AgreedMunga wrote:The first one looked touched. The second was a maybe or possibly, certainly not conclusive. If I had to put money on it, I'd say touched, but yeah not conclusive.
How can they possibly tell?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar 2005 8:29pm
- Has thanked: 9 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
- snoopygirl
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3589
- Joined: Tue 18 May 2004 11:56am
- Location: Cranbourne East
Re: How can they possibly tell?
There didn't seem to be too much remonstrating from the North players in either instance which you would expect if they had touched the ball.
I was at an Angels meeting a few weeks ago where the guest speaker was an ex VFL/AFL goal umpire who is now in charge of coaching the goal umpires & the review of all goals has been happening for a few years now. He did state it needs to be conclusive evidence for them to overturn the goal umpires decision & that they have very limited time in which to review it. If the ball is bounced the moment has passed as they are then not able to recall it.
I was at an Angels meeting a few weeks ago where the guest speaker was an ex VFL/AFL goal umpire who is now in charge of coaching the goal umpires & the review of all goals has been happening for a few years now. He did state it needs to be conclusive evidence for them to overturn the goal umpires decision & that they have very limited time in which to review it. If the ball is bounced the moment has passed as they are then not able to recall it.
![Image](http://209.85.12.232/4707/65/emo/snoopy.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 542
- Joined: Mon 01 Aug 2011 1:23pm
- Has thanked: 210 times
- Been thanked: 84 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
Yeah I recall a lot of commentary teams mentioning this - every goal is reviewed if there could be some doubt. Has been the case since the review system came in if I remember correctly. Just glad we didn't lose by a goal!snoopygirl wrote:There didn't seem to be too much remonstrating from the North players in either instance which you would expect if they had touched the ball.
I was at an Angels meeting a few weeks ago where the guest speaker was an ex VFL/AFL goal umpire who is now in charge of coaching the goal umpires & the review of all goals has been happening for a few years now. He did state it needs to be conclusive evidence for them to overturn the goal umpires decision & that they have very limited time in which to review it. If the ball is bounced the moment has passed as they are then not able to recall it.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
A couple of things, crazy no explanation as to why they were behinds at the game. I was confused but my 12 year old daughter was totally lost after that point whenever a goal was kicked! Think of the kids - if we have trouble understanding what's going on what hope do they have??
Also, with all the umps on the ground I'm surprised there were no goal reviews called for.
Also, with all the umps on the ground I'm surprised there were no goal reviews called for.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 527 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
Umpires make mistakes all the time but they don't get reviewed. I don't know why they feel the need to do it here.
At least when the umpires decide to review it, there's some drama but when the person in the box does it it's such an anti climax.
And what's with "result on the board"?. Haven't they delayed the game enough without slipping in a five second ad with the decision.
By the way, this review every decision rubbish has been in for a while. Kosi' last game when he came on in the last quarter and missed a couple of getable shots. Then went back and slotted one until someone with no feel for the game decided he hadn't.
At least when the umpires decide to review it, there's some drama but when the person in the box does it it's such an anti climax.
And what's with "result on the board"?. Haven't they delayed the game enough without slipping in a five second ad with the decision.
By the way, this review every decision rubbish has been in for a while. Kosi' last game when he came on in the last quarter and missed a couple of getable shots. Then went back and slotted one until someone with no feel for the game decided he hadn't.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18947
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1587 times
- Been thanked: 1987 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
I'm an Armo fan btw.elizabethr wrote:He was and I'm gladSaintPav wrote:Gears was great hey Lizzy...
Suck it up...
SUCK IT UP!!!
Love the Armo!
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10192
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1306 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
First was touched the second you couldn't tell. Not that we got replay after replay of it.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7210
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 511 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
The first was pretty obviously touched, but that second one definitely was not conclusive. It was curious that the North players didn't seem to remonstrate on either occasion.
Having a game decided by something that neither the players or umpires can detect on the ground isn't what sport is about IMO.
Given that the AFL is constantly fiddling with the rules, I'm of the view that they might consider getting rid of the touched off the boot rule anyway, particularly when the ball is subsequently marked: the poor player marking the ball usually has no idea that it was touched and marks and holds on to the ball when it might have been more advantageous to handpass it or punch it over the line.
Having a game decided by something that neither the players or umpires can detect on the ground isn't what sport is about IMO.
Given that the AFL is constantly fiddling with the rules, I'm of the view that they might consider getting rid of the touched off the boot rule anyway, particularly when the ball is subsequently marked: the poor player marking the ball usually has no idea that it was touched and marks and holds on to the ball when it might have been more advantageous to handpass it or punch it over the line.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18947
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1587 times
- Been thanked: 1987 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
I'm an Armo fan btw.elizabethr wrote:He was and I'm gladSaintPav wrote:Gears was great hey Lizzy...
