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

[ams4crows]

Somehow it is the Swans' fault that the goal ump made the wrong decision, just like it was the Swans' fault that the Crows were paying Tippett in brown paper bags.

We didn't declare the 3rd party payment correctly but it still would have been under the cap it wasn't a brown paper bag, what we were found guilty of was draft tampering for having a document that said we'd trade him to the club of his choice for a 2nd round pick

 

[Number37]

it's the AFL's loss for ensuring a non-deserving team makes the finals... & just a reminder it's run by a bunch of amateurs.

Crows fans are always saying the AFL is run by amateurs, then get all up in arms when the AFL does amateurish things.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Crows fans are always saying the AFL is run by amateurs, then get all up in arms when the AFL does amateurish things.

Wow, now you are going all Confucius.

It's not just Crows fans who think Gil is a dill...

 

[Number37]

Wow, now you are going all Confucius.

It's not just Crows fans who think Gil is a dill...

If it is common knowledge why do Crows fans get sooooo upset?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Ah well. There's always next week oh wait

No one plays in bye week...

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Looks like Adelaide cost themselves a spot in the finals by not winning 13 games. Now we can officially stat that Adelaide were not denied a finals spot.

 

[Off Tap]

Looks like Adelaide cost themselves a spot in the finals by not winning 13 games. Now we can officially stat that Adelaide were not denied a finals spot.

Do you realise if you take the win from Sydney, they fall 2 points behind Adelaide and finish 9th?

 

[Captivating]

Looks like Adelaide cost themselves a spot in the finals by not winning 13 games. Now we can officially stat that Adelaide were not denied a finals spot.

whoops!!

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Do you realise if you take the win from Sydney, they fall 2 points behind Adelaide and finish 9th?

Yeah, my bad. Still should have done more to make the finals than to rely on a single decision.

 

[DanielLaneDC]

10th < 9th...

Ah, right, if the result was reversed they would have finished 10th is the argument. I get what you mean now.

I still think it's more clear cut that Carlton in 2013 were more undeserving of finals than Sydney is this season. Even if you overturn the goal decision against Adelaide, Sydney's a kick away from making finals and they're only 2 points off instead of a full 4, whereas Carlton were two games off with one round to go. But I'm willing to concede it's clearly not undisputable.

This feels like one of the closest seasons for finals contention in recent memory though. I think you could make a reasonable case that anyone even as far down as 13th/14th is almost a finalist in most other seasons. It could just be the extra game that makes it feel that way though. So, you could say there's a larger list of sides theoretically deserving of 8th compared to other seasons (y'know, so far as we can ever say anyone who didn't make it could possibly deserve to have).

The biggest problem with extrapolating the Sydney v Melbourne result back to the Adelaide result to say Adelaide/Sydney deserved finals is that there's no way of really knowing if Sydney would have won the game had finals been on the line. It's similar with Adelaide v West Coast yesterday, that game felt a lot like we wouldn't have wrestled for three quarters if finals were on the line, it would have been more decisive from the beginning. That's why I was hoping Sydney would win against Melbourne anyway, because the only scenario where we would have regained certainty of the correct finalists completely withholding the controversy would have been if both Sydney and GWS won.

But we live in the what-if land of Schrödinger's finals. And to different degrees, that's where we've always lived.

 

[Call Me Cake]

Yeah, my bad. Still should have done more to make the finals than to rely on a single decision.

Or......... calls should be called properly/reviewed as they should.

Every score is crucial, whether it's in Round 2, or 16, or 22. That's why we play a season. That's why we have percentages.

It's down to the team to score them - and down to the reviewers to confirm them.

One did their job, the other did not.

Adelaide were robbed, and the fact that it wasn't reviewed, and also recalled, is an absolute travesty to them and the league, and if it were your team, or if you had any love for the game, you'd be just as furious that a definite goal was not awarded and that a rightful finals spot was taken away as a result.

 

[Purple7x08_24]

Or......... calls should be called properly/reviewed as they should.

Every score is crucial, whether it's in Round 2, or 16, or 22. That's why we play a season. That's why we have percentages.

It's down to the team to score them - and down to the reviewers to confirm them.

One did their job, the other did not.

