Mega Thread Port Forum 'General AFL Talk' Thread

[Andre]

On goal reviews, I'd be almost tempted to go the route of cricket. Each side has a certain number of reviews they can ask for over the season, of either their own goals or the oppositions. Once they are up the goal umpires ruling stands.

And I'd definitely go with the point of view like cricket where the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt, that when the goal umpire or the replay isn't sure it's a goal.

 

[RobbieGray17]

The problem is the technology they are using / how it's setup isn't always in a better position than the goal umpires. Hot spot and the like in cricket and tennis are there more as a supplement to the umpires, the AFL goal reviews are not so clear cut and sometimes seem in contention with them, rather than an extra view.

Even if the sloane goal did graze the goal post ever so slightly, benefit of the doubt rules. I reckon they should only ever over-rule the umpire IF, and only IF there is conclusive evidence against it.

 

[Andre]

Even if the sloane goal did graze the goal post ever so slightly, benefit of the doubt rules. I reckon they should only ever over-rule the umpire IF, and only IF there is conclusive evidence against it.

Port have had a few inconclusive ones go against us and inconclusive ones go for the opposition. It's like the MRP. As a clear starting point whether inconclusive ones are called points or goals the AFL should clearly state which is the case and apply it consistently.

 

[RobbieGray17]

On goal reviews, I'd be almost tempted to go the route of cricket. Each side has a certain number of reviews they can ask for over the season, of either their own goals or the oppositions. Once they are up the goal umpires ruling stands.

And I'd definitely go with the point of view like cricket where the batsman gets the benefit of the doubt, that when the goal umpire or the replay isn't sure it's a goal.

I couldn't see it working in footy. too much going on, and its not like NFL with stoppages, and rotations.

Heres how they can do it.
Umpire makes a definitive call. Cut the BS, don't ask for confirmation on a score review, the umpire makes a confident call.

A team upstairs can quickly (using reliable technology) check out contentious decisions, and only overrule the decision if the evidence is conclusive.

* Do not use it for touched off the boot kicks

 

[Andre]

I couldn't see it working in footy. too much going on, and its not like NFL with stoppages, and rotations.

Teams would have to indicate to the goal umpire within 10 - 15 seconds they want a review. And if it's capped at something like 20 reviews a season, there'd be on average between the teams 2 reviews a game, not a major impediment (you'd keep the number allowed low or it'd end up every goal not going through the centre above where players can reach having a review asked for).

 

[Sneeky]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-08-20/the-grill-how-smart-is-a-footballer

New grill is up testing AFL Player's knowledge. One question was what is the capital of Canada, goold Ol Tex Walker answered Alaska HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

 

[philreich]

I see the main story on the back page of today's blatherings is still the crows v Richmond goal review "error".

Seriously, move the **** on! It didn't cost them the match, it didn't cost them any momentum. In fact, they scored a goal almost straight away and later grabbed the lead. Just shut up about it.

The Crows were just lucky Richmond kicked 3:14 after half time, or the margin would have been embarrassing for them. Plus the free kicks were 28-17 in their favour, so they got an armchair ride for most of the night.

It was an ordinary decision by the TV umpire: maybe steps will now be put in place to stop it happening again.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-08-20/the-grill-how-smart-is-a-footballer

New grill is up testing AFL Player's knowledge. One question was what is the capital of Canada, goold Ol Tex Walker answered Alaska HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

I am embarrassed at how dumb footballers are after watching that.

The last question in particular, come on fellas. Gee whiz.

 

[LFC2010]

Port have had a few inconclusive ones go against us and inconclusive ones go for the opposition. It's like the MRP. As a clear starting point whether inconclusive ones are called points or goals the AFL should clearly state which is the case and apply it consistently.

The one against the Bulldogs was one I remember where we got shafted, Rob Murphy I think it was claimed it grazed his jumper on the way through.

I couldn't see it working in footy. too much going on, and its not like NFL with stoppages, and rotations.

Heres how they can do it.
Umpire makes a definitive call. Cut the BS, don't ask for confirmation on a score review, the umpire makes a confident call.

A team upstairs can quickly (using reliable technology) check out contentious decisions, and only overrule the decision if the evidence is conclusive.

* Do not use it for touched off the boot kicks

100% agree with touched off the boot kicks... a high percent of the time they come back as inconclusive when they're reviewed. If the umpire at the time can't see a clear deviation of the footy then it should be called as the goal umpire sees it.

 

[Steve Dore]

Even if the sloane goal did graze the goal post ever so slightly, benefit of the doubt rules. I reckon they should only ever over-rule the umpire IF, and only IF there is conclusive evidence against it.

Believe it or not that is the rule.

 

[Alberton Proud]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-08-20/the-grill-how-smart-is-a-footballer

New grill is up testing AFL Player's knowledge. One question was what is the capital of Canada, goold Ol Tex Walker answered Alaska HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

I get really a get bomb Alaska heave ho

 

[biskit]

Exactly, Wharfie.

