View Full Version : On the Couch Fox Footy
Paralowiepower
21 Aug 2006, 22:39
They highlighted the Pearce goal and magnified the ball as it went past the post, which clearly showed it missed the post. (as if we didn't know)
Just thought I would post this for people who don't have fox footy and still think the ball hit the post, people like KG.
Gerard, Robert and Mike all agreed it was a goal.
Bloody oath it was a goal. I have sat there and watched the replay and slowed it down a few times. We were clearly robbed by the goal umpire. :mad:
PAFC2004
22 Aug 2006, 00:27
I was right behind those goals. How the goal umpire got it wrong astounds me.
Toots Hibbert
22 Aug 2006, 10:21
I think it's a bit pointless arguing about individual decisions costing us a game. I thought we got a fifty metre penalty that was a bit generous and led directly to a goal. We cost ourselves the game by wasting our complete dominance in the first ten to 15 minutes of the last quarter. How many times did flooding back while pressuring their ball carriers create turnovers only to see us kick points or make poor decisions up forward that burnt a scoring opportunity? We could have been 4 goals up easily even without Pearce's shot.
All that aside though I reckon it would be great if someone could post frame by frame of the ball going past the post so we can settle the argument once and for all whether it was a goal or not.
Paralowiepower
22 Aug 2006, 10:45
I think it's a bit pointless arguing about individual decisions costing us a game. .
I never said it did toots, it's just I have read posts that have said it did hit the post, so I thought this would clear that up.
At the end of the day, losing to Collingwood will not cost us a thing except a loss on the head to head battle.
I think it's a bit pointless arguing about individual decisions costing us a game. I thought we got a fifty metre penalty that was a bit generous and led directly to a goal.
What 50 metre penalty are you talking about Toots?? Not the one where the guy tried ripping off Lades head! That was clearly a 50 metre as it was high and negligent.
Toots Hibbert
22 Aug 2006, 11:15
I just think it's pointless focussing on one decision. Some went for us some against.
I'm not saying you're doing this but there is such a thing as losers talk and a loser mentality. That mentality focusses on things that are outside the team's control as being the reasons for a loss. It's one of the things that sustains a losing culture at some clubs. "We lost because of the umpires" "If only the wind hadn't changed" "If only such and such player had not been injured". "We had a day's less rest"
We did not have to rely on the goal umpire getting it right. We could have been far enough in front if we'd taken our chances when we had them. We need the side to be determined not to put themselves in the position of relying on the umpires. Hopefully this group of young guys will benefit from the experience. They're already showing themselves to be pretty determined so I'm hopeful they will.
I know you don't think much of Choco as is your right but I recall him being asked during the week before the Collingwood game about the effects of the trip to Darwin and the limited recovery time. He just brushed it aside and said it wouldn't be a factor. I can barely recall him using injuries as a reason for a loss during the years we were without Primus, Lade, Francou and lots of other players for long periods of time. Contrast that with Malthouse last year at Collingwood. I reckon Choco could do things better with tactics and some of his selections but I can't find fault with him on the grounds of looking for excuses.
That to me is one of the admirable things about Port over many years. Hell bent on victory and not accepting excuses.
(I'd still like to see the frame by frame though)
scotty13
22 Aug 2006, 11:29
DO u rekon the AFL will over-turn the decision of the point to become a goal? After all they over-turned an umpires mistake earlier in the year so now they have to consider it ALL the time ;)
ExpectToWin
22 Aug 2006, 11:39
I never said it did toots, it's just I have read posts that have said it did hit the post, so I thought this would clear that up.
At the end of the day, losing to Collingwood will not cost us a thing except a loss on the head to head battle.
Wins against higher placed teams builds belief for young sides like ours.
Given that the game is played alot between the ears, a win against a team that will be playing finals 2 weeks in a row would have been invaluable.
It also cost us momentum going into this weeks Showdown.
Paralowiepower
22 Aug 2006, 13:38
Wins against higher placed teams builds belief for young sides like ours.
Given that the game is played alot between the ears, a win against a team that will be playing finals 2 weeks in a row would have been invaluable.
It also cost us momentum going into this weeks Showdown.
