Scandal CONFIRMED - Fox obscures goal referral

Remove this Banner Ad

This really needs to be addressed by the AFL, should link it to all the journos so the AFL can issue an explanation
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Milanista28 said:
Has this blown up yet or is the machine turned up to 11?
Click to expand...
Didn't happen against a 'big' enough team or in a big enough game. Should have been a huge issue that week, along with two other times when the umpires didn't go to the video review when they clearly should have in that game.
 
Wow yeah wtf how has this not been raised by anyone? Someone send it to the papers and some of the non aligned TC networks.
 
Amazingly they had no problems with the system, nor did they require multiple angles in the Dogs vs Pies game on Sunday either.
 
Jeeze that's bad. Should rename the thread though, pretty sure fox/seven just show the footage the reviewer chooses/uses?
 
matt_kcd said:
Yeah, but who has the facilities to blur footage?? The broadcaster!
Click to expand...

As much as I love the idea of a conspiracy theory, it doesn't really check out in that case. Fox has no control over the review, the reviewer, or what footage the reviewer chooses. If the AFL or the umpires or what have you decided to fudge up that review on purpose and edit the replay to make it look like it wasn't touched, they'd then have to go and send this edited footage to fox within a minute. probably even less. Or fox goes and edits it themselves for no gain whatsoever, apparently, within a remarkably short amount of time.

Unless I have completely misunderstood this thread, and the replay in question was the game replay itself, hours later, and not the replay directly after the review during the match. It just seems a bit far fetched, to me.
 
Highwayleopard said:
As much as I love the idea of a conspiracy theory, it doesn't really check out in that case. Fox has no control over the review, the reviewer, or what footage the reviewer chooses. If the AFL or the umpires or what have you decided to fudge up that review on purpose and edit the replay to make it look like it wasn't touched, they'd then have to go and send this edited footage to fox within a minute. probably even less. Or fox goes and edits it themselves for no gain whatsoever, apparently, within a remarkably short amount of time.

Unless I have completely misunderstood this thread, and the replay in question was the game replay itself, hours later, and not the replay directly after the review during the match. It just seems a bit far fetched, to me.
Click to expand...

As far as I recall Replay "A" was done directly after the goal while the umps were discussing it, prompting myself watching to immediately say "touched lets get on with it". Then the official video review was done seconds later using replay "B". Personally i don't think its a conspiracy and done on purpose but the AFL still needs to address as to how it can happen.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Oxirane said:
PitifulSoftHedgehog.gif

A - Replay
B - Score Review
Click to expand...
Here's the whole replay.
 
Last edited:
Adz said:
Nothing to see here.
Inconclusive. Goal was correct decision
Click to expand...

Nope you can see the little finger flick back - but that's not the point of the thread. Fox are applying a motion blur effect to goal score review footage. Surely that is huge news?
 
MC Extra Dollop said:
Well, in cricket (that well-known 'gentlemen's game'), we also get the bowling team screaming their appeals for a wicket to be given, only to be turned down, then decide (usually wisely) not to review it. So...why were they appealing in the first place then? Why would Gilchrist (as a wicketkeeper) have gone up countless times when he would have known a batsman wasn't out?

Sport is full of hypocrisy, depending on where your allegiances lie.
Click to expand...
My Pom senses are tingling.
 
I'm not usually one to go all umpire crazy but the games against Richmond and Collingwood were lol worthy.

It's so clear the AFL help Collingwood in particular, any way they quietly can.
 
Beer n Skittles said:
That is unbelievable. It looks like they've dropped the frame rate (about 7 in A, 2 in B). WTF
Click to expand...

Dropping the frame rate on recorded footage would just make it more jittery - not blurry. You might be thinking of shutter speed - but you can't change that on footage that has already been shot. It's definitely had some kind of effect added to it afterwards.
 
Masto said:
Dropping the frame rate on recorded footage would just make it more jittery - not blurry. You might be thinking of shutter speed - but you can't change that on footage that has already been shot. It's definitely had some kind of effect added to it afterwards.
Click to expand...
Huh? It is more jittery. There's only 2 frames in replay B
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top