo Barry's mark, Hodge's goal early in the game last year, Milne's bounce. Each grand final has a defining moment (well most, 2007 didn't), and that one was one of the better grand final moments. The way he celebrated it was perfect, like a figure of Ancient Greek myth and legend.

It was a better goal than JJ's, who can pull goals like that out of his arse at will (and get injured doing them!).

 

[maddog37]

I've watched that incident several times now and nobody seems to mention what appears very obvious to me. Even the MRP gets it wrong in my opinion. Hanneberry did not come straight on to the ball. On his last step he pivots almost 90 degrees on his right foot. I expect he was attempting to throw his hip into Wood as is a common tactic in these situations. However, he was a bit late and he ended up just sticking his leg in front of an already diving Wood. If Hanneberry had continued going straight on there would have been little contact and no discussion. Of course, I'm half a world away, so maybe by the time the video of this incident gets to me it has been slightly skewed by the planetary spin or something, but that's how it looked to me.

I actually reckon Wood didn't dive he was just stronger over the ball. His momentum was minimal at the point of contact.

 

[Fossie 32]

Seriously, the most outrageous umpiring call of the GF actually went in the Swans' favour - the JJ score review. It still shits me that what should have been a classic moment was robbed of its significance. If that had been a momentum changer and we ended up losing the game, it literally would have gone down as one of the most disastrous umpiring decisions of all time.

Good thing Moz and Toydy combined for an even greater classic moment just a minute or two later.

I'm with you that the camera view was inconclusive [not in line with the goal line and the ball may have crossed the line between frames] so should have been a goal but what do you think was a problem technically with the decision?

 

[Dizzy Stuff]

I'm with you that the camera view was inconclusive [not in line with the goal line and the ball may have crossed the line between frames] so should have been a goal but what do you think was a problem technically with the decision?

Exactly what you identified. The vision was inconclusive. The very fact that people are still debating whether it was a goal, weeks after the event, proves that point.

The key frame shows that the tiniest possible sliver of the ball was above the line at the time Laidler (I think?) touched it. That's just not a sufficient margin to account for all the inaccuracies in the technology, and not at all how the rule was intended to be applied.

 

[yebiga]

T

I'm with you that the camera view was inconclusive [not in line with the goal line and the ball may have crossed the line between frames] so should have been a goal but what do you think was a problem technically with the decision?

no evidence the ball was touched
Infact there is an angle which clearly shows it was not touched at all

 

[Dizzy Stuff]

The right thing happened in the end. That goal will be the defining memory of the grand final - like Chapman's snap, Leo Barry's mark, Hodge's goal early in the game last year, Milne's bounce. Each grand final has a defining moment (well most, 2007 didn't), and that one was one of the better grand final moments. The way he celebrated it was perfect, like a figure of Ancient Greek myth and legend.

It was a better goal than JJ's, who can pull goals like that out of his arse at will (and get injured doing them!).

You're absolutely right. Part of my annoyance stems from the fact that I just listened to the 3aw commentary the other day, and Tim Lane's call of the JJ goal was fantastic (but now meaningless).

Boyd's goal and celebration will be ingrained in my mind forever though.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

The right thing happened in the end. That goal will be the defining memory of the grand final - like Chapman's snap, Leo Barry's mark, Hodge's goal early in the game last year, Milne's bounce. Each grand final has a defining moment (well most, 2007 didn't), and that one was one of the better grand final moments. The way he celebrated it was perfect, like a figure of Ancient Greek myth and legend.

It was a better goal than JJ's, who can pull goals like that out of his arse at will (and get injured doing them!).

Defining moment in the 2007 GF was the opening bounce...

 

[Fossie 32]

T

no evidence the ball was touched
Infact there is an angle which clearly shows it was not touched at all

Thought there was no doubt about that as it changed direction

 

[Fossie 32]

Exactly what you identified. The vision was inconclusive. The very fact that people are still debating whether it was a goal, weeks after the event, proves that point.

The key frame shows that the tiniest possible sliver of the ball was above the line at the time Laidler (I think?) touched it. That's just not a sufficient margin to account for all the inaccuracies in the technology, and not at all how the rule was intended to be applied.

