Game Day Round 10 Adelaide vs Fremantle

[CakeEater]

I just came to your board to say that Laird looks like a player for you guys.

I noticed him putting his head over it and making a contest which augurs well for him in the future.

I think the Crows will be playing finals.

 

[King Elvis]

Laird was brilliant - showed up a few of his more lauded team mates. Could be another rookie list gem for us

That ball clearly hit the post, I can't see how it was called inconclusive.

 

[fairfooty]

Laird was brilliant - showed up a few of his more lauded team mates. Could be another rookie list gem for us

That ball clearly hit the post, I can't see how it was called inconclusive.

I was behind the northern goals so obviously not close enough to see but going by the reaction of both Crows and Freo players I'd say there was some doubt... Danger clearly thought it was a goal and so did the goal umpire...

 

[FR0GGY]

Laird was brilliant - showed up a few of his more lauded team mates. Could be another rookie list gem for us

That ball clearly hit the post, I can't see how it was called inconclusive.

How was lairds face smother in the first half. Saved a certain goal

 

[FR0GGY]

I was behind the northern goals so obviously not close enough to see but going by the reaction of both Crows and Freo players I'd say there was some doubt... Danger clearly thought it was a goal and so did the goal umpire...

Wasn't at the game but from the review it was obvious

 

[fairfooty]

Wasn't at the game but from the review it was obvious

Froggy assuming you mean obvious it hit the post, then why was it called inconclusive?

 

[FR0GGY]

Froggy assuming you mean obvious it hit the post, then why was it called inconclusive?

Yeah i do, I dunno why it was called inconclusive as you could clearly see it on the video deflect of the post, they had one in the GC Geelong game that clearly was touched and they called it inconclusive. I think the goal review man might have as good eyesight as half the umpires.

 

[King Elvis]

Watching it live on the TV, I thought it was a goal too. Definitely hit the post on review though.

Froggy assuming you mean obvious it hit the post, then why was it called inconclusive?

No idea - they constantly come back inconclusive when they're not.

Assuming the reviewer gets the same replays we do??

 

[FR0GGY]

Assuming the reviewer gets the same replays we do??

They might be watching it through the shitty afl app that cuts out

 

[fairfooty]

Watching it live on the TV, I thought it was a goal too. Definitely hit the post on review though.



No idea - they constantly come back inconclusive when they're not.

Assuming the reviewer gets the same replays we do??

Buggered if I know. There's something really wrong here. It seems to me that a goal umpire on the spot can be over-ridden by a non-goal umpire miles away. And the blokes with the video won't commit either way??? Its ludicrous!!! An absolute joke!

ETA Today's effort by the umpires at a score review looked like the mad hatters tea party!!!

 

[macca23]

Buggered if I know. There's something really wrong here. It seems to me that a goal umpire on the spot can be over-ridden by a non-goal umpire miles away. And the blokes with the video won't commit either way??? Its ludicrous!!! An absolute joke!

ETA Today's effort by the umpires at a score review looked like the mad hatters tea party!!!

It was more than wrong. It was plain bloody stupid.

The goal umpire was standing under the ball near the goal post and gave a goal on what he SAW.

The boundary umpire was pushing his barrow that it was a point on the basis that he thought he HEARD something.

That thing that he heard may have been some old lady passing wind in the first row behind the goals. For the field umpire not to use the goal umpire's opinion as the default one was criminal. If he had done the logical thing it should have gone upstairs with the comment that we think that it is a goal, not the other way round.

Whether the ball hit the post or not I don't know but it's irrelevant anyway. The decision was made on the basis of incorrect procedure by the field umpire in using the boundary umpire's opinion as the default one.

 

[glasto2010]

Adelaide lost this game because of two reasons - our kicking for goal remains woefully inaccurate (42% not counting shots which failed to register a score), and poor coaching which saw Freo continually able to kick cheap goals from out the back of the pack - goals which a high school football coach would have prevented from happening.

Fix those two problems and we would have won the game by 7-8 goals. Failure to address those issues resulted in a 7pt loss, despite being the better team on the day.

In a wet, low scoring game, there is no way that either team were to win by 7-8 goals. Adelaide had their chances in the first quarter but didn't take them. I can't recall many Fremantle goals being scored from cheap kicks over the back... isn't this the definition of Dangerfields two goals in Q1?

 

[Kickin_Goals]

In a wet, low scoring game, there is no way that either team were to win by 7-8 goals. Adelaide had their chances in the first quarter but didn't take them. I can't recall many Fremantle goals being scored from cheap kicks over the back... isn't this the definition of Dangerfields two goals in Q1?

Falling over in the square Clarke gifted a goal while two guys launch off Jenkins shoulders with their hands, last goal of the game soccer that bounced off Ottens chest, goal prior holding call on players holding each other while Adelaide has ran down field thinking it has possession becomes easy goal from late holding call on talia. Nearly every passage of play for fremantle involved dropping the ball to advantage when tackled these led to run in goals. Mackay should of been subbed right away not left to flounder about and hand a 20 point turn around in the second quarter from a complete lack of run from him on the field and messing up the rotations having no players to rest in a slog. Adelaide were better most of the game but Freo were smarter and played the game as it should of been in the conditions. It could of been like the saints game and got to that type of margin. Regardless Adelaide played dumb football had some shocking senior player passengers and got out-coached and the player selections were terrible. Hypotheoticals don't matter at all though 4 points is 4 points and hopefully Freo get better in the post season with those that come back I'd like to see them get the silverware if Adelaide's not contending.

