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

[Coasters7]

You're giving the players too much of an out IMO.
Yes, injuries have killed us, but we were fully fit in the first part of the hub, and losing three in a row really hurt us.
I know you will give another excuse like we didn't have an end date.

Other clubs have injuries and a compressed fixture.

It is OK to say we aren't good enough without looking for an excuse.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that we are good enough though, we’re definitely not a 5th ranked side with everyone available. I’d say we’d have 50/50s against Geelong and Richmond (we beat one and lost to the other and both games could have gone either way) and would take care of Brisbane and Port with a full squad, 3rd at worst and the best side on our day imo. To nearly make top 4 after that start takes a bit of doing. Sure we had a home hub, but to go undefeated there isn’t necessarily easy.

Take Geelongs 3 best clearance players out of last weeks game against the Dogs and I’d put money on them not getting close to pulling back that 6 goal head start.

It’s a pretty big deal to lose 2 starting centre bounce mids. Sure other sides have better depth and could probably cover them better but that’s where our bookends come into play. They’re the ones that get us out of jail when the mids don’t turn up (or aren’t even playing), they were also off on the weekend and we still had plenty of opportunity to win.

Take a look at Collingwood and that’s pretty much a poor mans WC, they were a decent side earlier in the year and I still reckon they could take Brisbane down with a full 22. They’re the side that I believe are taking our place atm. Ports been fairly solid (but don’t really deserve to be top), Geelong has handled everything the best and deserve top spot, Richmond has had a few injuries too but have also had their fair share of games, just like ours the other day, where the ball has bounced their way and they’ve pulled it out the fire.

In a season where 2 points could potentially decide our season.. not having our captain, clearance beast (who also spoonfeeds the rest of our mids) and best ground ball player, is going to hurt a shitload, especially against a side with bottomless depth in the middle.

In hindsight you play Nic (if he was actually available) and use the Saints game as the “if we lose, we lose” rest game. Having the Dogs game under our belt, potentially losing to Saints (but getting a rest between the other two games at worst), and needing to win the last game against North is a whole lot better than having to win 2 in a row with one off a 4 day break. Don’t know if Nic was a legitimate out but if he wasn’t we tried to take a bet both ways and it nearly (should have) paid off.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Two camers. the AFL only pay for poor quality 'slow' cameras so the frames are far apart in time and dont give enough fidelity. I suspect one camera had a frame that showed the ball not over the line (Thus it wasnt) and the other showed a later frame in time.

Yes, that’s the problem with the system at the moment, the shitty cameras.

It’s designed to overturn obvious umpire errors, not ensure that every decision is absolutely 100% correct. The technology simply isn’t good enough for that.

You can’t have the bloke in the ARC “suspecting” that the initial touch was between frames and going on that. He needs to judge what he can actually see. And what he could actually see was inconclusive, because one camera seemed to show a goal and the other showed a behind. That’s why it reverted to umpire’s call. If he’d only looked at the one angle that was initially shown on TV, as some people seem to think he did, he would’ve confirmed the call not just reverted to it.

The problem isn’t the review system itself. The AFL needs to invest in semi-decent cameras on the goal lines, but they’ve probably got no money left after paying for Gil and his 400 person entourage to stay in a Qld resort for two months, so we won’t see it next year.

 

[woosha24]

We fought hard and made mistakes. The ARC did cost us a win.

It shouldnt have though. We should have been good enough to put the dogs away even with the obstacles in our way.

We werent. Thats not the camera's fault. Thats ours, and if we are relying on sh*tty goalline technology to get us the 4 points instead of our own skills against a bottom 8 club then we arent half as good as we think we are.

 

[Ok Boomer]

Blaming our recent form on the hub situation is just lazy analysis so I am not surprised that people like Whateley and other Victorian floggos are running with it.

Shuey and Yeo have won our last four B&F's. They are both out. Our half forward line has been absolutely decimated. We are now down another premiership midfielder in Redden. Victorians are clueless so I can throw in Hutchings as a key out because they know who he is because he tagged some Victorians two years ago.

 

[larrikin]

Bottom line is an incorrect ARC decision probably just cost us top 4. Honestly we all know the ARC is just some noob in a channel 7 van watching the telecast. How is it possible that he didn't see the conclusive vision?

