Review Good/Bad v Port, R20 2018: Post Mortem

[Coobk001]

So he saw the ball hit the post, which was given as a goal but then said nothing and made no reaction at all at the time?

So you are saying you look at that GIF and you don't see the deviation, nor the change in the spin of the ball?

 

[Go the Guts]

There is absolutely not 1% of evidence it hit the post, there is no clear deviation in that camera angle. Decision was 100% correct on the available evidence.

 

[Cap]

You mean apart from every single bit of footage? They all show enough of a change in rotation and direction that I'd be fuming if we were on the receiving end. Live I was at a perpendicular angle, near the final shot by Atkins, and couldn't have told you one way or the other, but I could see it clipped the post in the big screen replays as they were jogging back for the restart, and said as much to the people next to me.

Have your fun, sure, but anyone sitting there trying to claim it didn't hit the post is as loopy as the truthers who think they saw it fly the wrong side of the goal post for a point regardless.

literally everyone claiming it wasn't a goal is basing it from Jenkins post match comment.

There is no evidence that it hit the post, none at all.

If after the Freo game Angus Brayshaw said that Gaff didn't hit him would we all just have moved on ?

 

[Samcro24]

So you are saying you look at that GIF and you don't see the deviation, nor the change in the spin of the ball?

No

 

[King Elvis]

That doesnt show it at all

I actually think it does!

All of the slow mo replays and close ups and back and forward replays - I thought they were all inconclusive.

At full speed, in that video, I actually think the spin of the ball changes noticeably.

 

[King Elvis]

Fair push in the back on Eddie too - should’ve been a free!

 

[Geoffa32]

So you are saying you look at that GIF and you don't see the deviation, nor the change in the spin of the ball?

The pictures are.not clear enough to overall hence the decision to go with what the umpire went with a goal.

When there is doubt the presumption is that it goes with what the umpire initially ruled. That is how these reviews work.

There is plenty of doubt here. Even to the extent which side of the post it went through let alone whether it touched it or not.

At the game.I felt it slightly touched the post. And I stand right behind the interchanges. But the replays are less clear than what I saw with my eye. Not to mention when you watch the replay of the game (not edited gifs) few in the Port cheer squad are actively celebrating a point as it goes through. If it was so obvious surely more of them would be gesturing and yelling at the umpires given the balance.of the game (and your season) during the deliberation time. Few did.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It's irrelevant now, but there's no way you can watch this GIF and say it didn't hit the post.



Yes the umpire didn't have a great view, and yes it would've been tough to overturn, but with the benefit of more time, and a good replaying piece of vision like this it is 100% clear it has hit the post. It's trajectory changes from curling more and more left, to a straight line, and the ball changes from spinning sideways, to more of a vertical float.

Anyway, congrats on the win, you deserved it and should've put it to bed in the 2nd and 3rd when you were all over us. Even if it was a point I firmly believe you would've still scored a goal and won from the kick in anyway.

There is no way with that footage you can be definitive one way or the other. There is no conclusive evidence that either the ball hits the post or that it misses the post.

Only a biased person based on guessing can claim they definitely know whether the ball shaved the post or not.

The fact it is inconclusive meant the umpires call was the correct outcome. There were far worst decisions paid to either side during the day, which makes it quite hilarious that Ken & many other Portsters felt the need to make a huge issue out this.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So he saw the ball hit the post, which was given as a goal but then said nothing and made no reaction at all at the time?

Port do like to rewrite history after the event to support their BS claims.

No different to when Kochie told GC they couldn't wear their red jumper because it's in the contract lol.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So you are saying you look at that GIF and you don't see the deviation, nor the change in the spin of the ball?

Look up the definition of conclusive & get back to me!

The review system was brought in to overrule on obviously wrong calls, not on inconclusive evidence based on probability of outcomes....

 

[Coobk001]

Look up the definition of conclusive & get back to me!

The review system was brought in to overrule on obviously wrong calls, not on inconclusive evidence based on probability of outcomes....

You missed the point. I agree with the decision of the review umpire. In 20 seconds they wouldn't have had time to analyse this and capture the right view to see it.

What I'm saying is watching that GIF on replay makes it clear it did hit the post. The ball clearly changes direction and changes it's spin from sideways spinning to a vertical float. Even though this is a low quality gif it is still obvious.

So from here we have to say we know it hit the post, so what do we have to do to fix this in the future, new technology, 4 goal umpires, do we just allow goals in this circumstance, or do we give reviewers more time.

Every impartial person I've shown this to, rugby fans, soccer fans, etc all said they think it hit the post. So rather than burying our heads in the sand we should acknowledge it and see what we can do in the future to prevent it happening again.

