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

[Purple7x08_24]

why are you conflating that with a system failure in a game that directly cost the club a finals spot. Regardless of the games we lost by under a kick, the win against Sydney was enough to guarantee finals based on all the other results...its that simple

What about the dive by Shuey that cost Port a semi

 

[Crow till I die]

What about the dive by Shuey that cost Port a semi

oh - they had a video review system in place for that and a protocol to use it did they? - news to me

 

[Purple7x08_24]

oh - they had a video review system in place for that and a protocol to use it did they? - news to me

Chill. It was humor

 

[Bloods86]

"Something they have no control over".

OK, what's missing is the Sydney chairman saying "give the four points to Adelaide. They deserve it." Because Sydney can definitely control that.

Why would Pridham lie?

 

[Syd]

So just breaking down Adelaide's season

9 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 5 wins and 4 losses at a % of 127.26 (Note ALL wins at Adelaide Oval)

6 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 0 wins and 6 losses at a % of 78.14

8 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 6 wins and 2 losses at a % of 138.99


or

11 Away Games for 3 wins and 8 losses at a % of 93.91 (Includes Away Game vs Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval)

12 Home Games for 8 wins and 4 losses at a % of 144.96




So personally, I'd blame the missing of finals on

• Inability to win Games against those middle tier teams around them on the ladder (0-6), and
• Poor Away record (37.5% winning percentage and -51.05 in terms of %)

 

[HairyO]

Its called a technology mechanism that only available to check for goals and points..THATS why this is so different

Rankine kicked a goal. But it shouldnt have been. So... seems pretty similar to me.

 

[Crow till I die]

Rankine kicked a goal. But it shouldnt have been. So... seems pretty similar to me.

what part of having a review mechanism to review a goal decision vs not having one for field decisions goes beyond your understanding?

 

[Bloods86]

what part of having a review mechanism to review a goal decision vs not having one for field decisions goes beyond your understanding?

We understand the technical difference, but we refuse to join your unsubstantiated belief that there's a difference between the two in determining whether a result is fair or not.

Reviewable and non-reviewable decisions both absolutely come into it when arguing if a result was fair.

 

[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?

Rankine kicked a goal. But it shouldnt have been. So... seems pretty similar to me.

What do you mean Rankine’s goal shouldn’t have been a goal against Hawthorn? I’m genuinely curious if there is any footage at all definitively showing the ball out of bounds?

 

[Elmer_Judd]

So just breaking down Adelaide's season

9 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 5 wins and 4 losses at a % of 127.26 (Note ALL wins at Adelaide Oval)

6 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 0 wins and 6 losses at a % of 78.14

8 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 6 wins and 2 losses at a % of 138.99


or

11 Away Games for 3 wins and 8 losses at a % of 93.91 (Includes Away Game vs Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval)

12 Home Games for 8 wins and 4 losses at a % of 144.96




So personally, I'd blame the missing of finals on

• Inability to win Games against those middle tier teams around them on the ladder (0-6), and
• Poor Away record (37.5% winning percentage and -51.05 in terms of %)

#AlwaysSomeoneElsesFault

 

[Crow till I die]

We understand the technical difference, but we refuse to join your unsubstantiated belief that there's a difference between the two in determining whether a result is fair or not.

Reviewable and non-reviewable decisions both absolutely come into it when arguing if a result was fair.

rubbish..there could be 100 'contested' umpire on field decisions through a match - the Rankine possible OOB was just one of them. With no mandated technology to stop the game, go back and check if it was OOB or whether a tackle was high or a trip happened...you get the picture, its a suck it up scenario.

Then there was the goal decision where the technology to review and the protocol to use it is there and it was ignored. Its a totally different circumstance and no matter how you dress it up to try and gaslight otherwise, thats the facts.

 

[Bloods86]

rubbish..there could be 100 'contested' umpire on field decisions through a match - the Rankine possible OOB was just one of them. With no mandated technology to stop the game, go back and check if it was OOB or whether a tackle was high or a trip happened...you get the picture, its a suck it up scenario.

