Goal Referral Furore - West Coast v Collingwood

[Xsess]

Where is the outrage!

To the uninitiated 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, unanimously agreeing 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 everyone’s time I thought at the time), before returning to the original angle which is suddenly blurry, inconclusive. Next minute the goal umpire is frantically waving the flags to signal a goal.

Genius Big Footy super-sleuth Oxirane has achieved what none of the professionals associated with AFL have, dissemenating the sorry evidence for your viewing pleasure*.

A - Replay broadcast by Fox immediately after the goal
B - Score Review

What do you guys think?

*This issue originally posted on "Scandal" board put on the main board at the urging of posters.

 

[HawkMongrel]

Yeah, it was pretty suspect that they didn't go back to the first piece of footage that showed conclusively it was touched.

The finger snapped right back.

Then all of a sudden they go to a blurry slow mo that doesn't show anything.

Plonkers at best that should be sacked. Corrupt at worst.

 

[Brad Goodman]

It was two weeks ago.

 

[Father Jack]

I thought it was a bit weird and confusing at the time, as everyone agreed it was touched then suddenly it wasn't, but we won and I didn't think any more about it. But yeah, odd.

 

[Xsess]

It was two weeks ago.

Exactly, why no explaination?

Scoring is fundemental to the games integrity.

 

[kaiserchief13]

That game was as rigged as I've ever seen and still they couldn't get Collingwood over the line.

 

[pazza]

It does look a lot quicker in the 2nd one.

 

[Farang83150]

Interesting stuff, defo touched.

 

[Gydafud]

Is the 2nd sample (B) sped up because the scrubbing is being controlled by the reviewer?

 

[ep2018]

I remember it, we won anyway so it was quickly forgotten. Not convinced it was done on purpose, I think better technology should be implemented if the AFL continue with the review system. Proper slowmo shots and an actual camera on the goal line pls.

 

[javaguice]

Disgraceful by the AFL. It was obvious on the replay. Then they did the review and still got it wrong.

What a joke of a competition this is turning into.

 

[Tiger71]

I thought Port supporters last year were bad but they have nothing on WC supporters this year. How many threads do we need about WC

 

[arfadunger]

No one other than Eagles fans will worry about this, and we don't really care because we won. I've got to say that I was fuming at the time though, and it seemed really odd. Would have thought (hoped?) that some explanation would have been forthcoming or that someone in the media would have mentioned it.

 

[master bate]

Well on the evidence of B I think the decision to stick with the umpires call is the right choice.

On evidence of A I'd say that is conclusively touched.

Where did you get these 2 patches of vision from?

Would it surprise me if it was rigged - yes. Would it surprise me at all if the commentators had access to better footage than the goal reviewer - Not at all.

 

[ep2018]

I thought Port supporters last year were bad but they have nothing on WC supporters this year. How many threads do we need about WC

You are completely obsessed with us.

 

[Tiger71]

You are completely obsessed with us.

lol no sir, I am not. Just its hard to not talk eagles when there are 8 threads about that club, most started by eagle supporters

 

[EagleShore]

I thought Port supporters last year were bad but they have nothing on WC supporters this year. How many threads do we need about WC

It's not about West Coast, it is about the integrity of a system implemented by the AFL. No matter which teams/players were involved, it would be a legitimate cause for concern.

 

[javaguice]

I thought Port supporters last year were bad but they have nothing on WC supporters this year. How many threads do we need about WC

Can never have too many!!

 

[Balance]

No one other than Eagles fans will worry about this, and we don't really care because we won.

Problem is, no matter who won, it's going to happen again, system is corrupt, that game was fixed.

 

[pantskyle]

I think people are missing the point if they think this is an "Eagles" thing.

It's simply something that in the day and age of goal reviews shouldn't happen in any game for any team.

You certainly wouldn't want to see it happen in a final. It effects all to make sure that the integrity of the goal review is upheld.

It's a stuff up and hopefully a one off.

 

[kaiserchief13]

lol no sir, I am not. Just its hard to not talk eagles when there are 8 threads about that club, most started by eagle supporters

You tip against WC every week and tip for Richmond each week just because you want Richmond to replace them in top 4 lol. Must be last in your tipping comp

 

[kaiserchief13]

I think people are missing the point if they think this is an "Eagles" thing.

It's simply something that in the day and age of goal reviews shouldn't happen in any game for any team.

You certainly wouldn't want to see it happen in a final. It effects all to make sure that the integrity of the goal review is upheld.

It's a stuff up and hopefully a one off.

With the way that game was umpired along with this it was certainly rigged and the AFL didn't believe they needed a 50-0 free kick count to win as that would've been too obvious

 

[Dagless]

lol no sir, I am not. Just its hard to not talk eagles when there are 8 threads about that club, most started by eagle supporters

But... You started the last one?

Either way, that game was just terrible all which way from an umpiring PoV. Hardly surprising that the dodginess extended to the review booth. They're lucky WC ended up winning.

 

[blue harvest]

I'm happy with inconclusive and happy for something which may/may not have got a pinky on it to be called a goal.
IMO score reviews are just to eliminate obvious mistakes.

Dodgy frees/non frees in front of goal are 100 times more a problem compared with something like this.

 

[kaiserchief13]

I'm happy with inconclusive and happy for something which may/may not have got a pinky on it to be called a goal.
IMO score reviews are just to eliminate obvious mistakes.

Dodgy frees/non frees in front of goal are 100 times more a problem compared with something like this.

So you are happy when it's a prelim or grand final and this mistake is 'made'?