Review Good vs Melbourne

[Jars458]

So the commentators say it was deliberate, the wider football public acknowledge it was deliberate, the afl's official review say it was deliberate yet it's only the Adelaide fans that are bringing out the hot spot technology to claim Spargo touched it. Lol. Face it, the win has an asterisk next to it.

The media can't even talk about the game without mentioning that decision. lol. As much as you think I'm the one who is salty, it's pretty clear that its you lot that are salty after the official review said that the decision was wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, severely wrong to the point of cheating.The commentators literally laughed when it happened at the time.

It was deliberately deliberate and will deliberately cost Melbourne a top two spot and a flag. Enjoy your losing culture, deliberately.

 

[spenze]

So the commentators say it was deliberate, the wider football public acknowledge it was deliberate, the afl's official review say it was deliberate yet it's only the Adelaide fans that are bringing out the hot spot technology to claim Spargo touched it. Lol. Face it, the win has an asterisk next to it.

The media can't even talk about the game without mentioning that decision. lol. As much as you think I'm the one who is salty, it's pretty clear that its you lot that are salty after the official review said that the decision was wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, severely wrong to the point of cheating.The commentators literally laughed when it happened at the time.

Just double-checked, just says W for us no asterisk, maybe there is an asterisk next to your L...

 

[ADL9798]

I can’t wrap my head around the likes of Whateley and Lyon calling it ‘academic’ and not relevant that Murray’s handball clearly hit Spargo’s hand en route to the boundary.

By that logic, if Murray had handballed it into Spargo’s foot and it had rebounded through for a goal, are we assuming that because Murray’s intent was to rush a behind that the goal wouldn’t stand?

 

[Moonwatcher]

It's really concerning that the AFL has said that they will bend the knee to the mob rule of Victorian journalists.

 

[ams4crows]

Anyone know who the controlling umpire was he didn't pay the free, reckon he deserves a few beers....

 

[ams4crows]

I just love the fact that everyone assumes that a Melbourne player simply goes back and slots the goal no questions asked... as if kicking a goal, tight on the boundary line, with the game on the line and 40k Crows fans going mental at them ain’t no thing... perhaps he goes back and tries to pass it off, only for it to be cut off, perhaps he takes so long lining it up, the siren goes and he can’t run around. Sure, he might have kicked it, but everyone assuming that the Demons win if the free is paid is just absurd.

He could have played on to snap and the siren sounded there's a million different outcomes that could have happened and yet Vic media believe Melbourne were robbed of a win, it most likely would have been a draw

 

[Maddogmetro]

I can’t wrap my head around the likes of Whateley and Lyon calling it ‘academic’ and not relevant that Murray’s handball clearly hit Spargo’s hand en route to the boundary.

By that logic, if Murray had handballed it into Spargo’s foot and it had rebounded through for a goal, are we assuming that because Murray’s intent was to rush a behind that the goal wouldn’t stand?

Wait, Lyon said that?

Please somebody send this to him.



Changes his tune when it goes against his team it seems!

 

[Crow till I die]

Just had a chance to watch footy classified on record and i have to give it to hutchy..said outright if a melbourne player touched it which he said looks like he did it cant be deliberate as it was off a melbourne player and the correct call and the others except cornes then seemed to agree.

Hutchy has just taken a sane rational look at it unlike so many in the media and also the AFL

 

[CrowBloke]

2) The umpire didnt even see the blatant deliberate handball,
3) yet you expect him to see a miniscule impossible to detect to the human eye 'deflection'.
1) Face it. 4 points gift wrapped by biased umps too scared to make the call. So u guys come 13th instead of 15th. wow.