Then there was the goal decision where the technology to review and the protocol to use it is there and it was ignored. Its a totally different circumstance and no matter how you dress it up to try and gaslight otherwise, thats the facts.

Gaslight lol. There was no mandated review if the goal umpire was confident in their decision. The existing process was followed. However, the existing process was flawed and didn't cater for this scenario where they were confident but wrong, so it needs to be improved.

Just one of several umpiring decisions that directly impacted the scoreline.

Gripe about the decision sure, wish that it was called correctly so we had a greater chance of the fairest result sure. But there's plenty of other nonsense being brought up.

 

[AJB84]

So just breaking down Adelaide's season

9 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 5 wins and 4 losses at a % of 127.26 (Note ALL wins at Adelaide Oval)

6 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 0 wins and 6 losses at a % of 78.14

8 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 6 wins and 2 losses at a % of 138.99


or

11 Away Games for 3 wins and 8 losses at a % of 93.91 (Includes Away Game vs Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval)

12 Home Games for 8 wins and 4 losses at a % of 144.96




So personally, I'd blame the missing of finals on

• Inability to win Games against those middle tier teams around them on the ladder (0-6), and
• Poor Away record (37.5% winning percentage and -51.05 in terms of %)

So just breaking down Sydney's season

6 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 1 wins and 5 losses (only win against Carlton Earlier in the season)

7 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 2 wins and 4 losses and a draw

10 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 8 wins and 2 losses

So the take away is Sydney are good at beating teams at the bottom of the ladder.

If the score is reviewed the difference between the 2 teams in the middle segment is
1 win 5 losses for Adelaide and 1 Win 5 losses and a draw for Sydney.

 

[Syd]

So just breaking down Sydney's season

6 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 1 wins and 5 losses (only win against Carlton Earlier in the season)

7 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 2 wins and 4 losses and a draw

10 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 8 wins and 2 losses

So the take away is Sydney are good at beating teams at the bottom of the ladder.

If the score is reviewed the difference between the 2 teams in the middle segment is
1 win 5 losses for Adelaide and 1 Win 5 losses and a draw for Sydney.

You would expect BOTH teams to consistently beat those below them if they were going to play finals.

2 wins and a draw vs no wins against teams in the same band is the difference.

In both cases, the record against the top-6 teams is compelling in that neither would have been considered likely to due much damage in the finals.



FWIW, IF the behind had been reviewed and called a goal, Sydney supporters would most likely have blamed missing finals on;

• 4th quarter fade-outs
• early season injury decimation, and
• losing close games we could\should have won

 

[Crow till I die]

Gaslight lol. There was no mandated review if the goal umpire was confident in their decision. The existing process was followed. However, the existing process was flawed and didn't cater for this scenario where they were confident but wrong, so it needs to be improved.

Just one of several umpiring decisions that directly impacted the scoreline.

Gripe about the decision sure, wish that it was called correctly so we had a greater chance of the fairest result sure. But there's plenty of other nonsense being brought up.

The field umpire had the power to ask the goal umpire to call for a review and chose not to thus not invoking the technology available which confirms exactly what I was saying.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-2023-adelaide-crows-score-review-blunder-explained-and-how-the-afl-can-fix-the-arc/news-story/120aa87fcee6970e3deced9b81270472?amp

WHAT DID HAPPEN​

Keays was given a free kick for out of bounds on the full, played on and snapped towards goal, with the ball clearing the line with 1:15 on the clock.

While he and three other Crows celebrated a kick that would have put their team in front against the Swans, the goal umpire signalled a behind and patted the goalpost.

No field umpires conferred with the goal umpire and while every goal is automatically reviewed, behinds are not.

Sydney’s lead was cut to one point.

“He (the goal umpire) was definitive that it hit the post,” McLachlan said.

“It was a noise and a deflection. And on review, that is not the case.”

 

[AJB84]

You would expect BOTH teams to consistently beat those below them if they were going to play finals.

2 wins and a draw vs no wins against teams in the same band is the difference.

In both cases, the record against the top-6 teams is compelling in that neither would have been considered likely to due much damage in the finals.



