How can they possibly tell?

bigcarl · Post: # 1678404Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:14am

And how unlucky was Billings to have two goals disallowed?

I'm not convinced the technology is up to it - the fingers always look blurred whether they touch it or not - and what happened to benefit of the doubt?

If there is any it should go to the team making the play.

Get rid of it for touched off the boot. It's not accurate enough and should be umpire's call.

Devilhead · Post: # 1678406Post **Devilhead** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:16am

They both looked touched to me on the replay

Unlucky for Billings and the team

bigcarl · Post: # 1678408Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:18am

Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay

They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.

Enrico_Misso · Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:20am

Absolutely no replay or explanation was given.

Devilhead · Post: # 1678411Post **Devilhead** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:21am

Enrico_Misso wrote:Absolutely no replay or explanation was given.

At the game maybe not on tv yes

Devilhead · Post: # 1678413Post **Devilhead** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:23am

bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.

If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy

Enrico_Misso · Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:27am

Devilhead wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote:Absolutely no replay or explanation was given.
At the game maybe not on tv yes

But as a paying customer I deserve an explanation but we got nothing - no replay, no explanation, nothing.
A very poor way to treat paying customers.

SaintPav · Post: # 1678421Post **SaintPav** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:29am

So does he AFL review every score at every single game?

I'm not saying they haven't announced it but since when have they being doing this?

Devilhead · Post: # 1678422Post **Devilhead** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:29am

Enrico_Misso wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
Enrico_Misso wrote:Absolutely no replay or explanation was given.
At the game maybe not on tv yes
But as a paying customer I deserve an explanation but we got nothing - no replay, no explanation, nothing.
A very poor way to treat paying customers.

Fair enough - strange they didn't show them

bigcarl · Post: # 1678424Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:32am

SaintPav wrote:So does he AFL review every score at every single game?

I'm not saying they haven't announced it but since when have they being doing this?

Apparently so. I can't remember it coming back to the centre before a decision is made though. It's like the f****** DRS in cricket. You're never sure it's a wicket until they've done the review.

elizabethr · Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:34am

It matters not

SaintPav · Post: # 1678430Post **SaintPav** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:36am

bigcarl wrote:
SaintPav wrote:So does he AFL review every score at every single game?

I'm not saying they haven't announced it but since when have they being doing this?
Apparently so. I can't remember it coming back to the centre before a decision is made though. It's like the f****** DRS in cricket. You're never sure it's a wicket until they've done the review.

Who would know with the AFL. They're all over the shop and the supporters are usually the last to know.

Fkn disorganised rabble. Treat the supporters like dog s***.

SaintPav · Post: # 1678433Post **SaintPav** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:37am

Gears was great hey Lizzy...

Suck it up...

SUCK IT UP!!!

bigcarl · Post: # 1678436Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:37am

Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.
If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy

Probably. Doesn't change the fact that the technology is dodgy.

bigcarl · Post: # 1678441Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:41am

Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.
If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy

Probably. Doesn't change the fact that the technology is dodgy. At least in cricket they have hot spot and snicko as well as a replay.

In the AFL if a bloke's fingers are blurred it's given touched. And when you slow it down everyone's fingers look blurred.

Devilhead · Post: # 1678443Post **Devilhead** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:42am

bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.
If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy
Probably. Doesn't change the fact that the technology is dodgy.

If only we had this dodgy technology in the 09 GF

bigcarl · Post: # 1678447Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:45am

Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.
If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy
Probably. Doesn't change the fact that the technology is dodgy.
If only we had this dodgy technology in the 09 GF

That's a completely different issue Devilhead and you know it. That went through the points rather than the goals and everyone there apart from the umpires saw it. The replay left no room for doubt.

Devilhead · Post: # 1678450Post **Devilhead** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:50am

bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.
If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy
Probably. Doesn't change the fact that the technology is dodgy.
If only we had this dodgy technology in the 09 GF
That's a completely different issue Devilhead and you know it. That went through the points rather than the goals and everyone there apart from the umpires saw it. The replay left no room for doubt.

It hit the post - either way it was clear today on the tv replay that both those overturned Billings gioals were touched - I am first to fly off the handle about crap like that but in this case the correct decisions were made ...... unfortunately

elizabethr · Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:50am

SaintPav wrote:Gears was great hey Lizzy...

Suck it up...

SUCK IT UP!!!

He was and I'm glad

SaintPav · Post: # 1678454Post **SaintPav** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:52am

elizabethr wrote:
SaintPav wrote:Gears was great hey Lizzy...

Suck it up...

SUCK IT UP!!!
He was and I'm glad

Good!

bigcarl · Post: # 1678456Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 1:56am

Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
Devilhead wrote:They both looked touched to me on the replay
They all look touched, whether they touch them or not. There's just not enough frames per second to decide it conclusively.

Apart from all that it slows the game down too much.
If it was North having those goals turned over you would be happy
Probably. Doesn't change the fact that the technology is dodgy.
If only we had this dodgy technology in the 09 GF
That's a completely different issue Devilhead and you know it. That went through the points rather than the goals and everyone there apart from the umpires saw it. The replay left no room for doubt.
It hit the post - either way it was clear today on the tv replay that both those overturned Billings gioals were touched - I am first to fly off the handle about crap like that but in this case the correct decisions were made ...... unfortunately

No one's flying off the handle. It just don't think the technology is good enough to potentially decide games. Cheers

bigcarl · Post: # 1678458Post **bigcarl** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 2:07am

Just quietly, Billings is much more accurate with his right boot than his left.

HardSaint · Post: # 1678460Post **HardSaint** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 2:09am

The whole thing is still strange - both came as a surprise to the umpires as well
I thought the review option was an indulgence thrown to umpires ... dodgy tech and all
But for upstairs to undermine the umps twice in a night??

realdeal · Post: # 1678462Post **realdeal** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 2:10am

Surely it's got to be touched 'without doubt' for it to be overturned if it was called a goal!? I only got home in time to see the 2nd one and no way it was conclusive..

Munga · Post: # 1678468Post **Munga** » Sat 17 Jun 2017 2:25am

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?

How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?

Re: How can they possibly tell?