What rubbish, next year when again we will be aiming for finals no player will be thinking back at what happened in the Collingwood game. If anything you learn more from your losses than the wins.
PowerKat
22 Aug 2006, 14:17
Toots and PP make some valid points. No excuses - I agree that our club steers away from this and am glad for it. We had ample opportunities to win the game in spite of the umpires. In fact I believe that we are in this position most weeks. You play to the whistle and you win regardless of what influence, if any, the umpires have
I also agree that the loss will not have a negative impact. The guys were clearly very disappointed, if not devastated, to lose the game. Their response should be to be more determined to win this week, and next time we play the woods.
Malibu#27
22 Aug 2006, 14:32
Wins against higher placed teams builds belief for young sides like ours.
Given that the game is played alot between the ears, a win against a team that will be playing finals 2 weeks in a row would have been invaluable.
It also cost us momentum going into this weeks Showdown.
Reversing the decision now would be wrong - and frankly it wouldnt help us. (I doubt you can gain momentum mid-week in a court room).
In hindsight we may have had some form of moral victory or something like that, but it hasnt effected our draft pick either - maybe we ended up with the best of both worlds - confidence for the kids, and a slightly better pick in the draft. ..... although I'd trade all of that for a 2 point win on the night.
Pinepower
22 Aug 2006, 15:09
Reversing the decision now would be wrong - and frankly it wouldnt help us. (I doubt you can gain momentum mid-week in a court room).
In hindsight we may have had some form of moral victory or something like that, but it hasnt effected our draft pick either - maybe we ended up with the best of both worlds - confidence for the kids, and a slightly better pick in the draft. ..... although I'd trade all of that for a 2 point win on the night.
As one of the ABC commentators said it was a "perfect loss"
Sandola
22 Aug 2006, 15:45
As one of the ABC commentators said it was a "perfect loss"
This is a very subversive thought, so I don't know why it came to me, a true believer, but here goes: the game reminded me of Nick Stevens in the 2003 PF. Remember how he had been being courted by Collingwood before that game? So he had a dilemma -- show them how great he could be and blow them away, or show them how much he loved Collingwood, and capitulate. Well, we all know how that game ended up for him -- he was paralysed, probably out of utter confusion. And we all know where Collingwood ended up vis a vis Stevens.
Cut to Choco strolling out onto the ground after the first quarter of last week's game. Hands in pockets, practically whistling. As if he had the perfect plan to impress a team that might be courting him: show them that you COULD win the thing. And then don't.
Sorry. Don't know where that nasty thought came from.
Pinepower
22 Aug 2006, 17:17
This is a very subversive thought, so I don't know why it came to me, a true believer, but here goes: the game reminded me of Nick Stevens in the 2003 PF. Remember how he had been being courted by Collingwood before that game? So he had a dilemma -- show them how great he could be and blow them away, or show them how much he loved Collingwood, and capitulate. Well, we all know how that game ended up for him -- he was paralysed, probably out of utter confusion. And we all know where Collingwood ended up vis a vis Stevens.
Cut to Choco strolling out onto the ground after the first quarter of last week's game. Hands in pockets, practically whistling. As if he had the perfect plan to impress a team that might be courting him: show them that you COULD win the thing. And then don't.
Sorry. Don't know where that nasty thought came from.
I suppose only time will tell, but he would not have known that Micky M was going to spit the dummy big time.
But I can see where you are coming from.
ExpectToWin
22 Aug 2006, 17:55
What rubbish, next year when again we will be aiming for finals no player will be thinking back at what happened in the Collingwood game. If anything you learn more from your losses than the wins.
I did not word my post very well because I was not referring to just a win over Collingwood. What I meant to say was that it would have been 2 wins on the trot against 2 sides that will be contesting this years finals.
That would be a great achievement for such a young team and the belief in themselves would start to grow quicker.
I agree there is more to learn from losses but we have had enough of them for 1 season.
Have just seen the slow motion replay of the goal that wasnt awarded to Danyle on Friday night on White Line Fever.
They have a expert discussing decisions from the weekends games and he stated that the flight of the ball didnt change direction when going through the goals as it would of if had it even just shaved the post.
He has no idea how the goal umpire could get it so wrong.
