Game Day "Eddie the Eagle (Basher)": Round 12 West Coast v Adelaide

Remove this Banner Ad

milhouse1 said:
Aw I got a warning from the port board because I gave them an honest answer to the question of why crows fans go to the port board after a win. Oh well.
Click to expand...
Same reason Port fans come here after they win and we lose ;)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I was going to comment on a few of their Joe The Goose comments about Jenkins. Watch the last goal he kicked with the assist from Cameron, Jenkins is nowhere in the picture when Cameron marks but Jenkins runs back hard enough and blitzes two opponents to get to space.
If that's Joe The Goose then I'll take it.
 
chazwazza said:
I was going to comment on a few of their Joe The Goose comments about Jenkins. Watch the last goal he kicked with the assist from Cameron, Jenkins is nowhere in the picture when Cameron marks but Jenkins runs back hard enough and blitzes two opponents to get to space.
If that's Joe The Goose then I'll take it.
Click to expand...
He must have a hell of a tank on him
 
chazwazza said:
I was going to comment on a few of their Joe The Goose comments about Jenkins. Watch the last goal he kicked with the assist from Cameron, Jenkins is nowhere in the picture when Cameron marks but Jenkins runs back hard enough and blitzes two opponents to get to space.
If that's Joe The Goose then I'll take it.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Don't get the criticism there. Jenkins' gut running to get the Joe the Goose in the last turns a Cameron set shot from 45 out into a certain goal, which is only a good thing.
 
Okay now I have heard it all. Tex "carried the ball with his boot over the line". :drunk:

And I thought lawyers like to stretch semantics in all directions. Add review judges to the list.

Unless the ball has velcro and Tex's shoe has the requisite pad for the velcro to stick to, I would suggest in fact that he "knocked the ball with his boot over the line".

In other words, pay the man a damn goal.
 
AmericanCrow said:
Okay now I have heard it all. Tex "carried the ball with his boot over the line". :drunk:

And I thought lawyers likes to stretch semantics in all directions. Add review judges to the list.

Unless the ball has velcro and Tex's shoe has the requisite pad for the velcro to stick to, I would suggest in fact that he "knocked the ball with his boot over the line".

In other words, pay the man a damn goal.
Click to expand...
As long as the next one over the boundary line isn't called OOF , has to be a throw in from now on
 
AmericanCrow said:
Okay now I have heard it all. Tex "carried the ball with his boot over the line". :drunk:

And I thought lawyers like to stretch semantics in all directions. Add review judges to the list.

Unless the ball has velcro and Tex's shoe has the requisite pad for the velcro to stick to, I would suggest in fact that he "knocked the ball with his boot over the line".

In other words, pay the man a damn goal.
Click to expand...

If that is actually the rule I feel like it has to change, surely if you make contact with the ball with your boot before the line, and you kick it over the line it is a goal- regardless of if your boot was in contact with it while it went over the line.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AmericanCrow said:
Okay now I have heard it all. Tex "carried the ball with his boot over the line". :drunk:

And I thought lawyers like to stretch semantics in all directions. Add review judges to the list.

Unless the ball has velcro and Tex's shoe has the requisite pad for the velcro to stick to, I would suggest in fact that he "knocked the ball with his boot over the line".

In other words, pay the man a damn goal.
Click to expand...
In all honesty I don't have too much of a problem with that decision, I think it was a goal and I think the explanation leaves a bit to be desired but it's all done in a short amount of time so I'll take it. I have run a camera and computer program for photo finish line technology at the horse races and while it provides very clear images and quick use of technology for most outcomes what it also does is create a wider plane of ambiguity.
That you can centre on two horses noses and blow up the pixels to see if one is ahead of the other, it can just blur what you're looking at. It comes down to the colour or tone of one or two pixels to differentiate, previous to this technology it would've been called a dead heat. I've been in stewards rooms providing evidence post race to back up the judges outcome and it's hard to convince a trainer or jockey that one pixel is this and one is that and they have a point to their argument. It's about perspective.
So it's all very well to bring in these reviews but sometimes you just have to sit back and question just what you're looking at. Just because the process or technology is there it doesn't necessarily help or make the outcome foolproof.
 
