Roast IF it isn't biased or ncompetent..... THEN it must be inciteful media coverage part II

[Arrogant Eagle]

watched the game with my pies supporting mate. at the end he turned to me and said "ohh boy they're going to talk about that touched they robbed you guys of nonstop all week!"... when i replied "no mate, it won't get mentioned at all" he gave me the most befuddled look lmao. to be totally honest though i thought it was the right call. looked over the line on one angle and touched from another. inconclusive so umps call. what i want to know is how accurate these camera angles are. like if we're making calls based on a few mm the actual positioning of these cameras makes all the difference. and why the fu** are they not using something with a higher fps? that's twice in two weeks now we've had a touched ball decision when the moment of impact has been between frames.

I agree, its 2020, if the AFL can pay afford a resort for whole teams in QLD, they can afford higher quality cameras.
Also craziest thing is, that mark by Bont wasn't even 15 meters, so that never should've happened. But we won't hear about that either.

 

[MrKK]

Umpire’s call was a goal. One angle looked like the ball was fully across the line before Gov touched it, from the other side it looked like a millimetre of the ball was still on the line.

Inconclusive, so it reverts to the umpire’s call. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

The issue is the AFL not having any decent technology for the ARC to use.

It would be nice if the umpire's call wasn't a goal to our opponents for a change. That's the 3rd one like that this season (Geelong and Essendon)

 

[flyinghi64]

Agree we should have actually lost by a bit more than we did.
But, a few bad decisions and non decisions can dictate momentum to a degree.

Darling kick after the siren could probably have been a 50m penalty as I am sure one of the several guys on the mark went over it.
When Razor paid the mark the Dogs player was inside the 50 by nearly a meter and Razor called him back a meter so probably 2m inside the 50 at least.
When Darling kicked it the guy on the mark was barely a meter inside the 50 and coming forward.
Not even brought up and looked at. Would have thought it would have been replayed just to see, but nope. Maybe they did look at it during the break and didn't want to bring it up.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Agree we should have actually lost by a bit more than we did.
But, a few bad decisions and non decisions can dictate momentum to a degree.

Darling kick after the siren could probably have been a 50m penalty as I am sure one of the several guys on the mark went over it.
When Razor paid the mark the Dogs player was inside the 50 by nearly a meter and Razor called him back a meter so probably 2m inside the 50 at least.
When Darling kicked it the guy on the mark was barely a meter inside the 50 and coming forward.
Not even brought up and looked at. Would have thought it would have been replayed just to see, but nope. Maybe they did look at it during the break and didn't want to bring it up.

Someone (David King?) actually praised the guy that got the touch on the mark and said Oscar should have tried as hard on Bontempelli’s shot.

 

[arfadunger]

No surprises, no media coverage today of the incorrect ARC non-decision that directly impacted upon the final result of a match.

You would not even know that it happened unless you were watching last night.

The media got the the narrative they want of the "brave dogs". That a "review" system that keeps getting judgments incorrect remains in place, and has now arguably cost a team a victory is inconsequential if that team doesn't happen to be the one they are barracking for.

I can only imagine what the ensuing uproar would be like if the tables were turned and West Coast happened to be the beneficiaries of an incorrect ARC judgment that decided the match in their favour.

Will be interesting whether 360 brings it up tonight. Whately does love getting stuck into the review system.

 

[Balls In]

It would be nice if the umpire's call wasn't a goal to our opponents for a change. That's the 3rd one like that this season (Geelong and Essendon)

Thing is there is vision that conclusively shows it was touched. Except the vision the work experience kid in the ARC based his decision on was the blurry vision channel seven inexplicably kept rocking and rolling rather than the vision that would have cleared it all up.

Here's the rub. If you are in the ARC and responsible for the decision, you should know exactly how many camera's are on the play yeah? Massively complex. There's one camera on one side of the goal line, and there's another camera at the other side of the goal line. So why did old mate pull the trigger before seeing the second camera that was conclusive and shown about 5 seconds after you have changed the course of the season?

This vision.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Will be interesting whether 360 brings it up tonight. Whately does love getting stuck into the review system.

Looks like it might come up.

 

[RookiePick]

Thing is there is vision that conclusively shows it was touched. Except the vision the work experience kid in the ARC based his decision on was the blurry vision channel seven inexplicably kept rocking and rolling rather than the vision that would have cleared it all up.

Here's the rub. If you are in the ARC and responsible for the decision, you should know exactly how many camera's are on the play yeah? Massively complex. There's one camera on one side of the goal line, and there's another camera at the other side of the goal line. So why did old mate pull the trigger before seeing the second camera that was conclusive and shown about 5 seconds after you have changed the course of the season?

