Review Round 10, 2020 vs Western Bulldogs

Remove this Banner Ad

Enviable Tradition

Professional Procrastinator
Oct 12, 2007
19,298
23,132
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Because you asked in good faith I will reply in kind. (Although I recognise I might cop some more flack from others by doing so.)

Trying to highlight individual decisions would end up being too long winded and be subjective anyway, so I will use some more general stats to briefly explain my view of last night's umpiring.

The 17 to 14 free kick count may not seem lopsided if you expected such a count should be approximately even. However, the Bulldogs are probably the smallest, least physical team in the league and as a result tend to play annoyingly within the rules. It's not that we are great and fair blokes (although we generally are ;)), but because it's highly unlikely we will benefit from engaging in the extra physical stuff.

Last night Port were understandably the more physically aggressive team and were seemingly happy to run an increased risk of infringing to make sure the Dogs players 'earned' every possession. Which is all fine, but if you play that way you would also reasonably expect to end up behind in the free kick count, not in front.

I think the new roulette wheel style holding the ball interpretations in particular hurt the Dogs a lot more that Port than last night. Port apparently received 7 HTB Frees from 74 tackles, and the Bulldogs received just 1 from 64 tackles. That's a large differential in frees for a small difference in tackles.

In a reasonably close and competitive game, a few key decisions either way can easily impact the result.

Anyway, congrats on the victory and good luck for the rest of the season.
Given the amount of times the Dogs players used their prior opportunity to duck into a tackle rather than trying to dispose of the ball that is hardly surprising.

You didn't happen to catch the high tackle stats did you?

Also saying that highlighting individual cases is too subjective then proceeding to share your entirely subjective opinion without any empirical evidence is just too much.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Spadge

#bringbackthebars
Oct 7, 2004
10,845
11,437
Adelaide, South Australia
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Also saying that highlighting individual cases is too subjective then proceeding to share your entirely subjective opinion without any empirical evidence is just too much.
This is code for he has nothing other than a free kick count that says we got a couple more than they did

Apparently because of their "small frames" they should always have more frees than their bigger and stronger opponents
lol
 

Tibbs

Premiership Player
Sep 9, 2013
4,612
10,549
Brisbane
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
“can’t see daylight between the ball and post” hasn’t been rolled out in any of the thousands of goal reviews previously so why was it a new measurement applied last night?

also I’m going to pull you up on snicko
There seems to be a few people not understanding what this is and what it does

It does not record a hit on the post

it’s a microphone. It picks up sound. That could be a hit on the post, or any other sound that happens in the area

a bouncing ball
An umpire standing right near it could make a sound any number of ways. Stepping on dry grass. Knocking his heels together
Pants rustling

the microphone has zero ability to distinguish what is making the sound.
UNPOPULAR OPINION: Seriously people, the disallowed goal was the correct call.

I was very disappointed to see it overturned after watching Woodcock's joy at scoring his first goal, but it nicked the post - End of story! If that had been a Bulldog's goal we were talking about, we would all be hailing Snicko as a success. Now suddenly it is a blight on the game. If we are going to use technology, then we have to acknowledge it will pick up even the most fine nicks. Regardless how fine a nick it was, it still touched the post.

So we pick on the 3rd umpire's poor choice of the word "daylight." I have heard them use that expression a number of times in score reviews. We know what he means, we are just being picky!

Well lets downplay the technology then, after all, its just a microphone that can 'pick up the umpire's fart,' in the vernacular of one poster! Firstly these are not ordinary mikes. they are designed to record the vibrations in the post, and were rigorously tested first. They are are also located under the padding on the goalposts, and utilize audio effects technology that allow the microphones to mask other external sounds.

It nicked the post people ... lets not be sore losers over this. Disappointed the lad couldnt enjoy his first goal, but he will get another opportunity soon enough!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tibbs

Premiership Player
Sep 9, 2013
4,612
10,549
Brisbane
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Has anyone ever watched a close game where one team is going full on attack throwing caution to the wind whilst the other team tries to hold on grimly to a small lead and thought "gee this is boring footy"?

Some of these commentators have zero feel for the game.

On SM-G960F using
BigFooty.com mobile app
jo.JPG
 

sog35

Premiership Player
Jul 30, 2002
4,633
2,061
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
WAFC, BFC, AUFC
He's not wrong that our high pressure game will invariably lead to some tackles going wrong. I'm happy for us to cop that as the aggressive mindset has played a part in our good performances this year.

Whether it's to offset the size differential (Bontempelli probably the largest of the modern mid lol) or that they have a recruiting preference for duckers, The Bulldogs have a pretty clear Selwood plan, drop the knees, drop the shoulders, make the umps pay them.

We also haven't really perfected the dropping / throwing the ball out of a contest, but that's not a strictly a Bulldogs thing.
 

philthy05

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2008
22,320
29,079
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
adelaide 36ers
UNPOPULAR OPINION: Seriously people, the disallowed goal was the correct call.

I was very disappointed to see it overturned after watching Woodcock's joy at scoring his first goal, but it nicked the post - End of story! If that had been a Bulldog's goal we were talking about, we would all be hailing Snicko as a success. Now suddenly it is a blight on the game. If we are going to use technology, then we have to acknowledge it will pick up even the most fine nicks. Regardless how fine a nick it was, it still touched the post.

