This one shits me to tears. It's clear that if the implicit narrative of the game is that one team is putting immense pressure on another, any borderline calls in defence will be called play on. Similarly, you'll see defenders who have taken marks be called to play on after 3-5 seconds for no apparent reason.
Positives and Negatives vs Western Bulldogs
- Thread starter KERRPOW
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This one shits me to tears. It's clear that if the implicit narrative of the game is that one team is putting immense pressure on another, any borderline calls in defence will be called play on. Similarly, you'll see defenders who have taken marks be called to play on after 3-5 seconds for no apparent reason.
Mop
Not anymore
+ Liam Ryan
+ Duggan
+ Tom Cole. Should’ve been clutch. Definitely punching above his weight.
+ Snakey’s first quarter.
- Nelson. What the sweet hell.
- Ainsworth / O’Neill - no impact at all
- Jetta. Cooked at AFL level.
- Hutch’s injury
————- Darling’s miss at the end. Cmon.
+ Duggan
+ Tom Cole. Should’ve been clutch. Definitely punching above his weight.
+ Snakey’s first quarter.
- Nelson. What the sweet hell.
- Ainsworth / O’Neill - no impact at all
- Jetta. Cooked at AFL level.
- Hutch’s injury
————- Darling’s miss at the end. Cmon.
Last edited:
That is an interesting take on it. Aren't the teams essentially still in quarantine in QLD but just confined to their hubs? I know they can go out to do errands or buy a kebab, but my understanding is that they still can only train together. How is that diffent from Collingwood taking over a resort in Joondalup when they were in Perth?
The problem with ARC is that one angle showed a sliver of light, implying the ball had passed the line before touched, yet the other angle implied the opposite. I can see why they say inconclusive.
Yes, their technology is s**t and we might as well not have it. In that case it would just be umpire's call, which was a goal anyway.
Yes, their technology is s**t and we might as well not have it. In that case it would just be umpire's call, which was a goal anyway.
Spot on re the failure to tag Daniel for the first 3 quarters.
It's always been the case that the closer you get to goal the more time and leniency you get after taking a mark.
If you take a mark on the defensive goal line and your eyes look to one side it's play on automatically. If you take a mark beside the attacking behind post you can walk back directly to the centre of the ground and the umpire will blow time on and come over to show you your line. If you start to then crab out he'll likewise tell you to go back to your correct line.
If the ARC official was actually comparing the ball position to the goal line then maybe you could accept umpires call. But not checking the position of the goal line when it's your job to check if something crosses it is a bit silly. They should make them put a big checklist on the screen.
Also, looking at this game only, when he had the ball Ainsworth looked like someone with reasonable AFL level skills and was willing to take the option on offer.
- Sep 16, 2006
- 35,876
- 35,479
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Collingwood will have to beat Port in Adelaide to make finals as well. We ****ed over a few teams and their finals chances losing last night.
Its funny* how our two losses in this condensed fixture come down to:
a) ridiculous accuracy from the Tigers that is unlikely to be seen again this season or even next season.
b) ridiculous inaccuracy from two reliable forwards who are unlikely to miss similar set shots back to back this season or even next season.
funny* = not haha funny
a) ridiculous accuracy from the Tigers that is unlikely to be seen again this season or even next season.
b) ridiculous inaccuracy from two reliable forwards who are unlikely to miss similar set shots back to back this season or even next season.
funny* = not haha funny
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,334
Don't think it's the equivalent of revealing any sort of state secret to say that this season is sliding away. Of the top five teams we are a clear fifth - and it's hard to be confident we are even the fifth best team in the competition right now. Whether it's the slipperier conditions in Queensland, having to hub it, the stop-start nature of things earlier in the year we just haven't handled it as well as other clubs. Lurking opposition fans may read that as an excuse but it's not - it's a failure to adapt and in a season where adaptability is as an important attribute as any, to this point we get a big fat F in that category.
I guess the positive is thanks to some good form when we were in Perth we still have a sliver of hope, although even that needs to be tempered because I think the path to a flag is narrow and unlikely now. I would be very surprised (pleasantly) if we were able to win the competition taking the long route around the finals - 4 consecutive wins from outside the top four or three on the bounce after losing a qualifying final. So need top four and a qualifying final win to give us a week off heading into a PF, which means go Geelong next Friday
.
Might as well hold on to that sliver.
I guess the positive is thanks to some good form when we were in Perth we still have a sliver of hope, although even that needs to be tempered because I think the path to a flag is narrow and unlikely now. I would be very surprised (pleasantly) if we were able to win the competition taking the long route around the finals - 4 consecutive wins from outside the top four or three on the bounce after losing a qualifying final. So need top four and a qualifying final win to give us a week off heading into a PF, which means go Geelong next Friday
.Might as well hold on to that sliver.