Crows or otherwise, the goal should only have been disallowed if there was conclusive evidence.

It may not have happened if the AFL had emphasised this to the official at Adelaide Oval about six weeks or so ago. I was at the game, and did not see TV replays, so I maybe wrong on this, but ... Does anyone recall a Port goal overturned, I think it was in the game against Essendon. We scored a goal at the northern end, I think Kane Mitchell kicked it. The goal umpire signalled a goal, in fact the umpires and players were back in the middle for the ball up, when it was reviewed by the official in the stands. The replay I saw on the big screen at the ground showed that the ball may or may not have hit the post - you couldn't tell. However, the official saw fit to overrule the goal. From the replay I saw at the game, I couldn't see how there was conclusive evidence to overturn the call. The media didn't really make a big deal of it at the time.

To rub salt into the wound, there was a review of an Essendon score a few minutes later, and it was given a goal - thanks to the fact that it is a waste of time going for replays to see if the ball was touched before the line at Adelaide Oval - because there are no goal post cameras, and the angle of the vision does not allow a definitive answer. They have to fix this up soon.

 

[Andre]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-08-20/the-grill-how-smart-is-a-footballer

New grill is up testing AFL Player's knowledge. One question was what is the capital of Canada, goold Ol Tex Walker answered Alaska HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

I sometimes find it amusing trying to guess what jobs / paths players would have taken if they weren't AFL footballers. Buddy for instance with his buried 3 strikes would be rotting in a jail somewhere, Tex would be getting help with the Bedford group.

 

[Concussion]

Surely, if they can put a camera in a stump they can put camera/sensors in a goal post, it's not that hard (or expensive).

 

[RobbieGray17]

Surely, if they can put a camera in a stump they can put camera/sensors in a goal post, it's not that hard (or expensive).

Where do you draw the line though. Suppose we get all the technology to get 99.99% of decisions right.

Then we want sensors on the perimeter.
Then we'll want to know how far a player has run with the ball
Then wé will want reviews for marks.

Just leave it alone I say.

 

[SureBuddy]

There is no way Demons will get a priority pick when there is a team sitting below them on the ladder lol. The AFL simply cannot justify that without also giving the Saints one.

I really think they are tanking in this later stage of the year. They were very competitive early on, beat Crows, Essendon, pushed us very close twice. No way they are that s**t they deserve another pick.

 

[questionable]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2014-08-20/the-grill-how-smart-is-a-footballer

New grill is up testing AFL Player's knowledge. One question was what is the capital of Canada, goold Ol Tex Walker answered Alaska HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

what year did world war 2 end?

heath shaw: "1875"

 

[chiwigi]

I get really a get bomb Alaska heave ho

All those private school scholarships were sure well worth it!
Dangerfield...stays in school and misses a year of AFL football...thinks WW1 ended in 1941, SHEESH.

Saying that, most of the rest of them were idiots too.

and how can anyone who completed education to a Year 8 level think that Jupiter is closest to the sun?

 

[Comettski_1]

what year did world war 2 end?

heath shaw: "1875"

We landed on the moon, we landed on the moon!

 

[Concussion]

Where do you draw the line though. Suppose we get all the technology to get 99.99% of decisions right.

Then we want sensors on the perimeter.
Then we'll want to know how far a player has run with the ball
Then wé will want reviews for marks.

Just leave it alone I say.

The major problem they have is they have cameras already so they have to either take it back to human interpretation or make it perfect, it can't stay half-arsed as it is atm.
I am happy either way but not how it currently is because it's crap and even channel 9 did a better job using Go-Pros during the legends game.

 

[BIG MATTY WHITE]

It happened to a a worker in Tassie a few years ago, he had been putting in a few bucks a week and decided to pull the money out at the last minute, iirc they rest of the group got about $80k each.

See what I mean....worst feeling ever going to work and watch the rest of the scrubs celebrate

 

[Steve Dore]

..... how can anyone who completed education to a Year 8 level think that Jupiter is closest to the sun?

What got me was the number that said Mars was the closest planet to the Sun. No wonder we have global warming here on Earth.

 

[finbarr]

"Alaska". That isn't even funny. He's a complete idiot and worshipped by so many. The cult of moron has gone too far in this country. Time to start raising the bar again, Australia.

 

[chiwigi]

We landed on the moon, we landed on the moon!

Didn't one of them say 1987?

I wish they had asked more of that type of question rather than the sporting ones. I guess they were getting a bit worried about the impression they were making.

 

[DonDraper]

The Sloane decision was bad but as Finny said, that's not the reason they lost the game.

I remember a Scott Thompson free kick paid against...Hawthorn (I think) last season and it felt like they'd only just got over that.

Bad decisions happen each and every week. The Hombsch/Franklin non push in the back annoyed me to no end but you get over it.