Roast The Ugly v Sydney

[Red mist]

can we please stop using the word cheat when referring to the goal review ****up

gross incompetence does not equate to cheating

Hmmm I don't know. This new pic of the umps conferring during the Wright decision may shed some light.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Geez, here's another one rewriting history, lets all remember Phil fondly but it's not the first time we have played like this. Bulldogs or GWS games ring a bell.

Proof of how difficult it is to cater for every level of intellect on the internet.

 

[icrow32]

can we please stop using the word cheat when referring to the goal review ****up

gross incompetence does not equate to cheating

How could any umpire that was looking at the TV screen adjudicating the Wright decision miss that his foot hit the ball?

They cant accidently miss that, its impossible, every single person watching that replay all over Australia could (and did) assess that as a goal.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Did the goal umpire rule it a goal, and then the video umpire overruled it?

Or did the goal umpire rule it a behind and then the video umpire didn't overrule it?

 

[Smoooothy]

How could any umpire that was looking at the TV screen adjudicating the Wright decision miss that his foot hit the ball?

They cant accidently miss that, its impossible, every single person watching that replay all over Australia could (and did) assess that as a goal.

gross incompetence..

cheating is using performance enhancing drugs, rorting the salary cap etc

you have no idea what the goal reviewer saw, we know what we saw

i actually wonder if anything was seen by the goal reviewer, i suspect there was a technical issue and they had to go with whatever the goal umpires call was

 

[Smoooothy]

Did the goal umpire rule it a goal, and then the video umpire overruled it?

Or did the goal umpire rule it a behind and then the video umpire didn't overrule it?

goal umpire thought it was a behind

 

[Slippery Pete]

goal umpire thought it was a behind

I'm not sure what we're complaining about then.

This is the problem with a video review that doesn't utilise any snickometer-like technology. Yeah, sure, it looked like Wright's foot touched the ball, but it's still not conclusive because all you've got is vision, there's no sound or touch technology.

It's like the third umpire in cricket trying to judge a knick by vision alone. That would be absurd.

Until we invest in the technology, goal reviews will continue to be a farce.

 

[Smoooothy]

I'm not sure what we're complaining about then.

This is the problem with a video review that doesn't utilise any snickometer-like technology. Yeah, sure, it looked like Wright's foot touched the ball, but it's still not conclusive because all you've got is vision, there's no sound or touch technology.

It's like the third umpire in cricket trying to judge a knick by vision alone. That would be absurd.

Until we invest in the technology, goal reviews will continue to be a farce.

can't understand why hot spot technology hasn't been invested in here. would be perfect

 

[Smoooothy]

just on the goal review, the reviewer didn't make the final call, the field umpire did. i reckon there was a tech issue, hence the call that the goal umpire originally made stood

 

[feenix67]

just on the goal review, the reviewer didn't make the final call, the field umpire did. i reckon there was a tech issue, hence the call that the goal umpire originally made stood

No the reviewers call was "inconclusive" and therefore it reverts to the goal umpires original call. Much like cricket's DRS when less than 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps - "Umpire's Call".

 

[rocket18]

Proof of how difficult it is to cater for every level of intellect on the internet.

You state how un Phil Walsh like we have been the last couple of weeks, I list the GWS & Bulldogs games as similar type games where we didn't turn up & our selection were equally bad and you go the personal attack.

Are you saying those games/selections were un Phil Walsh type games as well?

 

[melbournehammer]

fwiw I find it a completely baffling decision no matter what technical problems existed. it is difficult to understand how anyone could think he didnt just flick it with his toe.

 

[Mattrox]

Put simply we don't stream forward out of stoppages,

Walsh stated that he wasn't playing that game style because our personel did not suit it. We are not going to see that style of play as a rule if we follow Walsh's vision.


As to stopping it, when our team defence works we prevent it happening. But when it breaks down, GWS, Dogs, Swans, we get pantsed.

We need Cheney back, Hendo to wing and Mackay out. Or Cheney in for Hendo.

 

[Pugsley]

In an alternate reality Thommo retired to become a fireman, and Kane Cornes played on.

His guns would be the CO2 to those fires

 

[Thinker]

If thats the case why did they even bother selecting him. Keep all the guys who mightbe suffering away from the others.

Apparently it comes on quick. One day fine. Next day sweating with temp etc.

 

[1970crow]

So we brought in Bob to replace Bernie as a sub ?


The lack of thought process at our club never ceases to amaze me.