 

[jenny61_99]

Falling over in the square Clarke gifted a goal while two guys launch off Jenkins shoulders with their hands, last goal of the game soccer that bounced off Ottens chest, goal prior holding call on players holding each other while Adelaide has ran down field thinking it has possession becomes easy goal from late holding call on talia. Nearly every passage of play for fremantle involved dropping the ball to advantage when tackled these led to run in goals. Mackay should of been subbed right away not left to flounder about and hand a 20 point turn around in the second quarter from a complete lack of run from him on the field and messing up the rotations having no players to rest in a slog. Adelaide were better most of the game but Freo were smarter and played the game as it should of been in the conditions. It could of been like the saints game and got to that type of margin. Regardless Adelaide played dumb football had some shocking senior player passengers and got out-coached and the player selections were terrible. Hypotheoticals don't matter at all though 4 points is 4 points and hopefully Freo get better in the post season with those that come back I'd like to see them get the silverware if Adelaide's not contending.

Jesus man, punctuation is your friend!

 

[jusjoshin]

The Crows played a good game in pretty ordinary conditions. I think we'll be seeing you guys in the finals.

 

[Elite Crow]

macca23 that sums it up well. The issue is the boundary umpire said 100% it hit the post, the goal umpire mustn't have given the same assurance. How the boundary umpire can base that on a sound and not visual confirmation is beyond belief.

As for the video confirming it hit the post I don't believe it does. At no point does it show the ball hitting it. There's a shot that shows it may have but that was when the ball was past the post and if you notice the spinning of the ball it doesn't change which surely it would have. Yes it deviated but it was windy and it was one of those kicks that moved in the air.

 

[Wood_Duck]

macca23 that sums it up well. The issue is the boundary umpire said 100% it hit the post, the goal umpire mustn't have given the same assurance. How the boundary umpire can base that on a sound and not visual confirmation is beyond belief.

As for the video confirming it hit the post I don't believe it does. At no point does it show the ball hitting it. There's a shot that shows it may have but that was when the ball was past the post and if you notice the spinning of the ball it doesn't change which surely it would have. Yes it deviated but it was windy and it was one of those kicks that moved in the air.

Same, not convinced it hit the post. The still shot they kept showing as evidence looked very much like it was past the post to me. Goal umpire was in the best spot. Complete stuff up.

 

[Vader]

In a wet, low scoring game, there is no way that either team were to win by 7-8 goals. Adelaide had their chances in the first quarter but didn't take them. I can't recall many Fremantle goals being scored from cheap kicks over the back... isn't this the definition of Dangerfields two goals in Q1?

Nothing cheap about them. Both were the result of blatant pushes in the back.

 

[AWarGuy]

The Crows played a good game in pretty ordinary conditions. I think we'll be seeing you guys in the finals.

We made far too many skill errors that Freo punished us for. We could make the finals, it is still possible but it does get harder.

Laird what a gun, love his season so far. Martin was shit, now I know he is new and we can't expect every new guy to be the next Dangerfield but some of his errors were unforgivable. Freo have excellent defence, their offensive is not the best in the league from my perspective.

Also **** that goal umpire decision, if the goal umpire is confident it was an goal and he was in the right position, why question him and overrule him?

Atrocious umpiring on both sides, these new little rules they have is very hard to apply to in wet weather footy. Inconsistent, at wet games they try to be leient and in dry more harsh, if you're gonna be harsh then ****ing stick to it in wet weather.

 

[Iron Bull]

Laird was outstanding and the game was there for the taking if we had taken our chances.

 

[Elite Crow]

Same, not convinced it hit the post. The still shot they kept showing as evidence looked very much like it was past the post to me. Goal umpire was in the best spot. Complete stuff up.

The posts normally wobble a bit when they are hit as well

 

[jusjoshin]

We made far too many skill errors that Freo punished us for. We could make the finals, it is still possible but it does get harder.

Laird what a gun, love his season so far. Martin was shit, now I know he is new and we can't expect every new guy to be the next Dangerfield but some of his errors were unforgivable. Freo have excellent defence, their offensive is not the best in the league from my perspective.

Also **** that goal umpire decision, if the goal umpire is confident it was an goal and he was in the right position, why question him and overrule him?

Atrocious umpiring on both sides, these new little rules they have is very hard to apply to in wet weather footy. Inconsistent, at wet games they try to be leient and in dry more harsh, if you're gonna be harsh then ******* stick to it in wet weather.

Any teams offence will suffer a bit if you take out their two best tall forwards, and a gun small forward.

It hit the post. Even in the Adelaide game day thread, everybody was saying it hit the post. He was questioned and overruled because he was wrong.

I was trying to compliment your team. It was quite a contrast in coaching styles. A tight game of wet weather footy (which probably suited us a little more than the Crows).

 

[fairfooty]

Any teams offence will suffer a bit if you take out their two best tall forwards, and a gun small forward.

It hit the post. Even in the Adelaide game day thread, everybody was saying it hit the post. He was questioned and overruled because he was wrong.

I was trying to compliment your team. It was quite a contrast in coaching styles. A tight game of wet weather footy (which probably suited us a little more than the Crows).

And thanks for the post and the compliment . Apart from one or two, I don't think most people are questioning the result of the score review. Its more the absolutley ludicrous process that went on that a number of us are starting to think needs a complete overhaul. Compared with cricket and tennis, the AFL is a laughing stock when it comes to reviews and I think we need to take a leaf out of their books and get it (the process and technology) right or get rid of it completely. I'm starting to question why we have goal umpires at all given the farce of a process yesterday.

 

[FR0GGY]

The posts normally wobble a bit when they are hit as well

In slow mo you could see the post move slightly

 

[SpeciousArgument]

If the ball hit the post hard enough to make a sound that a boundary umpire standing 10 meters away could hear, wouldnt you expect there to be a decent impact on the balls trajectory/spin?

If it just barely touched the post such that the influence on the balls movement wasnt apparent then how could it have made enough of a noise for the boundary umpire to hear it over the crowd?