1) Your unnecessary, patronising sarcasm doesn't give your post any more weight, but it sure makes you seem bitter and petty. Are you proud of that? One would hope not.
We're proud of the win for many reasons, just as you would be if the situation was reversed. Your mob were undefeated, TOP, playing really well. It looked like a serious belting was coming the Crows' way, after 5 previous losses.
Did you enjoy your team's 9 wins, the ones from behind, the convincing wins? I get that, and we've not had much to celebrate since 1p.m. on GF day, 2017. I can't remember the last time we came back from 3 goals down with 7 minutes to play. The win was thrilling, worth savouring --- and we are. No amount of sarcasm is going to change the result.

2) you do not know what the Umpire/s saw, or didn't see. None of us do.

At the time it happened, I was sure it was 'deliberate', with Murray just avoiding conceding the point. So much so, I was amazed when the throw-in was called for. But there are two overriding factors that have convinced me later that the ball was deflected. Please continue ... it's a lengthy explanation but please consider, ok?

3) ... have you played footy? If you have, you'd know that the positions of the hand holding the ball and the fisted-hand hitting the ball determine where a handball is going to go.
For a left-handed handball to go forward, the right hand holding the ball has to be across to the LHS and the other hand has to be tucked in, aiming/heading forward. You just cannot left-handball straight ahead if you're holding the ball out to your right. Try it. You can't; it won't work that way.
Look where Murray is holding the ball --- out to his right --- and look at where his left hand is aiming before he hits the ball. That left elbow is out wide and his fist is going across his body. He is aiming to handball wide, out to his right into space. That handball cannot be going straight unless it's deflected.
Spargo's hand goes down, the ball hits it and is deflected to where it went, which makes Spargo's hand jump up suddenly/oddly. Please, have another look.

However, the last word has got to be about Spargo's response. If you don't believe me, believe the reaction of your own player.
In the pressure-cooker heat of that moment, one point down, seconds to go, IF Murray had handballed ahead just to the right of the point post, then Spargo would have appealed for 'deliberate'. It's instinctive.
Spargo does not. He turns to prepare for the throw-in.
The ball hit his hand and went oob. Throw-in. It's the only explanation that makes sense of Spargo's reaction.

 

[CrowBloke]

Also fu** Richmond. They skirt the edge of the line and they deserve what they get.

This!
Oh, so much this.
When I saw Dimma (who is no cleanskin himself and has coached his boys to be as grubby as he was) complain about Umpiring, I laughed.
Richmond 2017-21 do more deliberate illegal acts, especially holding in packs or when an Umpire is unsighted, than any other team I've seen in 50+ years of footy watching. It's to their benefit.
If it's missed, play on, so their advantage from dirty play (classic example, 2017 GF eg Eddie held by both opponents' hands in the goalsquare, second quarter).
If it's punished, they benefit from the stoppage and have time to regroup/set up. The free kicks they give away deliberately are momentum-stoppers.

Brisbane's three-peat was on the back of team brilliance. Hawthorn, from astute recruiting, possession skills and genius Coaching.
I have zero respect for any of Richmond's three-out-of-four flags. Yeah, fkem.

 

[lincsPJ]

I remember 5AA releasing CD’s of their audio call of the 97 & 98 grand finals to be watched alongside the video

definitely added a different dimension

Had the tapes and they were bloody sped up to make them fit on 2 cassettes so you couldn’t sync them.

 

[CrowBloke]

Good/Bad/Ugly ... pffft .

GREAT: Tex and that clutch goal, and more.
If you love Tex (how couldya not?), watch this:

Adelaide Crows Latest Videos | Videos Home | Adelaide Football Club

The latest videos from the Adelaide Football Club.

www.afc.com.au

He is the Ultimate Crow.

 

[DroppingTheBall]

RE Murray. The only thing that should be reviewed by AFL in looking at the umpiring, is the adjudicating umpire’s view from his position on the field, and what is the right decision to make with that view (real time, 1 sec to decide).

But the AFL didn’t do that (they couldn’t, unless they had a camera attached to the ump’s head).

They could perhaps also review the ump’s positioning, if they think he ran to the wrong place in the circumstances. But they didn’t do that either.