Bernie was sacrificed so that we had a pick in the first couple of rounds in the draft. Our selection culture of gifting games to plodding experience ahead of better quality and performed juniors is a seperate issue. Noble wouldn't be capable of seeing the link.

 

[Wood_Duck]

You state how un Phil Walsh like we have been the last couple of weeks, I list the GWS & Bulldogs games as similar type games where we didn't turn up & our selection were equally bad and you go the personal attack.

Are you saying those games/selections were un Phil Walsh type games as well?

I am referring to the BS press conferences, the complete lack of transparency with selections and the lack of spirit and effort on field. We weren't beaten by a better side, we were pathetic.
Non statistical roles, FFS. That was a return to the Trigg era.

Plenty of people understood exactly what I meant. You chose the path it went down.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

can we please stop using the word cheat when referring to the goal review ****up

gross incompetence does not equate to cheating

True but in this case the effect was the same.

Whoever is responsible from that call simply cannot be an umpire or a reviewer or have anything to do with AFL football anymore. They simple aren't capable of any role.

 

[Roo Lives Again]

fwiw I find it a completely baffling decision no matter what technical problems existed. it is difficult to understand how anyone could think he didnt just flick it with his toe.

Exactly. The ball starts tumbling end over end after his foot appears to make contact with it. Balls do t just suddenly start moving without force being applied to it.

 

[SugarShane]

I'm not sure what we're complaining about then.

This is the problem with a video review that doesn't utilise any snickometer-like technology. Yeah, sure, it looked like Wright's foot touched the ball, but it's still not conclusive because all you've got is vision, there's no sound or touch technology.

It's like the third umpire in cricket trying to judge a knick by vision alone. That would be absurd.

Until we invest in the technology, goal reviews will continue to be a farce.

Depending on the ball, you can tell a batsman has hit it if it moves the rotation of the ball. If, before the edge, the seam is dead straight and rotating vertically and then after the hit it starts spinning around horizontally, it's pretty clear he's hit it.

That's basically the equivalent of the Wright call. Looking at the best shot in the Wright vision, the ball is slowly rotating clockwise before it hits his foot. After it hits his foot, it switches to anti-clockwise and rotates a lot faster. Balls don't change rotation in mid air. Obviously you can't tell faint nicks on vision alone, but Wright's wasn't the equivalent of a faint nick, it was the equivalent of a huge edge.

 

[relapse]

just on the goal review, the reviewer didn't make the final call, the field umpire did. i reckon there was a tech issue, hence the call that the goal umpire originally made stood

I still cannot understand how it wasn't conclusive.

You can clearly see the trajection of the ball change once the ball comes into contact with Wright's foot. It seemed pretty obvious to me and all the commentators, you don't need a degree in physics to know that there no way possible that the ball's trajection can change like that unless there's been contact on the ball.

 

[King Elvis]

UGLY: Im not seeing much of Phil Walsh in that performance, or the press conferences leading up to it, or since. Just an opinion but I reckon our football department has been very un Phil Walsh like for the past 2 weeks.

Sadly, we didn't have him long enough to really instill his ethos into the Club; it takes a long time to reset a culture and really stamp it in - we didn't have time.

With him gone, we've reverted to what we know - the pathetic culture we've developed and ingrained over the last decade.

 

[Mattrox]

I am referring to the BS press conferences, the complete lack of transparency with selections and the lack of spirit and effort on field. We weren't beaten by a better side, we were pathetic.
Non statistical roles, FFS. That was a return to the Trigg era.

Plenty of people understood exactly what I meant. You chose the path it went down.

We'll never get complete transparency with selection...... When Sando went transparent we all said he was a moron, telegraphing the opposition our moves.

This year we've been a closed shop..... leaving Noble to try and explain without giving up too much.

You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[Damp Squarie]

No the reviewers call was "inconclusive".

The whole goal review process is inconclusive...that's why people boo ad nauseam when the maggots go down the path. Joke is a joke when proven week in week out.

 

[smoovy]

I've been trying to think of what Saturday's performance reminded me of and just now it has occurred to me.

The Washington Generals.

Those who don't know the Generals are the team that plays against the Harlem Globetrotters except they aren't there to try and win, but merely provide a token opposition so the Globetrotters can showcase their skill and notch another win.

So bad was our pressure around the ball that we would've done the Generals proud. Sydney are hardly AFL's version of the Globetrotters but were made to look like them.