Suck it up...
SUCK IT UP!!!
Love the Armo!
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5109
- Joined: Wed 04 Aug 2004 3:18pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
If its inconclusive, isnt it the umpires call???
It may be the rule of the week, lets see if it happens for the rest of the round. Seems like the blocking rule has disappeared this week.
I actually feel for the umpires. Imagine trying to do your job and every week being told to concentrate on one thing, and that thing changes every week. Let em just do their job for god sake.
It may be the rule of the week, lets see if it happens for the rest of the round. Seems like the blocking rule has disappeared this week.
I actually feel for the umpires. Imagine trying to do your job and every week being told to concentrate on one thing, and that thing changes every week. Let em just do their job for god sake.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: How can they possibly tell?
The first one was clearly touched on the replay.
Good decision, if you're into that type of officiating. I'm not personally. I prefer the time old 'win some, lose some' approach to umpiring.
The second one had me puzzled. IT may have been touched - but I dispute that it was obvious enough to overrule the umpire.
Good decision, if you're into that type of officiating. I'm not personally. I prefer the time old 'win some, lose some' approach to umpiring.
The second one had me puzzled. IT may have been touched - but I dispute that it was obvious enough to overrule the umpire.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
You know the umpires cheat against us and their cheating is sanctioned by the AFL!
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- ace
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10744
- Joined: Sun 16 Dec 2007 3:28pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 822 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
On my 1920 x 1080 resolution plasma TV both looked like they might have been touched but I could not be certain either way.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
When I was a young child, I knew that I knew so much about so much.
Now that I am old and know so much more, I know that I know so much about so little, and so little about so much.
If you are not engaging AI actively and aggressively, you are doing it wrong.
You are not going to lose your job to AI.
You are going lose your job to somebody who uses AI.
Your company is not going to go out of business because of AI.
Your company is going to go out of business because another company used AI.
- Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: How can they possibly tell?
They don't have frame by frame.ace wrote:On my 1920 x 1080 resolution plasma TV both looked like they might have been touched but I could not be certain either way.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6316
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 262 times
- Been thanked: 1118 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
I believe that it was mentioned not that long ago, that the TV viewing audience get the same feed as the umpires (if they take that feed) so it is bizarre as to how they could determine that the second one was touched (maybe the coverage did not take the feed as it was too inconclusive)Johnny Member wrote:They don't have frame by frame.ace wrote:On my 1920 x 1080 resolution plasma TV both looked like they might have been touched but I could not be certain either way.
However that does not mean the TV umpire did not have access to higher speed higher, to higher resolution 3840 x 2160, to frame by frame replay and to enlargement where he could examine the movement of fingers being bent backwards.
On TV we only get what Channel 7 or Foxtel provide us.
The resolution on those big screens at the ground is so poor that it is pointless showing anything on them other than the result.
You have to be watching to catch the BEHIND in amongst all the advertising.
They always run adverts whenever they think people will be looking to scoreboard to see the score, so annoying.
I agree that the technology should be used, if, and only if the umpire is uncertain, and he did not appear to be uncertain last night. However putting that stipulation on the use of the technology will end up getting more non-decisions - like the cricket - unless a player is stranded half way up the pitch, they will still call for the 3rd umpire every time for a run out - even if it is clear that they should be able to make the decision.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
- Linton Lodger
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2467
- Joined: Mon 18 Aug 2014 2:07pm
- Has thanked: 86 times
- Been thanked: 256 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
First one definitely touched, second one possibly, but not conclusive enough to overturn the goal I thought.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: Tue 15 Sep 2009 10:28pm
- Been thanked: 11 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
I was really disappointed that both were overturned.
As far as I’m concerned
If all umpires being (Boundary, Field and Goal) are happy it’s a goal and the opposition aren’t trying to call for touched the goal should stand.
I thought the point of the review after each goal was to ensure they haven’t blatantly got it wrong. IE 2009 Grand final.
The reversal of the goals hurt us more than just on the scoreboard, in the first quarter it stopped our momentum dead.
In Saying that though the first one did look to be touched however wasn’t questioned by North, which could possibly be read as an indicator as to what happened. The 2nd one should never have been overturned.
As far as I’m concerned
If all umpires being (Boundary, Field and Goal) are happy it’s a goal and the opposition aren’t trying to call for touched the goal should stand.
