Scandal CONFIRMED - Fox obscures goal referral

Remove this Banner Ad

Adz said:
Nothing to see here.
Inconclusive. Goal was correct decision
Click to expand...

Regardless of the decision I think the point is why was the 'A' vision not blurry & quite clearly shows the finger flick and in the 'B' vision of exactly the same shot the hand was blurred so much you couldn't tell?
 
Looks like the footage has been filmed at some speed. The footage is then provided to the score reviewer who is able to use their tool to speed up and slow down that footage. What they are seeing is then fed back to the Fox Footy broadcast.

The two examples (A and B) that are floating around in this thread look like they're at slightly different speeds. Because the footage is likely being re-fed back to Fox at different speeds then there will be losses involved.

The fault is likely not with Fox Footy blurring the footage in some sort of conspiracy. It is likely the score reviewer not looking at his footage at the same speed as he did the first couple times.

The entire score review system is amateurish at best.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

cryptor said:
Looks like the footage has been filmed at some speed. The footage is then provided to the score reviewer who is able to use their tool to speed up and slow down that footage. What they are seeing is then fed back to the Fox Footy broadcast.

The two examples (A and B) that are floating around in this thread look like they're at slightly different speeds. Because the footage is likely being re-fed back to Fox at different speeds then there will be losses involved.

The fault is likely not with Fox Footy blurring the footage in some sort of conspiracy. It is likely the score reviewer not looking at his footage at the same speed as he did the first couple times.

The entire score review system is amateurish at best.
Click to expand...

Preposterous. It's clear that the AFL (or Eddie, which is the same thing, am I right?) phoned Fox immediately after seeing the first review and ordered them to blur it so that the video ump could believably call it a goal. Luckily, Fox have special 'Collingwood advantaging' software that can automatically do this at the click of a button. And yes, even though the AFL takes 5 years to come to any decision, if it comes to handing Collingwood an advantage they can speed this through in mere seconds.

Now get out of this thread and take your common sense with you.
 
manicmagpie said:
Preposterous. It's clear that the AFL (or Eddie, which is the same thing, am I right?) phoned Fox immediately after seeing the first review and ordered them to blur it so that the video ump could believably call it a goal. Luckily, Fox have special 'Collingwood advantaging' software that can automatically do this at the click of a button. And yes, even though the AFL takes 5 years to come to any decision, if it comes to handing Collingwood an advantage they can speed this through in mere seconds.

Now get out of this thread and take your common sense with you.
Click to expand...
Press red for Ed. Press blue for blur.
 
cryptor said:
Looks like the footage has been filmed at some speed. The footage is then provided to the score reviewer who is able to use their tool to speed up and slow down that footage. What they are seeing is then fed back to the Fox Footy broadcast.

The two examples (A and B) that are floating around in this thread look like they're at slightly different speeds. Because the footage is likely being re-fed back to Fox at different speeds then there will be losses involved.

The fault is likely not with Fox Footy blurring the footage in some sort of conspiracy. It is likely the score reviewer not looking at his footage at the same speed as he did the first couple times.

The entire score review system is amateurish at best.
Click to expand...

I have no technical knowledge of video broadcasting and I'm guessing weird things can happen when sending signals to multiple places during a broadcast. However since all the review is done in (various states of) slow motion, there shouldn't be any information lost, as the real frames just get repeated.

I just want to know if the reviewer in the box ever saw something like footage 'B', where the ball is a transparent yellow streak comprised of multiple frames, or if that was just for the broadcast. Because the frames in footage 'B' is what was rocked back-and-forth for the majority of the review process.

Maybe I'll try draw a diagram.
 
Last edited:
So here we have the highest grossing Vic team in a shootout for top four with an interstate eloper. Games telecast on a pay tv provider who happen to be losing subscriptions handover fist. Game kicks off and commentary team are openly barracking for Collingwood from the first bounce. Approaching three quarter time the woods are on the end of a fearsome flogging with only a 26-7 free kick count keeping them in reach.