I personally think changing the rule to ignore clipped post goals would be a good idea.

 

[BRL121]

I actually think it does!

All of the slow mo replays and close ups and back and forward replays - I thought they were all inconclusive.

At full speed, in that video, I actually think the spin of the ball changes noticeably.

I reckon it's an illusion, created by the post. If you want a "deflection", you will see one.
These people who claim a definite deflection should view some sanitised footage where the goalpost has been surgically removed from the footage. If this cue is no longer there, they will have much more trouble seeing a clear deflection, and they will also have to decide when.

 

[Geoffa32]

You missed the point. I agree with the decision of the review umpire. In 20 seconds they wouldn't have had time to analyse this and capture the right view to see it.

What I'm saying is watching that GIF on replay makes it clear it did hit the post. The ball clearly changes direction and changes it's spin from sideways spinning to a vertical float. Even though this is a low quality gif it is still obvious.

So from here we have to say we know it hit the post, so what do we have to do to fix this in the future, new technology, 4 goal umpires, do we just allow goals in this circumstance, or do we give reviewers more time.

Every impartial person I've shown this to, rugby fans, soccer fans, etc all said they think it hit the post. So rather than burying our heads in the sand we should acknowledge it and see what we can do in the future to prevent it happening again.

I personally think changing the rule to ignore clipped post goals would be a good idea.

Super slow mo cameras would be the best way to fix this issue.

If they can zoom in on an athlete and see their sweat beads coming off their body and muscles and skin rippling as they move, surely we can have similar cameras to see the gap between ball and post.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[StonesThrow]

In this case you see what you wanna see imo.

 

[footy4ever]

So you are saying you look at that GIF and you don't see the deviation, nor the change in the spin of the ball?

ha ha ha ha you're seeing what you want to see.


EDIT: beaten to it ^^^^

 

[Hammond]

Nice try.
1) *tries to soften us up by appearing to be a reasonable Port supporter* which made me instantly suspicious , then
2) *reveals the true reason for the post* ... self-promotion.

I won't be reading your blog , mate.

What’s with the hostile reaction. Didn’t think he did anything wrong

 

[DJ75]

Fair push in the back on Eddie too - should’ve been a free!

Thank God it wasn't paid. He would have tried to pass it off.

 

[rocket18]

If you can't see the deviation on the ball live, then I don't know what else to say to you. It's pretty clear, and the only people arguing otherwise are some obtuse Crows fans, and Gil in ass covering mode.

I can now understand how you come to your conclusions about the talent of our players, you have impaired eyesight.

Put down the Showdown Point Review as yet another thing the Rabbit has got wrong.

 

[rocket18]

Yeah. And they weren’t specifically booing Gray for winning it just the fact that a Crows player should have won it, being the winning team

Apart from the six numpties who voted for the award most people at the ground thought Crouch was BOG, BOTH coaches confirmed this with thier votes - but what would they know.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

In this case you see what you wanna see imo.

That's exactly right

It always 'looks' like a ball has changed its spin after it has been obscured by a post. It's because it disappears for a couple of frames so the continuity of its spin is broken up.

 

[Samcro24]

Every impartial person I've shown this to, rugby fans, soccer fans, etc all said they think it hit the post.

There's plenty on the main board, and even a few on your board who say its too hard to call.

Strikes me that the only ones saying it 'clearly' hit the post are those talking match fixing, conspiracies, legal action etc.

i.e. the crazies.

 

[GrommoT]

That's exactly right

It always 'looks' like a ball has changed its spin after it has been obscured by a post. It's because it disappears for a couple of frames so the continuity of its spin is broken up.

This is getting weird but the gif below seems to show that there was a deviation but after it passes the post. Since the ball seems to be at the apex of its path just after passing the post so its vertical speed is zero, I wonder if a chance gust could make the ball float up a bit (or maybe aliens, yes it must be aliens).

 

[CrowBloke]

What’s with the hostile reaction. Didn’t think he did anything wrong

Fair question.
This thread (in fact, this Forum) is not an advertisement for that bloke's blog.
His tone is all chummy-matey to ingratiate himself to us, but he wants posters in here to read his blog.
If deaneus (Mod) thinks I've overreacted, I'll withdraw the post and follow-ups.

Mostly, though, he's a PA supporter .

 

[Deaneus!]

Fair question.
This thread (in fact, this Forum) is not an advertisement for that bloke's blog.
His tone is all chummy-matey to ingratiate himself to us, but he wants posters in here to read his blog.
If deaneus (Mod) thinks I've overreacted, I'll withdraw the post and follow-ups.

Mostly, though, he's a PA supporter .

 

[GrommoT]

I knew it! Aliens!!!