AFL Rd 20: Adelaide v Port Adelaide - 16:05 ACST, AUG 04, 2018 - The Derby!

[footy4ever]

Watch this until you can see the ball going through the goals (yes it may have touched the post) should only take you one viewing.

Are there idiots seriously saying the ball went between the goal post and the point post? Wow, just wow.

 

[FR0GGY]

Are there idiots seriously saying the ball went between the goal post and the point post? Wow, just wow.

Yes yes there are.

 

[LFC2010]

Are there idiots seriously saying the ball went between the goal post and the point post? Wow, just wow.

Even without my glasses on I can tell that went between the posts.

I, like most others can also say the ball had hit post in normal speed, this is the vision they should've been shown 1st, not slow mo vision as it's usually harder to tell if a ball hit the post or not.

The AFL's statement said the reviewer (who ever they are?) viewed it in 3 separate slow mo angles for 23secs (7.66666sec each angle), but the most defining vision was the full speed angle, did the reviewer view the normal speed replay?

If this league wants to be a proper professional league, it needs to get rid of the amateurs that run this s**t show (starting at the top with Gillon), invest in proper technology and stop protecting it's own systems in place when they get s**t wrong.

 

[Jedi Tiger]

Watch this until you can see the ball going through the goals (yes it may have touched the post) should only take you one viewing.

Am I missing something here? Keep watching, zooming in and out, even SQUINTING, and I swear I can only see the ball going in front of the goal post (between goal and point post). Looks like you can clearly see the graphic on the ball in front of the post, which can’t happen if it went through the goals. Not arguing the outcome as not really fussed either way - just trying to figure out what I’m missing

 

[footy4ever]

Am I missing something here? Keep watching, zooming in and out, even SQUINTING, and I swear I can only see the ball going in front of the goal post (between goal and point post). Looks like you can clearly see the graphic on the ball in front of the post, which can’t happen if it went through the goals. Not arguing the outcome as not really fussed either way - just trying to figure out what I’m missing

OPSM is your friend.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

Ports a disgrace.

Ken is disgrace.

 

[FR0GGY]

Am I missing something here? Keep watching, zooming in and out, even SQUINTING, and I swear I can only see the ball going in front of the goal post (between goal and point post). Looks like you can clearly see the graphic on the ball in front of the post, which can’t happen if it went through the goals. Not arguing the outcome as not really fussed either way - just trying to figure out what I’m missing

Yes you’re missing the fact that the ball is traveling from the left pocket.
You said yourself it goes in front of the goal post which means it goes on the right side of the left post, through the goals.
You are getting confused by the rocking and rolling of the video and the direction the ball is traveling in.

 

[LFC2010]

LOL Hinkley having a sook in a presser about the last goal - inconclusive one way or the other - blaming the AFL.

Blame yourselves Power - Adelaide had 22 more inside 50's, over 60 more possessions and if they had kicked accurately would have beaten you by a bigger margin.
Crows shouldn't have been so close to a side playing for a top 4 position.

Not good enough Port.
Well played Crows

Sour grapes.

Did you forget the part at the start where he said Adelaide were the better side and deserved the win?

Do you think given the situation 17 other coaches would also be questioning the whole review process? You'd be a fool to think otherwise.
The AFL are responsible for processes of the review system, so they should be copping the brunt of the negativity. What's so wrong with that?

Yes, we cost ourselves, but that shouldn't change the fact the review system in place got it wrong, when it was brought in to get rid of these howlers out of the game.

 

[arrowman]

Am I missing something here? Keep watching, zooming in and out, even SQUINTING, and I swear I can only see the ball going in front of the goal post (between goal and point post). Looks like you can clearly see the graphic on the ball in front of the post, which can’t happen if it went through the goals. Not arguing the outcome as not really fussed either way - just trying to figure out what I’m missing

What you are missing is the other footage - shown in the live telecast, this is from the replay/ review - that shows the ball passing through the goals clear as day. I admit it's hard to see in the footage linked here. The grassy knoll crowd aren't linking to the other footage because it destroys their case.

 

[FR0GGY]

Even without my glasses on I can tell that went between the posts.

I, like most others can also say the ball had hit post in normal speed, this is the vision they should've been shown 1st, not slow mo vision as it's usually harder to tell if a ball hit the post or not.