Adelaide were robbed, and the fact that it wasn't reviewed, and also recalled, is an absolute travesty to them and the league, and if it were your team, or if you had any love for the game, you'd be just as furious that a definite goal was not awarded.

I don't disagree with some of the points you've made, but a season review would indicate much more needed to be done to play finals.

They also relied on Sydney to lose against Melbourne.

Adelaide needs to take more accountability for it's position than to blame one single game. Even in that game they played quite poorly for half of the game.

For Adelaide it was:

Playing away from home
Winning the close games....Collingwood and Essendon

In the end, they would have scraped into the 8. Played Carlton in Melbourne and probably struggled. If they won, they would be playing Melbourne or Collingwood at the MCG. I wouldn't imagine Adelaide winning both of those games and making it to the Grand Final.

Even in 2016 the Bulldogs won 15 games. If you're winning 12 games, you aren't good enough without some sort of special situation where you had half your team out for half a year.

 

[sigur]

In the end, they would have scraped into the 8. Played Carlton in Melbourne and probably struggled. If they won, they would be playing Melbourne or Collingwood at the MCG. I wouldn't imagine Adelaide winning both of those games and making it to the Grand Final.

Beat Carlton by 10 goals this year, lost to Melbourne and Collingwood by a kick. They'd be a better shot than anyone 5-8.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I don't disagree with some of the points you've made, but a season review would indicate much more needed to be done to play finals.

In the end, they would have scraped into the 8. Played Carlton in Melbourne and probably struggled.

What you don't seem to realise is that, that isn't up to us to determine. These are ifs and buts. They were denied the rightful chance to prove it wrong. That's what finals are for. That's why they're a different kettle of fish. Which was taken from them not through their own doing. They kicked the goal. They did their part.

It was on the reviewers to do theirs.

Like I said, a goal in the 2nd quarter of Round 2 or win, has just as much bearing on the final ladder as the goal in the 2nd last round. Grand Finals themselves are sometimes decided by a single kick. They all count, and they all should be called properly. Otherwise, scrap the season and do a dice roll.

Your recency bias is trying to justify a stolen finals berth, and that's just not on. If you loved football and what it should stand for, you'd see how wrong that is.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of teams that want to play finals, and for some you'd make the case that they'd probably not make it to the end, but if you're not in it, you can't win it, and anything can happen. Not only do they lose that chance, they lose the funding that comes with it, the confidence boost that comes with making it, and the experience that their young players would have earned in playing them.

No excuse. It was outright robbery. Not just to Crows fans, but to the dignity of the entire league.

 

[lids2richo]

Beat Carlton by 10 goals this year, lost to Melbourne and Collingwood by a kick. They'd be a better shot than anyone 5-8.

By this logic I guess so would Hawks then as they beat both lions and pies?

 

[Purple7x08_24]

What you don't seem to realise is that, that isn't up to us to determine. These are ifs and buts. They were denied the rightful chance to prove it wrong. That's what finals are for. That's why they're a different kettle of fish. Which was taken from them not through their own doing. They kicked the goal. They did their part.

It was on the reviewers to do theirs.

Like I said, a goal in the 2nd quarter of Round 2 or win, has just as much bearing on the final ladder as the goal in the 2nd last round. Grand Finals themselves are sometimes decided by a single kick. They all count, and they all should be called properly. Otherwise, scrap the season and do a dice roll.

Your recency bias is trying to justify a stolen finals berth, and that's just not on. If you loved football and what it should stand for, you'd see how wrong that is.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of teams that want to play finals, and for some you'd make the case that they'd probably not make it to the end, but if you're not in it, you can't win it, and anything can happen. Not only do they lose that chance, they lose the funding that comes with it, the confidence boost that comes with making it, and the experience that their young players would have earned in playing them.

No excuse. It was outright robbery. Not just to Crows fans, but to the dignity of the entire league.

All good points, but how precise do you want it?

What about a push in the back that wasn't there because a player dived. what about a mark that wasn't paid, a high tackle paid or not paid. HTB, Holding the man.

What about an umpire calling a behind confidently, ARC takes over for a review, agrees it's a behind and it prevents the defensive team from extricating the ball from the backline effectively.