Instead, they pretended the game was being played with different rules, where a panel of judges is allowed to review a decision in the manner of a score review. In that case, evidently, the review panel would have overturned the ump’s decision. Oh, how Melbourne fans would rather be playing under those rules, where every umpire’s call is reviewed from every camera angle and replay speed until the decision is confirmed or over-ruled. And the game takes 12 hours. And players needn’t be fit.

Sure, if we were playing that game by those rules, Melbourne would have had a free kick that had a 20% chance of a goal and Melb win, 20% chance of OOB and a Crows win, and 60% chance of a behind and a draw. (Percentages estimated by wet finger in the wind method.)

But with the game and the rules we are playing to, the only wrong decision is if the ump comes out and says, from what he could see from his view, he should have made a different call. Well the ump hasn’t done that. So correct decision made until he says that.

 

[Shaunbkk]

Still sick of this decision nonsense. Spargo was the only guy who could know it was touched which means just out of bounds and if you disagree, I can book a brain transplant for you. 2. It was one of 37 wrong or unsure decisions in the game. Fools think only one decides a game. 3. THE RULE IS STUID and a disgrace to our game - for 165 years, there was never a deliberate out of bounds rule. Like the destruction of the planet and the destruction of a great world without smart phones (and dumb humans), the game has been gradually ruined by mostly stupid rules which have fundamentally change our game and if you think not for the worst, you never watched the game since 1969 AFL SANFL WAFL week in week out. For those babies of the game, how about fighting for a change to this rule rather than over the game result. If they want a 'deliberate' rule for a player not under direct pressure, ok, reasonable. But for 165 years, a player being closely hounded, heading towards the pocket, has always had to handball the ball in front of him. What else is he supposed to do?? Moronavirus...far worse than Corona. RIP Australian Rules Football.

 

[footy4ever]

He has made my day. I might watch the last 5 minutes again and laugh ... and laugh ..... and laugh.

I have ... 5 times already. Bahahaha suck it up Dees.

 

[CrowBloke]

Spargo was the only guy who could know it was touched which means just out of bounds ...

Yep, this --- and he ain't sayin (wisely, lest he infuriate his own fans and contradict his Coach and the AFL). However, if he didn't touch/deflect it, I reckon he'd have said so by now.

I like the ootf rule. I remember many SANFL teams' go-to tactic on wet days was to kick the ball out at every opportunity, to protect a lead. Very boring footy.
The "sufficient" intent rule means that Umpires have to read players' minds as to their intent. Ridiculous, and impossible to enforce consistently. It needs amending to cover when a player is under pressure or not, as per the rushed-point rule.

 

[FR0GGY]

Yep, this --- and he ain't sayin (wisely, lest he infuriate his own fans and contradict his Coach and the AFL). However, if he didn't touch/deflect it, I reckon he'd have said so by now.

I like the ootf rule. I remember many SANFL teams' go-to tactic on wet days was to kick the ball out at every opportunity, to protect a lead. Very boring footy.
The "sufficient" intent rule means that Umpires have to read players' minds as to their intent. Ridiculous, and impossible to enforce consistently. It needs amending to cover when a player is under pressure or not, as per the rushed-point rule.

I don’t think he needs to say anything it’s pretty clear on video it was deflected.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Have the coaches' votes been published?

 

[Crowtel]

So the commentators say it was deliberate, the wider football public acknowledge it was deliberate, the afl's official review say it was deliberate yet it's only the Adelaide fans that are bringing out the hot spot technology to claim Spargo touched it. Lol. Face it, the win has an asterisk next to it.

The media can't even talk about the game without mentioning that decision. lol. As much as you think I'm the one who is salty, it's pretty clear that its you lot that are salty after the official review said that the decision was wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, severely wrong to the point of cheating.The commentators literally laughed when it happened at the time.

It's absolutely delicious that you're still here crying away.