I thought the point of the review after each goal was to ensure they haven’t blatantly got it wrong. IE 2009 Grand final.
The reversal of the goals hurt us more than just on the scoreboard, in the first quarter it stopped our momentum dead.
In Saying that though the first one did look to be touched however wasn’t questioned by North, which could possibly be read as an indicator as to what happened. The 2nd one should never have been overturned.
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13879
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1313 times
- Been thanked: 2075 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
Both were definitely touched, right decision made both times, those complaining here just show how biased supporters are and why their judgement and complaints with these matters should be taken with a grain of salt. If the shoe was on the other foot they would be filthy and accusing the AFL of cheating for not overturning them.
And every single goal is reviewed whether the umps on field call for it or not.
And every single goal is reviewed whether the umps on field call for it or not.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
Controversial call again tonight in the Crows v Adel game.
Replays show a likely Hawthorn goal with the ball deflecting off the defenders hand when behind the line on to the post instead of the poster the umpire guessed.
The goal was called by King Carey and Bwuuce - then the decision is paid as a point!
Of course Bwuuuce is too gutless to then call it as it is and instead makes excuses and reverts to "well it was a close one" waffle.
For Christ sake it was a shyte decision - have the guts to call it as it is!
Replays show a likely Hawthorn goal with the ball deflecting off the defenders hand when behind the line on to the post instead of the poster the umpire guessed.
The goal was called by King Carey and Bwuuce - then the decision is paid as a point!
Of course Bwuuuce is too gutless to then call it as it is and instead makes excuses and reverts to "well it was a close one" waffle.
For Christ sake it was a shyte decision - have the guts to call it as it is!
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4949
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2017 1:16pm
- Has thanked: 1419 times
- Been thanked: 1444 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
Future: train defenders in Thai hand dancing and exquisite figures back movement and then finger print the ball.
- stevie
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4898
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2010 9:09am
- Location: Gold Coast
- Has thanked: 194 times
- Been thanked: 144 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
The Buddy one last night was even more of a goal than the Dawks one! someone in the review box should be sackedEnrico_Misso wrote:Controversial call again tonight in the Crows v Adel game.
Replays show a likely Hawthorn goal with the ball deflecting off the defenders hand when behind the line on to the post instead of the poster the umpire guessed.
The goal was called by King Carey and Bwuuce - then the decision is paid as a point!
Of course Bwuuuce is too gutless to then call it as it is and instead makes excuses and reverts to "well it was a close one" waffle.
For Christ sake it was a shyte decision - have the guts to call it as it is!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23051
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8972 times
- Been thanked: 3902 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
Billings said the second one wasn't touched. He was closer than you so I will take his word for it.The_Dud wrote:Both were definitely touched, right decision made both times, those complaining here just show how biased supporters are and why their judgement and complaints with these matters should be taken with a grain of salt. If the shoe was on the other foot they would be filthy and accusing the AFL of cheating for not overturning them.
And every single goal is reviewed whether the umps on field call for it or not.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
The technology isn't good enough and it's only a matter of time before a decision based on the dodgy evidence determines the result of a game. Then it will be overhauled.
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
We need to remember the process WASN'T brought in to definitively decide on line ball calls.
It was brought in because in the AFL marquee event in 2009 watched by the world the biggest goal umpiring blunder in history occurred. Everyone at the ground and watching on TV saw the ball hit the post except one who made an international laughing stock of our game.
One side had a goal recorded when it should have been a point and then won the resulting centre clearance and kicked the next goal.
In a tight came it most likely impacted the result.
There will always be doubt on line-ball decisions but at least such travesties as per 2009 will not happen under the review system.
It was brought in because in the AFL marquee event in 2009 watched by the world the biggest goal umpiring blunder in history occurred. Everyone at the ground and watching on TV saw the ball hit the post except one who made an international laughing stock of our game.
One side had a goal recorded when it should have been a point and then won the resulting centre clearance and kicked the next goal.
In a tight came it most likely impacted the result.
There will always be doubt on line-ball decisions but at least such travesties as per 2009 will not happen under the review system.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18600
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1924 times
- Been thanked: 852 times
Re: How can they possibly tell?
I'm all for that, when it can be decided definitively.Enrico_Misso wrote:We need to remember the process WASN'T brought in to definitively decide on line ball calls.
There will always be doubt on line-ball decisions but at least such travesties as per 2009 will not happen under the review system.
But If there is any doubt, like Buddy's last night, it should be umpire's call ... until they introduce technology that is good enough.
Instead we're getting balls returned to the middle before they are overturned on video "evidence" as we saw twice last week.