Umpires giving 30M for a 50M penalty or 70 M. (Do we look at that too)

A failed bounce up taking 5 seconds off the clock.

Unless we have a full review of the game then at some point we have to admit a margin of error.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Beat Carlton by 10 goals this year, lost to Melbourne and Collingwood by a kick. They'd be a better shot than anyone 5-8.

Well maybe if your slackers won more games on the road and had far better conversion in front of goal (esp including that rnd 23 game against The Swans) you'd be playing finals but you didn't and you ain't.

No point crying over spilt milk.

 

[HairyO]

Do you realise if you take the win from Sydney, they fall 2 points behind Adelaide and finish 9th?

And if you take the win from Adelaide after Rankine was Out Of Bounds before he kicked the winning goal against Hawthorn they'd be back to 9th.

But that failure of the umpires and goal review is totally different to this failure of the umpires and goal review because... reasons.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Adelaide got an extra home game, so…. Meh whatever

I actually forgot about that !!!

 

[djpaulydemon]

It seems like goal umpires feel they need to be able to spot a fingernail on the ball or the ball shaving the post.

They should be only calling points unless they are 100% certain, if not call a review and if they have missed a point the review will pick it up without being called anyway.

Innocent (a goal) until proven guilty (touched or hit the post very clearly) should be the mindset of umpires like it used to be before score reviews. Guessing its a point and then asking for reviews is leading to bad outcomes.

 

[BigVic]

If not for that goal umpire, Crows would be playing Carlton in FW1

 

[david addison]

If not for that goal umpire, Crows would be playing Carlton in FW1

Add to that, the Trac goal against the Blues, and the 8 would look like this:
Pies
Dees
Lions
Power
Saints
Giants
Blues
Crows

Given that the Crows have thrashed both the Saints & Power in recent times, they'd certainly find themselves in a prelim against the Dees.

To answer the question, how to stop it happening again? Hopefully this new chick, I forget her name and title, football operations manager or something like that, at the loony bin, i mean afl house. Good luck to her. Can a boys club have a girl in it? Also, given that it was a KPI of the goal umps to not refer to the arc, but instead to back their own judgement, I'd say instead of penalising the goal ump who screwed up last week, penalise the knuckleheads above him, which I guess would be the umps coach, who's name I don't know, and above him of course is Gil, who addressed the issue in a dog park wearing his civvies.

 

[BigVic]

Add to that, the Trac goal against the Blues, and the 8 would look like this:
Pies
Dees
Lions
Power
Saints
Giants
Blues
Crows

Given that the Crows have thrashed both the Saints & Power in recent times, they'd certainly find themselves in a prelim against the Dees.

To answer the question, how to stop it happening again? Hopefully this new chick, I forget her name and title, football operations manager or something like that, at the loony bin, i mean afl house. Good luck to her. Can a boys club have a girl in it? Also, given that it was a KPI of the goal umps to not refer to the arc, but instead to back their own judgement, I'd say instead of penalising the goal ump who screwed up last week, penalise the knuckleheads above him, which I guess would be the umps coach, who's name I don't know, and above him of course is Gil, who addressed the issue in a dog park wearing his civvies.

Dees would be playing against Brisbane in FW2 and Port would have to play at the MCG against us. GWS would've play a home EF final in Sydney against Carlton and St Kilda would've hosted an EF against Adelaide

 

[Ravin Crow]

And if you take the win from Adelaide after Rankine was Out Of Bounds before he kicked the winning goal against Hawthorn they'd be back to 9th.

But that failure of the umpires and goal review is totally different to this failure of the umpires and goal review because... reasons.

Key difference is that there is no footage definitively showing the ball out of bounds in respect of Rankine’s goal, unless I’ve missed something?

 

[Maddo11]

It seems like goal umpires feel they need to be able to spot a fingernail on the ball or the ball shaving the post.

They should be only calling points unless they are 100% certain, if not call a review and if they have missed a point the review will pick it up without being called anyway.

Innocent (a goal) until proven guilty (touched or hit the post very clearly) should be the mindset of umpires like it used to be before score reviews. Guessing its a point and then asking for reviews is leading to bad outcomes.

Uh, wasn't it the other way? If there was some doubt, pay the lesser score?