The AFL's statement said the reviewer (who ever they are?) viewed it in 3 separate slow mo angles for 23secs (7.66666sec each angle), but the most defining vision was the full speed angle, did the reviewer view the normal speed replay?

If this league wants to be a proper professional league, it needs to get rid of the amateurs that run this s**t show (starting at the top with Gillon), invest in proper technology and stop protecting it's own systems in place when they get s**t wrong.

I think people are also confused on the process.
It’s not like cricket where the 4th umpire is seeing what the viewer is, we don’t actually know what he was watching.

 

[FR0GGY]

What you are missing is the other footage - shown in the live telecast, this is from the replay/ review - that shows the ball passing through the goals clear as day. I admit it's hard to see in the footage linked here. The grassy knoll crowd aren't linking to the other footage because it destroys their case.

The vision is clear as when you know which was the ball is traveling.

 

[Jedi Tiger]

Yes you’re missing the fact that the ball is traveling from the left pocket.
You said yourself it goes in front of the goal post which means it goes on the right side of the left post, through the goals.
You are getting confused by the rocking and rolling of the video and the direction the ball is traveling in.

What you are missing is the other footage - shown in the live telecast, this is from the replay/ review - that shows the ball passing through the goals clear as day. I admit it's hard to see in the footage linked here. The grassy knoll crowd aren't linking to the other footage because it destroys their case.

Aaahhhhhhh. Spot on, cleared up now.

 

[arrowman]

Aaahhhhhhh. Spot on, cleared up now.

No worries. I watched this a lot last night

 

[The Filth]

Did you forget the part at the start where he said Adelaide were the better side and deserved the win?

Do you think given the situation 17 other coaches would also be questioning the whole review process? You'd be a fool to think otherwise.
The AFL are responsible for processes of the review system, so they should be copping the brunt of the negativity. What's so wrong with that?

Yes, we cost ourselves, but that shouldn't change the fact the review system in place got it wrong, when it was brought in to get rid of these howlers out of the game.

Really? Do you think a review of a score that is inconclusive to such an extent that you need to bring in further state of the art technology to make a final determination is a "howler"?
Geez they are even looking at goaline reviews now to see if someone got a microscopic fingernail on it, if it is that too close to call it is hardly a "howler".

The review system was brought in to give an opportunity to fix 'obvious' wrong calls (Howlers) and has now morped into ridiculous levels of scrutiny.
This is not an "obvious" wrong call. In fact opinion is still divided on whether or not this was a goal or not - if it is still inconclusive after review the it is an umpires call - that's what the rule was put in place for.
Yet I see that you still confidently maintain the system "got it wrong" (- not tainted by the fact you are wearing a Port jumper is it?)
Reviewed, inconclusive/too close to call, umpires call - thats the process.

If you want to wait 5 minutes between goals to get an all clear then I'm sorry, you obviously have a different opinion of what the review process was originally proposed to do.

What do you want? "hotspot", "goalpost cam" - how far do you go?
What about games in Tassie, Darwin? - are they going to have to install such technology before you can play an AFL game there.
Who bears the cost of installing all this equipment.
Are broadcasters supposed to have more cameras fixed on the goaline than the actual broadcast of the game itself.
Even with all the technology in the world there will still be inconclusive results - eg touched on the line. Cricket for all its technology still has the "too close to call - umpires call" process.
Getting down to such minute scrutiny is not in the realms of "howlers" - they are not obvious mistakes or human error.
There are more inconclusive umpire calls in the field of play that are unable to be reviewed that also have a bearing on results.

Adelaide were the better side and deserved to win - right outcome in any case.

Hinkley should have had private discussions with the AFL about the concerns he has the review process.
I'd like to think that's how the 17 other coaches would discuss it, in the proper forum, just as the clubs did when this process was adopted.
There have been other instances of coaches talking about review decisions after the game - but not the same sort of dummy spit that Hinkley had.
His sook in the heat of the moment after the game, finger pointing, blaming the AFL etc was piss poor.
Sooking to the media only serves to undermine the integrity of the game and the result, and only serves to undermine further the same review process that all clubs including Port Adelaide agreed to.
Even if you preface your remarks with comments about how well the opposition played, facts are it took the focus of what was a great game of football and a fine win by the Crows.
Sore loser, sour grapes.

 

[Alwaysacrow]

lol at Hinkley's presser, is there a bigger whinger and excuse maker in the game?