Or Darling could just kick the goal

 

[Coasters7]

View attachment 955911
Doesn’t look any more blurry to me. You’re seeing what you want to see.

To be fair, that ones conclusive too given the “line” actually includes the padding and doesn’t stop at the back of the goal post.. which you’d expect someone in charge of running the video review to know. Posters on an Internet forum know it so why not some bloke who’s sole job is to make sure he gets his 2-3 decisions right per game and gets paid to do said job. If that ball is half a metre lower it’d be overturned 100% which is where the discrepancy is.

 

[kane249]

Or Darling could just kick the goal

Kennedy could have gone back and taken his kick, or handballed it off instead of taking on the man on the mark....
Rotham could have not made a bee line straight for Roarke Smith and poorly disguised his blocking attempt

Firmly believe at the moment when we were already 4 points up, we kicked a goal at that point we would have broken their spirit and won that. Instead Smith gets the goal and they stayed in it, rest is history.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

Kennedy could have gone back and taken his kick, or handballed it off instead of taking on the man on the mark....
Rotham could have not made a bee line straight for Roarke Smith and poorly disguised his blocking attempt

Firmly believe at the moment when we were already 4 points up, we kicked a goal at that point we would have broken their spirit and won that. Instead Smith gets the goal and they stayed in it, rest is history.

The Rotham decision was just so so so stupid. What did he think he was doing? Free kicks in front of oppo goals that blatant are the most unforgivable.

 

[Tugga27]

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that we are good enough though, we’re definitely not a 5th ranked side with everyone available. I’d say we’d have 50/50s against Geelong and Richmond (we beat one and lost to the other and both games could have gone either way) and would take care of Brisbane and Port with a full squad, 3rd at worst and the best side on our day imo. To nearly make top 4 after that start takes a bit of doing. Sure we had a home hub, but to go undefeated there isn’t necessarily easy.

Take Geelongs 3 best clearance players out of last weeks game against the Dogs and I’d put money on them not getting close to pulling back that 6 goal head start.

It’s a pretty big deal to lose 2 starting centre bounce mids. Sure other sides have better depth and could probably cover them better but that’s where our bookends come into play. They’re the ones that get us out of jail when the mids don’t turn up (or aren’t even playing), they were also off on the weekend and we still had plenty of opportunity to win.

Take a look at Collingwood and that’s pretty much a poor mans WC, they were a decent side earlier in the year and I still reckon they could take Brisbane down with a full 22. They’re the side that I believe are taking our place atm. Ports been fairly solid (but don’t really deserve to be top), Geelong has handled everything the best and deserve top spot, Richmond has had a few injuries too but have also had their fair share of games, just like ours the other day, where the ball has bounced their way and they’ve pulled it out the fire.

In a season where 2 points could potentially decide our season.. not having our captain, clearance beast (who also spoonfeeds the rest of our mids) and best ground ball player, is going to hurt a shitload, especially against a side with bottomless depth in the middle.

In hindsight you play Nic (if he was actually available) and use the Saints game as the “if we lose, we lose” rest game. Having the Dogs game under our belt, potentially losing to Saints (but getting a rest between the other two games at worst), and needing to win the last game against North is a whole lot better than having to win 2 in a row with one off a 4 day break. Don’t know if Nic was a legitimate out but if he wasn’t we tried to take a bet both ways and it nearly (should have) paid off.

We were never going to beat Richmond.
I'd back us to beat anyone at Optus with a full squad, but you could pretty much say the same about Geelong at home and Richmond at the Gee.

The elephant in the room is our record in Qld.
We have a poor record and have lost to all 3 sides we've played in the 8, for whatever reason.

And if we lose this week to Saint Kilda, the same posters will be rolling out the same excuses.

 

[Coasters7]

Kennedy could have gone back and taken his kick, or handballed it off instead of taking on the man on the mark....
Rotham could have not made a bee line straight for Roarke Smith and poorly disguised his blocking attempt

Firmly believe at the moment when we were already 4 points up, we kicked a goal at that point we would have broken their spirit and won that. Instead Smith gets the goal and they stayed in it, rest is history.

