Play Nice Goal Umpire costs Adelaide a shot at finals, how do you stop it from happening again?

[Elmer_Judd]

You were happy with the call is what you mean, but the truth is what Whateley said.

The wrong call was obviously made then as it was in this Adelaide game.

That's stupid.

I argue that the goal umpire should've called goal, get the review you know you get with the goal call rather than pretend you know what it is just so you don't get a review, which is what the AFL wanted.

Do you honestly honestly think the AFL wanted all this controversy and angst just 2 weeks out from the finals ??

Crows fans have every right to be fuming (I would be too if it happened to Carlton) but all this talk of an AFL conspiracy, esp about the Swans is utter delusional hogwash.

 

[The Tilt]

Gill wasn't/isn't happy. It's rained on his parade.

The AFL, and by extension Gill were very publicly embarrassed. And this goes a long to explain why he was ok throwing the umpire under the bus.

In an interview of our Chairman on Monday, he stated that the AFL spent Saturday night and Sunday morning trying to prove it wasn't a goal.

FFS, Salty Pete. Let it go.

 

[Bloods86]

The goal umpire called point deliberately when he full well knows a goal call gets a review, that's all I know.

But that's not all you've been saying is it.

 

[Tiger 80]

Gill wasn't/isn't happy. It's rained on his parade.

The AFL, and by extension Gill were very publicly embarrassed. And this goes a long to explain why he was ok throwing the umpire under the bus.

In an interview of our Chairman on Monday, he stated that the AFL spent Saturday night and Sunday morning trying to prove it wasn't a goal.

So if I'm reading that correctly the AFL tried everything they could to not have to throw their goal umpire, that was only doing their bidding, under the bus?

 

[Philth]

So if I'm reading that correctly the AFL tried everything they could to not have to throw their goal umpire, that was only doing their bidding, under the bus?

So, what is the AFL's reason for not wanting the Crows to win?

I'm confused...

 

[Syd]

Tigers fans getting a bit of success ruined their brains judging by bigfooty

Nah, they were shot looooooong before then.
Probably heat stroke from wandering in the desert for 3 decades.

 

[Truetiger]

I am still getting over the Final vs Bris last season lol. Either way every part of the game should be looked at.

 

[Tiger 80]

So, what is the AFL's reason for not wanting the Crows to win?

All I know is that the AFL can't want both Adelaide and Sydney to win the game.

Why do you think the AFL's goal umpire was pretending he knew it was point?

 

[DaBarz]

I seriously reckon they should get 4 of Sydney's points next year!

 

[Maddo11]

All I know is that the AFL can't want both Adelaide and Sydney to win the game.

Why do you think the AFL's goal umpire was pretending he knew it was point?

If you think the league is so corrupt that it would instruct the umpires to cheat to favour one team why the * do you follow the league?

 

[Bloods86]

All I know is that the AFL can't want both Adelaide and Sydney to win the game.

Why do you think the AFL's goal umpire was pretending he knew it was point?

Because he thought it was a point. I think he was wrong, but aside from nonsense claims, there's no evidence to suggest it was deliberate, AFL-favoured, or AFL-directed.

I've listed a bunch of counter-factors you keep ignoring, understandably because you have nothing behind your claims.

 

[Tiger 80]

Because he thought it was a point. I think he was wrong, but aside from nonsense claims, there's no evidence to suggest it was deliberate, AFL-favoured, or AFL-directed.

You say "thought," I say pretended he knew.

You say you "think he was wrong," I know he was wrong to pretend he knew.

He can't of known it was a point when it wasn't, but he knows that a call of goal guarantees a review, so all he had to do was err on the side of caution at that late stage by calling goal, but he chose not to, why would he do that? Because he "thought it was a point" doesn't cut it for me.

For me to know that Adelaide scored a goal and pretend that Sydney won is messed up, I can't do that.

 

[Bloods86]

He can't of known it was a goal when it wasn't

Yes, he made a mistake. That's far different than some of what you've been saying.

 

[PeterSalt]

FFS, Salty Pete. Let it go.

Hi friend .. please, tell me, which part of the post triggered you?

Seriously, I'm curious

 

[SC_Power]

The goal umpire called point deliberately when he full well knows a goal call gets a review, that's all I know.

So are you saying categorically that you know that the goal umpire deliberately made an incorrect call?

 

[Maddo11]

AFL confirms score review change ahead of finals series - AFL confirms score review change ahead of finals series

Interesting tidbits;

"I’ve spoken to the Swans... Jake Lloyd

44

Jake Lloyd

Age

30

Ht

182cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.4

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

9.0

5star

M

4.3

4star

T

1.9

4star

MG

403.9

5star

D

23.4

5star

K

14.4

5star

HB

9.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

1.9

3star

MG

403.9

5star

D

23.2

5star

K

13.4

5star

HB

9.8

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.2

4star

MG

357.4

5star

was underneath the post and thought it had hit the post, I spoke to Brett Rosebury who was the officiating umpire who thought where he was it had hit the post."

umpire of 500 games Rosebury thought it had hit the post.