This vision.

View attachment 955316

A ball doesn't have a curved side you silly.

 

[Balls In]

End of the day blaming that decision for why we lost is a scapegoat.
We played poorly and deserved to lose.

Not true. I thought we showed enormous character against all the odds and the decision that went against us was the difference in the end. All the bad umpiring decisions, player errors, missed shots at goal - all of these are things that happen in split seconds EXCEPT the ARC review where informed decisions can be made.

 

[ziad]

End of the day blaming that decision for why we lost is a scapegoat.
We played poorly and deserved to lose.

one can be debated without the other.

Will be interesting whether 360 brings it up tonight. Whately does love getting stuck into the review system.

he is a d head - probably praise the dogs and the AFL

 

[ziad]

Thing is there is vision that conclusively shows it was touched. Except the vision the work experience kid in the ARC based his decision on was the blurry vision channel seven inexplicably kept rocking and rolling rather than the vision that would have cleared it all up.

Here's the rub. If you are in the ARC and responsible for the decision, you should know exactly how many camera's are on the play yeah? Massively complex. There's one camera on one side of the goal line, and there's another camera at the other side of the goal line. So why did old mate pull the trigger before seeing the second camera that was conclusive and shown about 5 seconds after you have changed the course of the season?

This vision.

View attachment 955316

I recall 1 or 2nd year high school physics. Light travels in a straight line. AFL operating at about grade 4 level.

 

[Goroyals22]

The bigger issue for me out of the goal line thing was why the f McGovern was going back to the line rather than through it from the fence. Brain not in the game again.

 

[Yamumluvsbigcox]

Not true. I thought we showed enormous character against all the odds and the decision that went against us was the difference in the end. All the bad umpiring decisions, player errors, missed shots at goal - all of these are things that happen in split seconds EXCEPT the ARC review where informed decisions can be made.

People saying we played poorly last night and should have lost anyway are wrong in my opinion.

We were coming off a short break compared to our opponents and were a man down from the 2nd quarter .

We were never going to win a shootout under those circumstances.

What we did is flooded our defence , put extra behind the ball and pressured their midfield to have poor entries . Our defence played very well .

We then played slingshot footy which is why we were much more efficient because we had a clear forward line .

Sure the bullies didn't convert but that's on them .

The ARC cocked up by not looking at one of the two angles they had which gave the dogs the lead which won them the game .

This is not a dodgy free or a bad interpretation of the rules it was a plain and simple mistake

 

[kane249]

The bigger issue for me out of the goal line thing was why the f McGovern was going back to the line rather than through it from the fence. Brain not in the game again.

I was also questioning where Hickey and/or Allen was

 

[Kellythatsit]

It would be nice if the umpire's call wasn't a goal to our opponents for a change. That's the 3rd one like that this season (Geelong and Essendon)

You just know had it been called a behind the ARC would have overturned it.

 

[Ochre]

The bigger issue for me out of the goal line thing was why the f McGovern was going back to the line rather than through it from the fence. Brain not in the game again.

Bontempelli was a long way out, if he puts it 15m out instead of taking a shot Gov can't get there if he's on the fence.

 

[Goroyals22]

Bontempelli was a long way out, if he puts it 15m out instead of taking a shot Gov can't get there if he's on the fence.

He was just outside 50. We had another 3 defenders standing in the same spot when he took the kick basically standing on each others feet


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Kellythatsit]

People saying we played poorly last night and should have lost anyway are wrong in my opinion.

We were coming off a short break compared to our opponents and were a man down from the 2nd quarter .

We were never going to win a shootout under those circumstances.

What we did is flooded our defence , put extra behind the ball and pressured their midfield to have poor entries . Our defence played very well .

We then played slingshot footy which is why we were much more efficient because we had a clear forward line .

Sure the bullies didn't convert but that's on them .

The ARC cocked up by not looking at one of the two angles they had which gave the dogs the lead which won them the game .

This is not a dodgy free or a bad interpretation of the rules it was a plain and simple mistake

Definitely agree with most of this, but I actually think the game was lost up forward. Our midfield was always going to be up against it which made it critical that our forwards convert the few shots they did get.

Our key forwards are there to kick goals. Darling was gifted an entirely gettable free kick that should have iced the game.

 

[Dylan82]

The thing I find most problematic with the ARC review as it currently stands (aside from the refusal to implement any fundamental technology that enables a proper review to be facilitated) is, as has been mentioned by others here, that it asks the goal umpire for an opinion and tends to act as a basis of evidence for that opinion rather than as an independent evaluation of the circumstances.