Nobody here is salty - we won. Very, very happy with that. I like winning.

 

[chazwazza]

Have the coaches' votes been published?

I heard them on radio, Oliver got 10

 

[SugarShane]

Have the coaches' votes been published?

Adelaide v Melbourne
10 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
7 Ben Keays (ADEL)
7 Paul Seedsman (ADEL)
2 Jake Lever (MELB)
2 Taylor Walker (ADEL)
1 Christian Petracca (MELB)
1 Ed Langdon (MELB)

I'd probably have Trac and Lever swapped but otherwise hard to argue.

 

[DJ75]

RE Murray. The only thing that should be reviewed by AFL in looking at the umpiring, is the adjudicating umpire’s view from his position on the field, and what is the right decision to make with that view (real time, 1 sec to decide).

But the AFL didn’t do that (they couldn’t, unless they had a camera attached to the ump’s head).

They could perhaps also review the ump’s positioning, if they think he ran to the wrong place in the circumstances. But they didn’t do that either.

Instead, they pretended the game was being played with different rules, where a panel of judges is allowed to review a decision in the manner of a score review. In that case, evidently, the review panel would have overturned the ump’s decision. Oh, how Melbourne fans would rather be playing under those rules, where every umpire’s call is reviewed from every camera angle and replay speed until the decision is confirmed or over-ruled. And the game takes 12 hours. And players needn’t be fit.

Sure, if we were playing that game by those rules, Melbourne would have had a free kick that had a 20% chance of a goal and Melb win, 20% chance of OOB and a Crows win, and 60% chance of a behind and a draw. (Percentages estimated by wet finger in the wind method.)

But with the game and the rules we are playing to, the only wrong decision is if the ump comes out and says, from what he could see from his view, he should have made a different call. Well the ump hasn’t done that. So correct decision made until he says that.

The AFL (as usual are morons) could have settled this really easily.

Their statement should have had two aspects.
1. From the umpires perspective, with Doedee near by, a possible deflection and an instant to make the decision, the call was understandable and correct.
2. With the benefit of replays and different camera angles it can be seen that Doedee was not as close as he appeared and while there may have been a deflection it isn't clear. With all this in mind, it appears that a deliberate out of bounds should have been called.

Then a summary:
This is a great opportunity to remind everyone that what they may see on TV and with multiple different camera angles is not what the umpire sees. Umpiring AFL is an incredibly difficult game to officiate and the umpires do their best to call the game as they see it, in real time.
With this in mind, the AFL support the umpire in making the correct call from their perspective.

This supports the umpire and the call on the day. Reminds everyone that real time calls don't have the benefit of replays with multiple angles, and also placates the biased Victorian media.

It can't be that hard to think it through like this.

 

[Crow till I die]

I had to laugh..watching a replay of the game and with 3 minutes 28 seconds left to go in the 1st 1/4, a melbourne player gets pinged for deliberate out of bounds with Jimmy Rowe to take the kick. Gary Lyon then says..I quote " I don't think there is any doubt about that, unless it got a ricochet off of an Adelaide player"

Why was that out seen as ok for a Melbourne player but not for an Adelaide player in the eyes of the media?

 

[DJ75]

I had to laugh..watching a replay of the game and with 3 minutes 28 seconds left to go in the 1st 1/4, a melbourne player gets pinged for deliberate out of bounds with Jimmy Rowe to take the kick. Gary Lyon then says..I quote " I don't think there is any doubt about that, unless it got a ricochet off of an Adelaide player"

Why was that out seen as ok for a Melbourne player but not for an Adelaide player in the eyes of the media?

Gary Lyon (and we know what morals he has) commentating a Melbourne game. Says it all really.

 

[marvin]

Our 4th 1 point win. Three of them we kicked a winning goal in the last minute.

Hawthorn at Waverley 1992 - Darel Hart

Interesting to watch the last few minutes again with the 2021 interpretation of "deliberate".