That last 5 minutes gave me the Stokes Ashes test vibes. Just an absolute comedy of errors and we only needed one to not be a f*ck up to get home.

 

[boondy]

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.

So you think that before the goal umpire refers it upstairs, he has a quick think about the team and if it's a Victorian team he makes sure
the decision is in their favour?

Amazing.

The commentators barrack for Vic teams when we play them , see the game through vic team eyes , why wouldnt umpires ?

 

[boondy]

He expressly said the opposite.

That was an accidental insertion from a laggy night . I had more to say but gave up . Posting on this site is getting diabolical when its busy .

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Anyone who reckons the umpires had it in for us should go back and watch the ruck free kick paid to Darling in the last 90 seconds. It was extremely ticky-touchwood. If Darling hadn’t botched the kick and we’d ended up winning that would have been all the talk this week.

 

[Tugga27]

The commentators barrack for Vic teams when we play them , see the game through vic team eyes , why wouldnt umpires ?

If you reckon goal umpires are now basing their decisions on whatever teams they're barracking for, I think you're being a bit silly.
In 99% of the cases the right decision will be made by the ARC and if they keep getting them wrong, they wouldn't have a job.

 

[Kellythatsit]

That last 5 minutes gave me the Stokes Ashes test vibes. Just an absolute comedy of errors and we only needed one to not be a f*ck up to get home.

This is what runs through my mind in the cold, early hours of the last two sleepless nights.

 

[Oxirane]

To be fair, that ones conclusive too given the “line” actually includes the padding and doesn’t stop at the back of the goal post.. which you’d expect someone in charge of running the video review to know. Posters on an Internet forum know it so why not some bloke who’s sole job is to make sure he gets his 2-3 decisions right per game and gets paid to do said job. If that ball is half a metre lower it’d be overturned 100% which is where the discrepancy is.

How hard is it to draw a line like this on the footage when making the decision (did any of the footy shows do it?)

 

[Grahame]

To be fair, that ones conclusive too given the “line” actually includes the padding and doesn’t stop at the back of the goal post.. which you’d expect someone in charge of running the video review to know. Posters on an Internet forum know it so why not some bloke who’s sole job is to make sure he gets his 2-3 decisions right per game and gets paid to do said job. If that ball is half a metre lower it’d be overturned 100% which is where the discrepancy is.

First off - whatever the result it is in the book i.e. we lost ... move on ...

BUT an authoritative sounding caller to SEN today noted that the rules say all the ball must be over the line, not past the goal post. Apparently, the back of the padding aligns with the back of the line whereas the back of the goal post (above the padding) is in front of the line. Of course the umpire looking up - with only a millisecond - can only compare the ball to whatever part of the goal post they can see. If it is above the padding (as in most cases) then it can get a bit tricky. But that is exactly what the ARC was set up for.

The TV only showed the inconclusive shot. One commentator said that the ARC had access to all angles. However, I seem to remember that the ARC voice that could be heard said 'review complete, from the angle (singular) we have seen, we consider it inconclusive'.
So 1. did they know the rule about the back of the line v. the back of the unpadded post ... and 2. did they see the vision from both angles?

Of course if the club were to suggest improvements e.g. better cameras, change definition from back of line to back of post etc it'd be WC Whingers. But imagine if it was Collingwood losing a GF. Eddie would be leading a torch bearing mob to AFL House and Gil would be fleeing the country.

 

[Goldfish]

First off - whatever the result it is in the book i.e. we lost ... move on ...

BUT an authoritative sounding caller to SEN today noted that the rules say all the ball must be over the line, not past the goal post. Apparently, the back of the padding aligns with the back of the line whereas the back of the goal post (above the padding) is in front of the line. Of course the umpire looking up - with only a millisecond - can only compare the ball to whatever part of the goal post they can see. If it is above the padding (as in most cases) then it can get a bit tricky. But that is exactly what the ARC was set up for.

The TV only showed the inconclusive shot. One commentator said that the ARC had access to all angles. However, I seem to remember that the ARC voice that could be heard said 'review complete, from the angle (singular) we have seen, we consider it inconclusive'.
So 1. did they know the rule about the back of the line v. the back of the unpadded post ... and 2. did they see the vision from both angles?