I'm pretty sure that as far as the AFL is concerned it was an error in score.
They highlighted the Pearce goal and magnified the ball as it went past the post, which clearly showed it missed the post. (as if we didn't know)
Just thought I would post this for people who don't have fox footy and still think the ball hit the post, people like KG.
Gerard, Robert and Mike all agreed it was a goal.
I saw it last night, plus have now seen it a number of times and IMO it is inconclusive as there definitely is a gap between the ball and the post, then there isn't, then there is again. Now what we cannot tell from that shot is where the ball is in relation to the goalposts as in next to it, in front of it or after it has gone past. Even the frame by frame would have trouble showing it.
the ball hit the post because the goal umpire said it hit the post. there isnt really much you can do about it.
Porthos
22 Aug 2006, 23:02
Maybe if we wore purple we could bitch about it to the AFL and get the result changed.
Pinepower
22 Aug 2006, 23:13
Maybe if we wore purple we could bitch about it to the AFL and get the result changed.
That decision has now really had an effect on the table. Freo and St Kilda would be on equal points now. Going on percentage St Kilda would be 4th and Freo 5th.
Now it does change who plays who in finals, maybe the other clubs should protest.
Another example of the unprofessional AFL
That decision has now really had an effect on the table. Freo and St Kilda would be on equal points now. Going on percentage St Kilda would be 4th and Freo 5th.
Now it does change who plays who in finals, maybe the other clubs should protest.
Another example of the unprofessional AFL
I like to stick it to the AFL as much as the next person (and don't like Freo.), but that's one of the few decisions the AFL (eventually) got right, since Vlad and his muppet took over.
Pinepower
23 Aug 2006, 11:40
I like to stick it to the AFL as much as the next person (and don't like Freo.), but that's one of the few decisions the AFL (eventually) got right, since Vlad and his muppet took over.
So why is there no system in place for Port to be able to challenge the result from last Saturday. I do not know whether it was a goal or not but if it was it was an umpire error and changed the result of the game and the table.
This also has an effect on who plays who in the finals and draft picks.
From the Freo/St Kilda decision we now nkow that the AFL can change the result of a game, so why are there no guidelines yet for clubs to challenge decisions.
For a professional body they should have been out a week later.
Sandola
23 Aug 2006, 11:54
So why is there no system in place for Port to be able to challenge the result from last Saturday. I do not know whether it was a goal or not but if it was it was an umpire error and changed the result of the game and the table.
This also has an effect on who plays who in the finals and draft picks.
From the Freo/St Kilda decision we now nkow that the AFL can change the result of a game, so why are there no guidelines yet for clubs to challenge decisions.
For a professional body they should have been out a week later.
At the time I think they did come out with some sort of statement emphasising that the Tasmania decision was a one-off because of its weird circumstances. And that changing the outcome of a match would still not be considered for your usual, everyday, run-of-the-mill umpire screwups. These kinds of calls happen several times a week, and have a clear bearing on the result several times a year. It's best to think of them as being like the weather--it makes a difference, but you just have to live with it.
Still ****es me off. Not so much because of the result, but because it was Pearcey who kicked the thing, and he should have been the hero of the match.
Pinepower
23 Aug 2006, 13:45
At the time I think they did come out with some sort of statement emphasising that the Tasmania decision was a one-off because of its weird circumstances. And that changing the outcome of a match would still not be considered for your usual, everyday, run-of-the-mill umpire screwups. These kinds of calls happen several times a week, and have a clear bearing on the result several times a year. It's best to think of them as being like the weather--it makes a difference, but you just have to live with it.
Still ****es me off. Not so much because of the result, but because it was Pearcey who kicked the thing, and he should have been the hero of the match.
I think my gripe is that the premiership is what all teams are playing for. The AFL can have a press conference on socks but not on the things that can change a result.
When you are playing for something that is worth a million bucks then to me the things that you can control you do. If you cannot change the result after a game then you put things in place to see that they do not happen. I wonder if the goal umpires had cameras on their hats would that help, there are no disputes on the ABC game in the SANFL as you can see it go through. So why not the AFL?