The AFLs changes for the rest of the year pretty much just pass the buck of reviewing to some one else with arguably a worse view than the goal ump (in majority of cases). How often does a review end up inconclusive anyway and stay with the on field decision.

But whatever, if it fixes this 0.01% of cases do be it.

 

[Tiger 80]

Yes, he made a mistake. That's far different than some of what you've been saying.

So the mistake he made was pretending he knew what he couldn't of known? But we have to admit that he knows a goal call gets a review?

 

[bonehilda]

"I’ve spoken to the Swans... Jake Lloyd was underneath the post and thought it had hit the post, I spoke to Brett Rosebury who was the officiating umpire who thought where he was it had hit the post."

umpire of 500 games Rosebury thought it had hit the post.

What else were they gonna say, seriously? Our players and the crowd certainly didn’t think it hit the post.

I’d like an explanation as to why not a single umpire out there, including one that’s racked up 500 games, had any situational awareness or feel for the game in those last 90 seconds. Just a collective bed s**t.

 

[Maddo11]

What else were they gonna say, seriously? Our players and the crowd certainly didn’t think it hit the post.

I’d like an explanation as to why not a single umpire out there, including one that’s racked up 500 games, had any situational awareness or feel for the game in those last 90 seconds. Just a collective bed s**t.

I don't think there's any reason for Rosebury to lie about his opinion on this case, it's not like he could have ordered a review if he thought it was a goal anyway. The two answers to the question of what he thought could only be "thought it was a point" or "thought it might have been a goal but nothing i can do about it anyway"

See;

 

[Noidnadroj]

Everything you said in bold is completely irrelevant. It doesn't actually matter what kind of season the Crows had, whether they only played one decent quarter or shot themselves in the foot with inaccuracy.

All that matters is the umpiring decision in question which was manifestly incorrect and cost Adelaide the game and handed it to Sydney. That it also cost Adelaide a potential finals spot only compounds the gravity of the error. Your point about the Crows being 'unlikely to make finals' is wrong as well, as they would be sitting in the 8 with that win with only WCE to play. Almost a certainty to play finals in fact.

To your initial point - "you can't overturn a result with that much time left" - but why can an official call a clear goal a point and not provide the opposing team any opportunity to review? For an error of this gravity - the match should should actually be replayed. Sydney would hardly have grounds to oppose that, as if they correct decision was made they would have more than likely lost.

Sydney had an incorrect free kick go against them in the last quarter that cost a goal. Replays showed without question it was an error by the umpire and was manifestly incorrect.

Where does it stop?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Demonic Ascent]

AFL confirms score review change ahead of finals series - AFL confirms score review change ahead of finals series

Interesting tidbits;

"I’ve spoken to the Swans... Jake Lloyd was underneath the post and thought it had hit the post, I spoke to Brett Rosebury who was the officiating umpire who thought where he was it had hit the post."

umpire of 500 games Rosebury thought it had hit the post.

The AFLs changes for the rest of the year pretty much just pass the buck of reviewing to some one else with arguably a worse view than the goal ump (in majority of cases). How often does a review end up inconclusive anyway and stay with the on field decision.

But whatever, if it fixes this 0.01% of cases do be it.

They thought it hit the post because they heard the Swans players hand hit the post. They didn't see it so should've asked for a review. Sheer idiocy.

Having an extra person in the arc is typical of AFL bureaucracy. Not invest in better technology, nah let's employ another doofus to confuse the issue further.

 

[maskmcgee]

I don't think there's any reason for Rosebury to lie about his opinion on this case, it's not like he could have ordered a review if he thought it was a goal anyway. The two answers to the question of what he thought could only be "thought it was a point" or "thought it might have been a goal but nothing i can do about it anyway"

See;

Except the all clear for a goal is two hands up and the all clear for a point is 1 hand up so they do have to have the same opinion.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

FFS we still gonna talk about this over all summer aren't we ? SMH

 

[Maddo11]

Except the all clear for a goal is two hands up and the all clear for a point is 1 hand up so they do have to have the same opinion.

Nah. "all clear" is just the field ump recognising that the goal ump wishes to signal a score and the field ump confirming that there is no free kick or mark paid that would prevent it.

The field ump has no input on what the score should be except for "touched all clear" (for when it's touched off the boot away from the goal line)

Relevant rule

 

[Port 2004]

FFS we still gonna talk about this over all summer aren't we ? SMH

Of course we are because no other club has ever ever been affected by a s**t umpiring decision. It has literally never happened before.