Of course if the club were to suggest improvements e.g. better cameras, change definition from back of line to back of post etc it'd be WC Whingers. But imagine if it was Collingwood losing a GF. Eddie would be leading a torch bearing mob to AFL House and Gil would be fleeing the country.

You're right, and it's on the AFL website for those interested. It was clarified in 2009:

2009
Umpires empowered to recall an errant bounce at a stoppage and replace it with a throw-up.
Penalty for interchange rule violation became a free kick, plus a 50-metre penalty from wherever play is stopped.
A free kick paid against a player engaged in any form of misconduct.
The scoreline to be aligned with the back of the goalpost padding.
A player in possession of the ball, when the play is stopped for stretcher usage, to retain it when the game restarts.
If an umpire impedes a player when setting the mark for a shot at goal, play to be stopped and the mark to be re-set to avoid a disadvantage.
After the all-clear is given for a score and an infringement against the defending team occurs before play restarts, the free kick to be taken either where the infringement occurs or 50 metres from the kick-off line, whichever is to the advantage of that team.

History of Rule Changes - AFL.com.au

Every Rule Change dating back to 1858.

www.afl.com.au

 

[ziad]

You're right, and it's on the AFL website for those interested. It was clarified in 2009:

Recalled that on the night

 

[Grahame]

You're right, and it's on the AFL website for those interested. It was clarified in 2009:

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know this but then I'm not a highly paid professional commentator (or ARC reviewer) whose job it is to know such things.

 

[Mulldogg]

How hard is it to draw a line like this on the footage when making the decision (did any of the footy shows do it?)
View attachment 956044

Mate this is gold. Get it up on Twitter if you’re on and then tag the AFL, Fox Footy and any other talking heads you can think of.

I can see daylight between the ball and the goalpost but didn’t know about that 2009 change and that the scoreline is actually at the back of the padding...just seems that the paid video reviewer in the ARC and the commentary “experts” were also unaware of this...which is a bit of a problem I would have thought.

 

[Oxirane]

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't know this but then I'm not a highly paid professional commentator (or ARC reviewer) whose job it is to know such things.

And even then the commentators and ARC reviewer wouldn't need to know of that particular AFL guideline regarding the padding and goal line. They would just have to look where the goal line is on the actual footage/field when comparing it to the ball. (Otherwise how would you check if something has crossed the goal line, if you don't know where the goal line is?)



As I've noted for a while now. If a viewer at home can tell that the score review is incorrect, then it is not a technology issue but a process issue. The process/checklist reduces human error, and 'umpires call' acknowledges limitations/uncertainty of the technology.

 

[West Coast 06]

This is just making me mad now.

 

[Goldfish]

And even then the commentators and ARC reviewer wouldn't need to know of that particular AFL guideline regarding the padding and goal line. They would just have to look where the goal line is on the actual footage/field when comparing it to the ball. (Otherwise how would you check if something has crossed the goal line, if you don't know where the goal line is?)

View attachment 956069

As I've noted for a while now. If a viewer at home can tell that the score review is incorrect, then it is not a technology issue but a process issue. The process/checklist reduces human error, and 'umpires call' acknowledges limitations/uncertainty of the technology.

Umpires call gets me... In any other sport if an umpire isn't sure they'll take the lesser of the 2 options available. How you can be 'not sure' and pay 6 points is ridiculous (in any game, this isn't just a west coast issue). If ARC is inconclusive, it should be a point, but that also means the AFL need better technology and a full understanding of the rules for those reviewing the footage to make the chances of a mistake negligible.

 

[RookiePick]

To be fair, that ones conclusive too given the “line” actually includes the padding and doesn’t stop at the back of the goal post.. which you’d expect someone in charge of running the video review to know. Posters on an Internet forum know it so why not some bloke who’s sole job is to make sure he gets his 2-3 decisions right per game and gets paid to do said job. If that ball is half a metre lower it’d be overturned 100% which is where the discrepancy is.

It's not that hard is it?

Sheer incompetence by whoever the ARC person/team is.