Why not have the reserve umpire in front of a video? The umpires a wearing a mike anyhow so why not have a way of checking before the goal umpires rule a goal or a point. As you say there are not many and it is not every decision that is going to be challenged.
While I do not bet on the footy I have always had a bet on the neddies and will always lose my money but I know that if my nag is interfered with coming into the home straight the jockey can lodge a protest and then the stewards decide. There is nothing to protect the average punter from unfair decisions in the AFL, yet the AFL have a business interest in betting.
I suppose over the years I have become disillusioned with AFL footy and if it was not Port I would say bye bye
Toots Hibbert
23 Aug 2006, 13:53
When video replays were first used in cricket for runouts the hope was that it would stop the controversies. That didn't happen. There are probably more correct decisions nowadays but instead of arguing about feet and inches the controversies have shifted to millimetres and synchronisation of the bails coming off. There are also debates about the positioning of the replay cameras. It's all good. Sport without controversy is boring.
eddiesmith
24 Aug 2006, 03:25
2 things
1. You cannot have decisions during a game overturned, it completely changes the mentality of players
2. The replay is inconclusive, as someone said you can see light then you cant then you can again, the ball curves towards the post then goes away from the post, you cannot say either way but do remember it was a senior SANFL umpire who made the call ;)
As for the St Kilda-Freo debacle, I am very happy with that decision, that was the stuff up of simple match ending procedures and determining the ending of a game, nothing before the end of play can ever be reversed due to play occuring afterwards under different circumstances to what the change would be but I am happy with the decision as if it stood as a draw both teams would be above us, now its only Freo and I would rather have the Saints below us anyway :p
Hollypig
24 Aug 2006, 08:02
They highlighted the Pearce goal and magnified the ball as it went past the post, which clearly showed it missed the post. (as if we didn't know)
Just thought I would post this for people who don't have fox footy and still think the ball hit the post, people like KG.
Gerard, Robert and Mike all agreed it was a goal.
Oh great, thanks for that, makes me feel a whole lot better about my bet of the week on Port 1-39.:mad:
Mr Magoo
24 Aug 2006, 08:28
Oh great, thanks for that, makes me feel a whole lot better about my bet of the week on Port 1-39.:mad:
Join the club as i also had Port to win at the TAB.
I feel that until a decision happens like that in a close grand final that nothing will be done about it.
If the AFL decides from next year to have replays to assist the goal umpires then i'm for it as i believe that they should use any technology that they can to help judge decisions after all AFL football is a multi million dollar business these days. But if they do have replays next year then you'll have spectators saying that the decision is taking too long as you can't please everybody. I can think of a few occasions that an instant replay would assist the goal umpires & that's when you have a few players in the goal square & the ball hits the deck, then you have feet swinging everywhere to kick the ball into the goal & that's happened before & the umpire got it wrong because after all they are human & they do make mistakes.
I've moved on from last weeks game.
RogerRabbit69
24 Aug 2006, 09:58
I feel that until a decision happens like that in a close grand final that nothing will be done about it.
It did - with Anthony Rocca in the 2002 GF. Plenty of Pies supporters still reckon it was a goal.
As for the difference between the Freo v St Kilda result being overturned and Friday night's incident, the AFL said the Tassie mistake was a 'procedural' error (or something like that).
FWIW, Pearce's kick looked like a goal to me (but I wasn't in as good a position as the goal umpire). Fortunately there wasn't a huge amount riding on the result from the Power's perspective.
Join the club as i also had Port to win at the TAB.
Can I join too?
dropped a double cherry to the most annoying collingwood supporter ever :mad:
Toots Hibbert
24 Aug 2006, 11:14
What 50 metre penalty are you talking about Toots?? Not the one where the guy tried ripping off Lades head! That was clearly a 50 metre as it was high and negligent.
I saw the replay of the third quarter last night and have to agree that the impact was after the mark and could have been avoided. It was close but yeah, worth fifty metres.
Paralowiepower
24 Aug 2006, 11:39
I saw the replay of the third quarter last night and have to agree that the impact was after the mark and could have been avoided. It was close but yeah, worth fifty metres.
And the rest, he should of also got a two week holiday.