FWIW, IF the behind had been reviewed and called a goal, Sydney supporters would most likely have blamed missing finals on;

• 4th quarter fade-outs
• early season injury decimation, and
• losing close games we could\should have won

Sorry, but our record against the top 6 teams is 5 wins and 4 losses The margin of the losses 1 point, 2 points, 4 points and 6 points.

You lost to top 6 teams by - 2, 50, 29, 16, and 21

 

[HairyO]

rubbish..there could be 100 'contested' umpire on field decisions through a match - the Rankine possible OOB was just one of them. With no mandated technology to stop the game, go back and check if it was OOB or whether a tackle was high or a trip happened...you get the picture, its a suck it up scenario.

Play did stop. A goal was scored. The AFL claim to check all goals. Except they dont. They only sort of check all goals.

Etc.

 

[radiojake]

Far out - you dopes bringing up the games that Adelaide should have won, but didn't because of either experience, poor goalkicking , away record or all three does not mean that the Sydney loss, and therefore missing finals, is somehow justified

Crows should still have made finals despite the flaws in their season, and were robbed because an official didn't follow due process

It's as simple as that

 

[radiojake]

Play did stop. A goal was scored. The AFL claim to check all goals. Except they dont. They only sort of check all goals.

Etc.

Definitive footage of Rankine out of bounds , please, otherwise you have no point

 

[bomberclifford]

As a hypothetical, if this game happened in round 6 with the same circumstances, and the result proved to be the difference between making the finals and missing out, how would you deal with it?

 

[radiojake]

As a hypothetical, if this game happened in round 6 with the same circumstances, and the result proved to be the difference between making the finals and missing out, how would you deal with it?

I think that is a false equivalency - at rnd 6 no one is 100% knocked out of finals race - the reason why this non goal has had so much notoriety is because it was the last defining moment that cost a finals birth

We could look back at the Dawson high free kick that should have been paid against Collingwood as something that went against Crows, but that didn't cost us a finals spot at that time so I don't consider it the same (plus that was a missed field ump decision which just goes hand in hand with every game for every team)

 

[Bloods86]

Far out - you dopes bringing up the games that Adelaide should have won, but didn't because of either experience, poor goalkicking , away record or all three does not mean that the Sydney loss, and therefore missing finals, is somehow justified

Crows should still have made finals despite the flaws in their season, and were robbed because an official didn't follow due process

It's as simple as that

They did follow due process, they were just wrong. The process should be changed.

I don't think many of us here are saying Swans will win the flag, like some are re: Crows. Or those seemingly only able to recognise umpiring as a factor in ladder position.

 

[bomberclifford]

I think that is a false equivalency - at rnd 6 no one is 100% knocked out of finals race - the reason why this non goal has had so much notoriety is because it was the last defining moment that cost a finals birth

It wasn't though. Both you and Sydney had another game to play, as did Geelong, St Kilda and GWS who were all vying for those last spots.

You're making the case, with the benefit of hindsight, that because the cards fell your way (if you'd won the Sydney game), it's cost you a finals spot.

Yet, from the time the error occurred, you still had over a minute to play in that game, and then another game to play, plus other results to go particular ways for you to scrape in.

It didn't cost you the game as you had time to score again.
It didn't cost you finals because there was still another round of games to go.

In reality, the mistake really only cost you 5pts score in one game.

 

[radiojake]

It wasn't though. Both you and Sydney had another game to play, as did Geelong, St Kilda and GWS who were all vying for those last spots.

You're making the case, with the benefit of hindsight, that because the cards fell your way (if you'd won the Sydney game), it's cost you a finals spot.

Yet, from the time the error occurred, you still had over a minute to play in that game, and then another game to play, plus other results to go particular ways for you to scrape in.

It didn't cost you the game as you had time to score again.
It didn't cost you finals because there was still another round of games to go.

In reality, the mistake really only cost you 5pts score in one game.

It was the defining moment that cost us a finals birth because that was the moment we became mathematically eliminated

 

[AJB84]

The new footy boss does not want to bring the ball back and get the right result because and I quote:

What if someone took mark of the year.

I am sorry what?

That is the level of thinking at the AFL.