I'm just curious when someone runs in and kicks a goal on the line do they freeze frame to ensure there is space between the foot and the ball as it crosses the line?

With the poor AFL cameras how on earth could they make a correct judgement?

I reckon it has to be one of the stupidest things I have seen. To make it worst the umpire then said after the 100 replays 'it's a goal' and the goal umpire goes and awards a behind.

Maybe David King can spend 30 minutes over analyzing it this week.
 
Crowbling said:
I'm just curious when someone runs in and kicks a goal on the line do they freeze frame to ensure there is space between the foot and the ball as it crosses the line?
Click to expand...
There is no need to determine this by the laws of the AFL 2016. A kick is when the ball makes contact below the knee. And a goal is when the ball is kicked across the goal line by an attacking player.

There is nothing in the definition of a 'kick' requiring a determination of when the ball ceased contact with the boot.

I'm not one to endorse the umpiring conspiracies thrown around here normally, however The TV replay official has literally invented a fake rule to determine that it wasn't a goal.

(Also, I highly suspect from my memory of the replay, that the 'out-of-bounds' adjudicated on later in the game also deflected off the boundary umpire behind the line and not the goalpost.)
 
chazwazza said:
In all honesty I don't have too much of a problem with that decision, I think it was a goal and I think the explanation leaves a bit to be desired but it's all done in a short amount of time so I'll take it. I have run a camera and computer program for photo finish line technology at the horse races and while it provides very clear images and quick use of technology for most outcomes what it also does is create a wider plane of ambiguity.
That you can centre on two horses noses and blow up the pixels to see if one is ahead of the other, it can just blur what you're looking at. It comes down to the colour or tone of one or two pixels to differentiate, previous to this technology it would've been called a dead heat. I've been in stewards rooms providing evidence post race to back up the judges outcome and it's hard to convince a trainer or jockey that one pixel is this and one is that and they have a point to their argument. It's about perspective.
So it's all very well to bring in these reviews but sometimes you just have to sit back and question just what you're looking at. Just because the process or technology is there it doesn't necessarily help or make the outcome foolproof.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the break down. I also know the job is not easy. However, you are right in that in the end sometimes common sense gets lost in the minutia.

I also believe the review judge got caught up in over analysis. Thus, that ridiculous reasoning.

It didn't hurt us (thank god) but it was a goal. Plain and simple.
 
I was at house party in Melbourne and only decided to watch at the final quarter mark after checking the scores periodically. My god.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Thylacinus
  • Poll
Preview Gold Coast Suns v Adelaide Crows, Saturday 16th of March, People First Stadium, Gold Coast, 7.40pm Adelaide time.
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
581
Views
20K
MsTopG
MsTopG
Stephen2
Review Good/Bad vs Gold Coast, Round 1 2024
34 35 36 37 38
Replies
926
Views
24K
WeeBlake
W
jenny61_99
Game Day Final Round Crows v Eagles
51 52 53 54 55
Replies
1K
Views
22K
ams4crows
ams4crows
brucetiki
Review AFLW Round 10 - West Coast v Adelaide - Saturday 4 November @ Mineral Resources Park
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
4K
cmndstab
cmndstab
B
Preview Changes vs West Coast
12 13 14 15 16
Replies
375
Views
14K
conVINCEd
C
C
Preview 2024 Pre season trial game 2 - Vs West Coast - Hisense Sat Mar 2 @2:40
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
873
Views
29K
Crowman32
Crowman32
Thylacinus
Game Day Round 22, Crows v Brisbane at the Gabba, 12/8/23
65 66 67 68 69
Replies
2K
Views
25K
DJ75
DJ75

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top