There were plenty of bad decisions that night, any number of which could have cost us the game. As for the Pearce "point", i thought it was clearly a goal, but do conceed that even if they went through the "third" umpire process i would imagine that the "batsman" would have got the benefit of the doubt and thus be given not out, or in footy terms the lesser score would have been given as there was too much doubt to prove it with those camera angles. Better camera angles would have resulted in a goal being awarded, but how many batsmen have been given not out due to lack a satisfactory camera angle?
It's my view that the umpiring in the two collingwood games at footy park have been so close to cheating that i'd like to investigate whether large sums of money have been flowing for Fat Eddie's bank account into numerous AFL umpires accounts, surely an investigation is on the cards!
And the rest, he should of also got a two week holiday.
Totally agree, again lets look into the Fat ones bank accounts.
eddiesmith
24 Aug 2006, 14:29
You could not have gotten a better camera angle for that shot and it was inconclusive so for you to say it was definately a goal makes you a liar
Maybe we need snicko on the posts? :p
Toots Hibbert
24 Aug 2006, 14:53
You could not have gotten a better camera angle for that shot and it was inconclusive so for you to say it was definately a goal makes you a liar
Maybe we need snicko on the posts? :p
Concentrate eddie! :p At this point we're talking about the fifty metre penalty awarded to Lade for late contact after he marked.
eddiesmith
24 Aug 2006, 14:54
Concentrate eddie! :p At this point we're talking about the fifty metre penalty awarded to Lade for late contact after he marked.
I quoted the wrong post :p
You could not have gotten a better camera angle for that shot and it was inconclusive so for you to say it was definately a goal makes you a liar
Maybe we need snicko on the posts? :p
If you could get a side on and a front on (or behind the goal) look and watch when the ball went over the line compared to when the ball got closest to the post you would see that it was a goal. Also at the game it looked (to me) to be a goal.
Yeah, we may have been robbed by the goal umpire. You could say the same thing about Buckley's "mark". (Two hands on the shoulders, certainly shouldn't have been paid).
Ahh well, that's footy. Sometimes the umps get it wrong. That's part of footy too. I'm over it.
We had a win without losing a draft pick ;)
eddiesmith
25 Aug 2006, 01:41
Yeah, we may have been robbed by the goal umpire. You could say the same thing about Buckley's "mark". (Two hands on the shoulders, certainly shouldn't have been paid).
Ahh well, that's footy. Sometimes the umps get it wrong. That's part of footy too. I'm over it.
There was nothing wrong with Buckleys mark
blackdiamond
25 Aug 2006, 01:54
Personally I don't have an issue if a player attempts to take a mark like Buckley (hands in the back or not) as long as they take the mark, however if the mark isn't taken I would expect the backman to receive the free kick.
eddiesmith
25 Aug 2006, 02:30
Thats where it comes down to intent, timing and eyes on the ball as well
BTW whilst on bad umpiring decisions, what about that Wakelin one in the 2nd qtr, about halfway mark, oh thats right it wasnt paid. Not sure why, he took out the pies player in the marking contest with no eyes on the ball but the umpire called play on, but oh wait, we dont highlight shockers that go Ports way do we? :)
Paralowiepower
25 Aug 2006, 11:46
Thats where it comes down to intent, timing and eyes on the ball as well
BTW whilst on bad umpiring decisions, what about that Wakelin one in the 2nd qtr, about halfway mark, oh thats right it wasnt paid. Not sure why, he took out the pies player in the marking contest with no eyes on the ball but the umpire called play on, but oh wait, we dont highlight shockers that go Ports way do we? :)
I'll see your Wakelin infringement and play my Mahoney mark that was not paid.
There was nothing wrong with Buckleys mark
There was plenty wrong with Buckley's mark. There is rule against putting hands on the shoulders. Now, it's probably true that Buckley didn't actually use his hands to push off with, but allowing hands on the shoulders is a slippery slope and too hard to draw the line. It should not have been paid. Full stop.
Toots Hibbert
25 Aug 2006, 14:58
People, people. There's no point arguing about this or that decision. We failed to nail the Pies in the first half of the last quarter despite creating enough chances to do so.