Whinger, sook, cry baby, he's pathetic.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Whinger, sook, cry baby, he's pathetic.

Thanks for your valuable contributions

 

[FR0GGY]

Did you forget the part at the start where he said Adelaide were the better side and deserved the win?

Do you think given the situation 17 other coaches would also be questioning the whole review process? You'd be a fool to think otherwise.
The AFL are responsible for processes of the review system, so they should be copping the brunt of the negativity. What's so wrong with that?

Yes, we cost ourselves, but that shouldn't change the fact the review system in place got it wrong, when it was brought in to get rid of these howlers out of the game.

How was the review system wrong?
Umpire calls goal.
Review completed not enough evidence to overturn.
Umpires decision stands.

Exactly the way it’s supposed to work.

The only claim there is, is there isn’t enough technology to get conclusive evidence.

 

[The Filth]

How was the review system wrong?
Umpire calls goal.
Review completed not enough evidence to overturn.
Umpires decision stands.

Exactly the way it’s supposed to work.

The only claim there is, is there isn’t enough technology to get conclusive evidence.

Spot on.

 

[footy4ever]

How was the review system wrong?
Umpire calls goal.
Review completed not enough evidence to overturn.
Umpires decision stands.

Exactly the way it’s supposed to work.

The only claim there is, is there isn’t enough technology to get conclusive evidence.

I can’t remember a worse sour grapes rant from a coach. Truly embarrassing.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Am I missing something here? Keep watching, zooming in and out, even SQUINTING, and I swear I can only see the ball going in front of the goal post (between goal and point post). Looks like you can clearly see the graphic on the ball in front of the post, which can’t happen if it went through the goals. Not arguing the outcome as not really fussed either way - just trying to figure out what I’m missing

qYou need so

Really? Do you think a review of a score that is inconclusive to such an extent that you need to bring in further state of the art technology to make a final determination is a "howler"?
Geez they are even looking at goaline reviews now to see if someone got a microscopic fingernail on it, if it is that too close to call it is hardly a "howler".

The review system was brought in to give an opportunity to fix 'obvious' wrong calls (Howlers) and has now morped into ridiculous levels of scrutiny.
This is not an "obvious" wrong call. In fact opinion is still divided on whether or not this was a goal or not - if it is still inconclusive after review the it is an umpires call - that's what the rule was put in place for.
Yet I see that you still confidently maintain the system "got it wrong" (- not tainted by the fact you are wearing a Port jumper is it?)
Reviewed, inconclusive/too close to call, umpires call - thats the process.

If you want to wait 5 minutes between goals to get an all clear then I'm sorry, you obviously have a different opinion of what the review process was originally proposed to do.

What do you want? "hotspot", "goalpost cam" - how far do you go?
What about games in Tassie, Darwin? - are they going to have to install such technology before you can play an AFL game there.
Who bears the cost of installing all this equipment.
Are broadcasters supposed to have more cameras fixed on the goaline than the actual broadcast of the game itself.
Even with all the technology in the world there will still be inconclusive results - eg touched on the line. Cricket for all its technology still has the "too close to call - umpires call" process.
Getting down to such minute scrutiny is not in the realms of "howlers" - they are not obvious mistakes or human error.
There are more inconclusive umpire calls in the field of play that are unable to be reviewed that also have a bearing on results.

Adelaide were the better side and deserved to win - right outcome in any case.

Hinkley should have had private discussions with the AFL about the concerns he has the review process.
I'd like to think that's how the 17 other coaches would discuss it, in the proper forum, just as the clubs did when this process was adopted.
There have been other instances of coaches talking about review decisions after the game - but not the same sort of dummy spit that Hinkley had.
His sook in the heat of the moment after the game, finger pointing, blaming the AFL etc was piss poor.
Sooking to the media only serves to undermine the integrity of the game and the result, and only serves to undermine further the same review process that all clubs including Port Adelaide agreed to.
Even if you preface your remarks with comments about how well the opposition played, facts are it took the focus of what was a great game of football and a fine win by the Crows.
Sore loser, sour grapes.

Great response . The best one so far.

 

[Jedi Tiger]

qYou need so

Great response . The best one so far.

Huh?