A snap out of the pocket results in a crucial goal to the Woods, but as the cheering from the commentary team subsides clear obvious vision is broadcast to the world proving the ball was touched. The commentary team deflates, conceding it was touched and Australia waits for the decision to be reversed. Curiously while this is going on a number of inconclusive angles appear (wasting everyones time I thought at the time), before returning to the original angle which is suddenly completely blurred and totally inconclusive. A squeak of exitement escapes Dermott - the FLOG - and next minute the maggot with the sticks is frantically waving the flags to signal a goal. Why the subsequent silence from the commentary team who all saw the vision, all called it touched? Why the subsequent silence of thE entire football industry, the AFL or anyone in the media Why??

Did Fox send the AFL's button monkey a bum steer by providing doctored vision?

Did the AFL'S button monkey - the bloke with the fast/slow gizmo - decide to ignore the the slowest frame by frame vision and instead give credence to the vision showing the footy exploding off a foot at 60mph?

Conspiracy to gift the AFL biggest drawcard a birth at the big show... or garden variety incompetence?
 
Last edited:
Lol at the conspiracy theories. It's just dead average that they wouldn't provide the viewer with the best available vision, especially when having already shown us they have better footage to offer. No grand conspiracy here, just a s**t thing to do that needs to be addressed.
 
Why does the picture quality change so much about 40 seconds in? It goes from totally clear to looking like it was filmed with sand of the lens.
 
manicmagpie said:
the AFL (or Eddie, which is the same thing, am I right?) phoned Fox immediately after seeing the first review and ordered them to blur it so that the video ump could believably call it a goal. .
Click to expand...

With the silence from the AFL and footy industry we can only speculate. Why did the vision suddenly change, why no explaination at the obviously incorrect decision made at the referral? How is Buckley still coaching?
 
Last edited:
Xsess said:
With the silence from the AFL and footy industry we can only speculate. Why did the vision suddenly change, why no explaination at the obviously incorrect decision made at the referral?
Click to expand...

My favourite part of the conspiracy is when the shadowy figures at Fox Footy, knowing that a brave band of footy forum warriors is onto them, ensure that there are at least 4 or 5 score reviews in Collingwood's next game, with all decisions going against the Pies.

Good thing we're all too smart to fall for that obvious ploy, though. Unless... maybe the true puppet master behind this has actually been... Peter Gordon! It was he who arranged for the footage to be doctored in the Pies-Eagles match, knowing that it would lead to an overreaction by the patsies at Fox Footy for Collingwood's next game, which just happened to be against the Bulldogs.

If I go missing this week please keep scrutinising Peter Gordon. Someone has to keep him in check, or God only knows what he'll do next.

Or alternatively,

Xsess said:
or garden variety incompetence?
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fact remans genius BF sleuths have uncovered an almighty injustice inflicted on the good guys. Somewhere between the FOX button monkey, AFL button monkey and stick maggot. I bet none of them even care that I cut my finger retrieving my stubbie from the flatscreen :(. I want answers damnit!!
 
Oscarman said:
Why does the picture quality change so much about 40 seconds in? It goes from totally clear to looking like it was filmed with sand of the lens.
Click to expand...

I can only repeat this so many times. An effect was added to it. Its the only explanation. A video camera can't simultaneously shoot two streams at different shutter speeds. It just wouldn't work. So the only explanation is that a motion blur effect was added.
 
Masto said:
I can only repeat this so many times. An effect was added to it. Its the only explanation. A video camera can't simultaneously shoot two streams at different shutter speeds. It just wouldn't work. So the only explanation is that a motion blur effect was added.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I was asking the rhetorical question. It's just unbelievable. Imagine if this happened in the last 5 minutes of a Grand Final.
 
Xsess said:
Fact remans genius BF sleuths have uncovered an almighty injustice inflicted on the good guys.
Click to expand...

Mate, you're all over this like a fat kid and a cupcake. I would suggest forwarding this to Eagles mgmt but nothing will come from that.

This needs to be escalated asap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top