RogerRabbit69
25 Aug 2006, 14:58
I would have paid it. Plenty of players put their hands on the opposition's shoulders when they take a hanger. Russell Robertson does it every week.
Paralowiepower
25 Aug 2006, 16:52
I would have paid it. Plenty of players put their hands on the opposition's shoulders when they take a hanger. Russell Robertson does it every week.
So would I, the last thing we want to take out the game is marks like that. But if he dropped it, it should of instantly been a free kick to Chappy like black diamond said.
wharfie_1870
25 Aug 2006, 17:02
I believe the umpires are instructed that if a player going for a mark from behind puts his hands on an opposition player's shoulders in the action of leaping for the mark then he shall not be ruled to have infringed. Said player does not have to mark the ball but must at least get his hands to the ball in a way that a mark is not improbable.
eddiesmith
25 Aug 2006, 19:10
I'll see your Wakelin infringement and play my Mahoney mark that was not paid.
Umm for Mahoney to be paid a mark he would have had to get near the ball at some time during the night, I dont remember it happening ever :p
Oh and I am a big Mahoney fan but damn it he is in my dream team replacing Taz so he better do something this week :p
Paralowiepower
25 Aug 2006, 19:17
Umm for Mahoney to be paid a mark he would have had to get near the ball at some time during the night, I dont remember it happening ever :p
Oh and I am a big Mahoney fan but damn it he is in my dream team replacing Taz so he better do something this week :p
First quarter in the goal square, it was pretty hard to miss. Your right though, after that he didn't get near the ball.
Toots Hibbert
25 Aug 2006, 20:21
Umm for Mahoney to be paid a mark he would have had to get near the ball at some time during the night, I dont remember it happening ever :p
Oh and I am a big Mahoney fan but damn it he is in my dream team replacing Taz so he better do something this week :p
Mahoney stats 8 kicks, 6 marks, three handballs, 3 tackles.
And Paralowiepower is 100% correct. Mahoney took that mark and the ball there was daylight between it and the ground at all times.
His stats should have read 9 kicks, 7 marks, 3 handballs, 3 tackles, 1 goal. Clangers somewhere between 3 and 5.
Northalives
25 Aug 2006, 23:23
I believe the umpires are instructed that if a player going for a mark from behind puts his hands on an opposition player's shoulders in the action of leaping for the mark then he shall not be ruled to have infringed. Said player does not have to mark the ball but must at least get his hands to the ball in a way that a mark is not improbable.
If this is the case ie. put hands on opposition's shoulders and regardless of marking or not marking the ball, it is not an infringement then, Australian Rules Football should not be called Australian Rules Football any longer.
It should be known as NO RULES FOOTBALL AUSTRALIAN STYLE, ie. "she'll be right" and "do whatever ya like".
Hollypig
26 Aug 2006, 11:09
Well, as a final thought on this thread, & going back a few posts.
Even though I'm not a big rap for the AFL, I'll be heading down for my first Adelaide based game tomorrow with the 8yo who wants to end his season in the morning in the mighty Fitzroy u8's with a Showdown for dessert.
I for one will be putting my money on Port at the $3 with Thorntons to get last weeks back.
Thats where it comes down to intent, timing and eyes on the ball as well
BTW whilst on bad umpiring decisions, what about that Wakelin one in the 2nd qtr, about halfway mark, oh thats right it wasnt paid. Not sure why, he took out the pies player in the marking contest with no eyes on the ball but the umpire called play on, but oh wait, we dont highlight shockers that go Ports way do we? :)
That's true Rocca should have got a free and had a shot at kicking a point or out on the full.
Buckley's should have been a mark, i have no problem with that.
The free for Buckley just on half time was doubtful and the 50 just made it worse. As for the Pearce "point"...
Ford Fairlane
26 Aug 2006, 12:29
In last night's Bullies v Saints game twice I saw frees paid, the offending team played on and kicked the ball away and no 50 paid. Then in the last quarter, out of nowhere, someone was pinged for it. There's no consistency at all.
I suppose only time will tell, but he would not have known that Micky M was going to spit the dummy big time.
But I can see where you are coming from.
reason choco was whistling was because he was expecting and accepting a coming loss--sure changed his tune and body language once he saw there could be an upset