The worst part is if we introduced this as a tactic of our game on every free kick, it wouldn't be parochial footy fans on an Internet forum picking it up.
There'd be op-eds on Footy Classified and On The Couch. AFL.com would have its own analysis of the tactic with special input from Robert Walls.
Every has-been footy star would be spouting their opinion over footage of only WCE players doing it.
Next weekend we'd get 5 x 50 meter penalties paid against us so the AFL can make a statement about the tactic.
We'd stop using it and the scrutiny would be at an end.
Meanwhile every other team called Richmond would continue to employ the tactic.
Because any 50/50 is automatically called a goal if it is against the eagles.
It is part of the umpire training.
THE A5
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 26, 2020
- 9,349
- 16,592
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It’s hard to base Sheed to be honest. His tank has come on in leaps and bounds over the last couple years but I still thinks it’s below average compared to most miss. 4 games in 20 days could taking a toll on him.
******* English. This week he remembers how to play football.
Last week when it was all on the line against the Cats it was like he'd forgotten how to use his arms and legs.
But don't dare go near the protected space.
Last word on the ARC goal decision.
The rule is the ball must completely cross the LINE!!! The AFL laws state, "a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the Attacking Team without being touched by any other Player, ". No mention of post for good reason, the post is inside the line.
The back of the goal post padding is at the back of the line. Above the padding the post is ahead of the back of the line. By my reckoning about 1/4 of the ball had yet to pass the line when McGovern made contact.
The AFL have this vision (https://www.afl.com.au/video/497370...dal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1599397200001) which if you go to near the end shows this clearly. Using the post for reference was totally wrong and produced the wrong call. The AFL must admit this.
The rule is the ball must completely cross the LINE!!! The AFL laws state, "a Goal is scored when the football is Kicked completely over the Goal Line by a Player of the Attacking Team without being touched by any other Player, ". No mention of post for good reason, the post is inside the line.
The back of the goal post padding is at the back of the line. Above the padding the post is ahead of the back of the line. By my reckoning about 1/4 of the ball had yet to pass the line when McGovern made contact.
The AFL have this vision (https://www.afl.com.au/video/497370...dal=true&type=video&publishFrom=1599397200001) which if you go to near the end shows this clearly. Using the post for reference was totally wrong and produced the wrong call. The AFL must admit this.
Very true. The padding is never taken into consideration but you can see even in the still image that the ball hasn't cleared the padding at all.
Add this to the other angle that shows the ball not even having cleared the post and you'd have to say the ARC failed completely.
Wasn't this the very reason the ARC was set up in the first place? Wasn't that always the cry of the AFL during the early days when there were calls for scrapping it?
FFS, I get that Darling and Kennedy should have kicked straighter but the whole ******* purpose of the ARC is to identify this. And there it is clear as day!
Otherwise, why even have it? Just let the umpire call it a goal and get on with it without all the farcical suspense because the reviewer is too lazy to do his/her ******* job properly. At least you can understand the goal umpire getting the call wrong.
- Nov 27, 2014
- 9,644
- 15,857
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Chelsea
Yeah this is the other thing that pisses me off no end. If the ball goes through lower than padding height they use the padding as the reference and the post as a reference if it’s higher. I mean.. how f*cking incompetent do you have to be to not know that those two things aren’t lining up and only one of them lines up with the back of the goal line.
That's because the back of the padding is the same as the back of the line. Once the padding ends going up the post by default the back of the post in inside the back of the goal line. Above the padding the post is not a useful parameter.
The Eagles newsletter only said it was close. I'd hope they'd be asking the AFL to adjudictate on the ARC decision. This technology was brought in to rectify mistakes, in this case it confirmed one. I don't blame the goal ump, but he was probably using the post too.
Inexcusable error by the ARC.
For what it's worth the man on the mark was five meters closer to goal from where Bontempelli took the mark, which only travelled about 10 metres anyway.
I'm confused. Are you guys suggesting that the width of the post, all the way to the top, should be assumed to be as thick as it is where it's padded?
Because that's wrong.
Because that's wrong.
I had that feeling too until Darling was gifted that bullshit free kick in front of goal. Not that I was complaining.
He should have ******* kicked it though.
No. It’s that the back of the padding is aligned to the edge of the goal line.
Therefore using the top of the post to determine whether the ball has crossed the line is incorrect according to the rules.
It should be judged by the back of the padding and you can see in the video that he ball is clearly inside that padding when it was touched.
The ARC should also know this and the fact that it doesn’t appear to is an indictment on this supposed technological safe guard.
Similar threads