Are you saying the video review was not intended to make such decisions unless it is conclusive? (Fair enough if so) One thing I don't follow is the suggestion that it's using a 2D image to interpret a 3D situation- I gather that means you can't tell how far away the ball is - but I can't understand why that would make any difference to the judgement. Also I saw a view from the reverse angle which I think still showed the ball on the line. If there was an illusion created by the camera being off centre it would have seemed to be over the line on the reverse angle view

 

[Dav1d]

My only disappointment was that I heard Sting was there

But not the Sting I had hoped to see..

 

[True Dog]

Seriously, the most outrageous umpiring call of the GF actually went in the Swans' favour - the JJ score review. It still shits me that what should have been a classic moment was robbed of its significance. If that had been a momentum changer and we ended up losing the game, it literally would have gone down as one of the most disastrous umpiring decisions of all time.

Good thing Moz and Toydy combined for an even greater classic moment just a minute or two later.

Over turning the goal made me sick in the guts but when Roughie marked the kick in, which was a game saver imo I knew we'd win.... The importance of that play shouldn't be underestimated!!

 

[yebiga]

Thought there was no doubt about that as it changed direction

The angle most replayed suggests it was touched
The reverse angle shows that he clearly is nowhere near it
As for the ball spin - it's erratic from the kick
It's instinct for players to protest when they touch the ball and sometimes even when they don't.
There is no protest.
If he did touch it surely he would protest even if he thought it may have just crossed the line!

The footage itself is entirely inconclusive and robbed the grand final of an epic moment and would have staked jjs n/s with some authority.

 

[Fossie 32]

The angle most replayed suggests it was touched
The reverse angle shows that he clearly is nowhere near it
As for the ball spin - it's erratic from the kick
It's instinct for players to protest when they touch the ball and sometimes even when they don't.
There is no protest.
If he did touch it surely he would protest even if he thought it may have just crossed the line!

The footage itself is entirely inconclusive and robbed the grand final of an epic moment and would have staked jjs n/s with some authority.

Really! I had been baffled why people were saying that lack of a 3D view was a problem - so this is the reason? Thanks!

 

[54 to 16]

I thought the vision of JJ's overturned goal was inconclusive and they were only meant to overturn the umpire's initial decision if the video evidence was absolute. Was it touched or not, no one really knows. FWIW I thought it should have been a goal.
Throughout the finals there were a number of contentious reversals (2 in Hawks game, 1 in GWS and 1 in GF) that were all made on inconclusive vision. The Stringer touched point during the final quarter of the PF was def helpful to us at that stage of the game though

 

[worbod]

Can anybody verify that the bald guy with the Dogs scarf who sat behind Tony Liberatore in the crowd at the GF was Ted Whitten junior? I know Ted was in the crowd as the Channel 7 cameras briefly showed him during the third quarter. There is another brief glimpse of somebody behind Libba just before the siren is due to sound, but his head is facing downwards slightly.

 

[Turtleman3]

Over turning the goal made me sick in the guts but when Roughie marked the kick in, which was a game saver imo I knew we'd win.... The importance of that play shouldn't be underestimated!!

This. I agree so much and this play is rarely mentioned. After that score review if the Swans got a goal, momentum might have changed. That Roughy mark put an end to that and was crucial. With you 100% here. I have said that to a few people.

 

[LittleG]

Played GF Umpire Error - the drinking game - last night.
Rules were when the umpire should have penalized your team and missed the free kick, you drank. There was an independent judge (Dees fan).
Game ended during the second term, when one of the two Swans players threw up. And the other one couldn't stand up.
Not sure what the Swans board is going on about, they were very lucky to be in the game at half time.

 

[Sentinel]

Played GF Umpire Error - the drinking game - last night.
Rules were when the umpire should have penalized your team and missed the free kick, you drank. There was an independent judge (Dees fan).
Game ended during the second term, when one of the two Swans players threw up. And the other one couldn't stand up.
Not sure what the Swans board is going on about, they were very lucky to be in the game at half time.

This is about as conclusive as the anecdotal evidence the Swans fans have been arguing over for thousands of posts

 

[Pugz89]

Need to start a days since Swans have beaten Dogs in the bay....

go you pups

 

[_Mike_]

Need to start a days since Swans have beaten Dogs in a final in the bay....

better