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Really? Do you think a review of a score that is inconclusive to such an extent that you need to bring in further state of the art technology to make a final determination is a "howler"?
Geez they are even looking at goaline reviews now to see if someone got a microscopic fingernail on it, if it is that too close to call it is hardly a "howler".

The review system was brought in to give an opportunity to fix 'obvious' wrong calls (Howlers) and has now morped into ridiculous levels of scrutiny.
This is not an "obvious" wrong call. In fact opinion is still divided on whether or not this was a goal or not - if it is still inconclusive after review the it is an umpires call - that's what the rule was put in place for.
Yet I see that you still confidently maintain the system "got it wrong" (- not tainted by the fact you are wearing a Port jumper is it?)
Reviewed, inconclusive/too close to call, umpires call - thats the process.

If you want to wait 5 minutes between goals to get an all clear then I'm sorry, you obviously have a different opinion of what the review process was originally proposed to do.

What do you want? "hotspot", "goalpost cam" - how far do you go?
What about games in Tassie, Darwin? - are they going to have to install such technology before you can play an AFL game there.
Who bears the cost of installing all this equipment.
Are broadcasters supposed to have more cameras fixed on the goaline than the actual broadcast of the game itself.
Even with all the technology in the world there will still be inconclusive results - eg touched on the line. Cricket for all its technology still has the "too close to call - umpires call" process.
Getting down to such minute scrutiny is not in the realms of "howlers" - they are not obvious mistakes or human error.
There are more inconclusive umpire calls in the field of play that are unable to be reviewed that also have a bearing on results.

Adelaide were the better side and deserved to win - right outcome in any case.

Hinkley should have had private discussions with the AFL about the concerns he has the review process.
I'd like to think that's how the 17 other coaches would discuss it, in the proper forum, just as the clubs did when this process was adopted.
There have been other instances of coaches talking about review decisions after the game - but not the same sort of dummy spit that Hinkley had.
His sook in the heat of the moment after the game, finger pointing, blaming the AFL etc was piss poor.
Sooking to the media only serves to undermine the integrity of the game and the result, and only serves to undermine further the same review process that all clubs including Port Adelaide agreed to.
Even if you preface your remarks with comments about how well the opposition played, facts are it took the focus of what was a great game of football and a fine win by the Crows.
Sore loser, sour grapes.

Ill try again

Great response

 

[Papa G]

Hinkley should have had private discussions with the AFL about the concerns he has the review process.
I'd like to think that's how the 17 other coaches would discuss it, in the proper forum, just as the clubs did when this process was adopted.
There have been other instances of coaches talking about review decisions after the game - but not the same sort of dummy spit that Hinkley had.
His sook in the heat of the moment after the game, finger pointing, blaming the AFL etc was piss poor.
Sooking to the media only serves to undermine the integrity of the game and the result, and only serves to undermine further the same review process that all clubs including Port Adelaide agreed to.
Even if you preface your remarks with comments about how well the opposition played, facts are it took the focus of what was a great game of football and a fine win by the Crows.
Sore loser, sour grapes.

What a sanctimonious piece of s**t this is. Integrity of the game. Spare me. The other 17 coaches would use the proper channels and do it in private? Give me a break. Never seen a Hardwick post game? Never seen Chris Scott use his Fox Footy spot as his personal soap box? Clarkson?

Hinkley got asked the question and answered it truthfully. Would you have preferred him to say Yeah Nah it had no bearing on thg he outcome? Just laugh it off as one of those things? Please.

 

[FR0GGY]

What a sanctimonious piece of s**t this is. Integrity of the game. Spare me. The other 17 coaches would use the proper channels and do it in private? Give me a break. Never seen a Hardwick post game? Never seen Chris Scott use his Fox Footy spot as his personal soap box? Clarkson?

Hinkley got asked the question and answered it truthfully. Would you have preferred him to say Yeah Nah it had no bearing on thg he outcome? Just laugh it off as one of those things? Please.

There’s a big difference doing it after a loss. Would have far bigger impact if he brought it up previously, if he really felt this strongly about it.
As it is it just comes across as a sore loser.

 

[kirky]

There’s a big difference doing it after a loss. Would have far bigger impact if he brought it up previously, if he really felt this strongly about it.
As it is it just comes across as a sore loser.

The problem is he (Hinkley) as bet all his chips on 23 Red (Watts, Motlop, Rockliff, Dixon etc) and it is looking like 24 Black. Time is running out and stress is showing.