The goal umpire should not be providing any opinions, if they want to refer a judgment then they should simply be stating that they are unsure.

As for situations where the evidence is lacking (inadequate cameras), the AFL's own rule book clearly states what action is to be taken:

8.2.4 (d) Goal Umpire Unsure
If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the football crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; the goal Umpire shall seek the assistance of the field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

 

[Coasters7]

The thing I find most problematic with the ARC review as it currently stands (aside from the refusal to implement any fundamental technology that enables a proper review to be facilitated) is, as has been mentioned by others here, that it asks the goal umpire for an opinion and tends to act as a basis of evidence for that opinion rather than as an independent evaluation of the circumstances.

The goal umpire should not be providing any opinions, if they want to refer a judgment then they should simply be stating that they are unsure.

As for situations where the evidence is lacking (inadequate cameras), the AFL's own rule book clearly states what action is to be taken:

8.2.4 (d) Goal Umpire Unsure
If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the football crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; the goal Umpire shall seek the assistance of the field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

After reading that rule, would anyone be against just making a behind the default umpires call? If you can’t prove beyond doubt that that ball has crossed the line then don’t give it a goal. It should be the same in cricket.. not out unless you can prove he is. Should always favour the option that affects the game the least. I know both options affect it but with 10 wickets in play, a wrongful dismissal from a line ball call changes the momentum a whole lot more than just continuing the game. The same way a wrongful goal affects a game more than missing one that potentially was.

I think I’d feel more comfortable as a supporter if my team lost from not being awarded a 50/50 goal than losing from the opposition being gifted one. That might just be my bias because that interpretation changes last nights result. But it definitely needs a simpler interpretation than this shit “umpires call” that they never overturn anyway. Either scrap the whole thing and just let the umpires make their calls or make it black and white and too bad if it goes against you.

 

[FreeTK]

The thing I find most problematic with the ARC review as it currently stands (aside from the refusal to implement any fundamental technology that enables a proper review to be facilitated) is, as has been mentioned by others here, that it asks the goal umpire for an opinion and tends to act as a basis of evidence for that opinion rather than as an independent evaluation of the circumstances.

The goal umpire should not be providing any opinions, if they want to refer a judgment then they should simply be stating that they are unsure.

As for situations where the evidence is lacking (inadequate cameras), the AFL's own rule book clearly states what action is to be taken:

8.2.4 (d) Goal Umpire Unsure
If a goal Umpire is unsure whether the football crossed the Goal or Behind Line, or is Out of Bounds; the goal Umpire shall seek the assistance of the field and boundary Umpires. If the correct decision cannot be determined following consultation, the goal Umpire shall give the lesser score.

Just leave it alone, mate.

The umpire didn't say he was "unsure" he said "I think it's a goal, can you check that it wasn't touch on the line".

Wanting to seek clarity, and being unsure aren't the same thing.

You're being a Karen.

 

[ukurrie]

The pleasure of living in Sydney, apart for the weayther and environment, is that you get to look down on melbourne as a wet, insular country town. Never heard of this so called D grade journalist here in the big city.

Ha, the feeling is more than mutual from down here!

 

[russ]

Just leave it alone, mate.

The umpire didn't say he was "unsure" he said "I think it's a goal, can you check that it wasn't touch on the line".

Wanting to seek clarity, and being unsure aren't the same thing.

You're being a Karen.

far too close for him to think anything about it, much like when cricket umpires refer directly.

 

[Kellythatsit]

Apparently, Whately has nothing to say about the ARC now.

All season he’s been leading the charge for it to be reviewed but suddenly, tonight, just tacit agreement with Robbo about whatever bullshit his pickled brain vomits out.

 

[Mulldogg]

Won’t bother watching Footy Calcified tonight but had to laugh at this. Talk about clutching at straws. Once the Vic media gets set on a narrative they hammer the hell out of it.

They’ve trawled the stats trying to find our poor record at night away from Optus on a full moon in leap years.

As has been said ad nauseam on this forum the fact we’re in a QLD hub was not to blame for last nights loss. We were outplayed by a side fighting for their own finals prospects, missing the majority of our starting midfield, a rotation down from early in the second quarter, copped a questionable goal review going against us and even then nearly stole the game via an arguably soft free kick to JD.

But accordingly to the collective intellect of The Grass Tossing Sniper, Chompers and Carowhine “wEst CoAsT cAN’t wIN iN ThE hUb!”

Spare me.