So we pick on the 3rd umpire's poor choice of the word "daylight." I have heard them use that expression a number of times in score reviews. We know what he means, we are just being picky!

Well lets downplay the technology then, after all, its just a microphone that can 'pick up the umpire's fart,' in the vernacular of one poster! Firstly these are not ordinary mikes. they are designed to record the vibrations in the post, and were rigorously tested first. They are are also located under the padding on the goalposts, and utilize audio effects technology that allow the microphones to mask other external sounds.

It nicked the post people ... lets not be sore losers over this. Disappointed the lad couldnt enjoy his first goal, but he will get another opportunity soon enough!
this makes zero sense

there’s no evidence it hit the post

a lack of visable daylight between the ball and post is not proof it hit the post and is a measure that has never been used to say it has

and to repeat myself for the umpteenth time

snicko does not mean the ball hits the post

it is not a sensor that reads impact

it is a microphone. A microphone that records sound in an area

I’ve only used microphones in professional settings and been taught by people who do it for their job so what the hell do I know right.
 

TeeKray

Moderator
Mar 1, 2014
12,192
64,183
Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I think the new roulette wheel style holding the ball interpretations in particular hurt the Dogs a lot more that Port than last night. Port apparently received 7 HTB Frees from 74 tackles, and the Bulldogs received just 1 from 64 tackles. That's a large differential in frees for a small difference in tackles.
You acknowledged yourself that the Bulldogs are a lighter and smaller team and are unlikely to benefit from engaging in a physical style of football. So why are you now surprised that our tackling would be more effective and rewarded as such?
 

Jason K

Premium Platinum
Mar 1, 2014
2,220
4,782
Henley Beach
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Haven't had time to read the whole thread, so apologies if already discussed, but Wallis knee'd himself in the head. He ducked which drew high contact but the blood was from his own knee
 

bomberclifford

Importer/Exporter
Sep 2, 2005
26,179
77,351
Cerebral Cortex
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Adelaide Magpies
Haven't had time to read the whole thread, so apologies if already discussed, but Wallis knee'd himself in the head. He ducked which drew high contact but the blood was from his own knee
Was this before or after the dramatic throw back of his head about 2 seconds after any contact?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

backtozero

Club Legend
Jul 26, 2020
1,098
2,438
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
He's not wrong that our high pressure game will invariably lead to some tackles going wrong. I'm happy for us to cop that as the aggressive mindset has played a part in our good performances this year.

Whether it's to offset the size differential (Bontempelli probably the largest of the modern mid lol) or that they have a recruiting preference for duckers, The Bulldogs have a pretty clear Selwood plan, drop the knees, drop the shoulders, make the umps pay them.

We also haven't really perfected the dropping / throwing the ball out of a contest, but that's not a strictly a Bulldogs thing.
Cassisi on the MMM broadcast early on the game was saying that because the Dogs picked a small forward line, their entries were deliberately being kicked low and along the ground so that they could either gather the loose ball or hope for a free kick from a bigger defender by going low.

Not sure where he got that idea from but it must be well known that playing for head-high frees is a strategy of theirs.
 

Tibbs

Premiership Player
Sep 9, 2013
4,612
10,549
Brisbane
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
this makes zero sense

there’s no evidence it hit the post

a lack of visable daylight between the ball and post is not proof it hit the post and is a measure that has never been used to say it has

and to repeat myself for the umpteenth time

snicko does not mean the ball hits the post

it is not a sensor that reads impact

it is a microphone. A microphone that records sound in an area

I’ve only used microphones in professional settings and been taught by people who do it for their job so what the hell do I know right.
Rubbish mate ... I have seen snicko work multiple times now in goal reviews, and they are consistent. Do you reckon the WIND made the snick. LOL

The more you argue this the more stupid you look, and the more stupid you paint Port supporters to be! Get over it. It was a feather touch of the post.
 

NoddyHolder

Premiership Player
Mar 2, 2014
4,909
16,811
Tralfamadore
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Because you asked in good faith I will reply in kind. (Although I recognise I might cop some more flack from others by doing so.)

Trying to highlight individual decisions would end up being too long winded and be subjective anyway, so I will use some more general stats to briefly explain my view of last night's umpiring.

The 17 to 14 free kick count may not seem lopsided if you expected such a count should be approximately even. However, the Bulldogs are probably the smallest, least physical team in the league and as a result tend to play annoyingly within the rules. It's not that we are great and fair blokes (although we generally are ;)), but because it's highly unlikely we will benefit from engaging in the extra physical stuff.

Last night Port were understandably the more physically aggressive team and were seemingly happy to run an increased risk of infringing to make sure the Dogs players 'earned' every possession. Which is all fine, but if you play that way you would also reasonably expect to end up behind in the free kick count, not in front.

I think the new roulette wheel style holding the ball interpretations in particular hurt the Dogs a lot more that Port than last night. Port apparently received 7 HTB Frees from 74 tackles, and the Bulldogs received just 1 from 64 tackles. That's a large differential in frees for a small difference in tackles.

In a reasonably close and competitive game, a few key decisions either way can easily impact the result.

Anyway, congrats on the victory and good luck for the rest of the season.
How does all that explain the 20 flagrant throws your ultra fair little battlers got away with?
 

philthy05

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2008
22,320
29,079
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
adelaide 36ers
Rubbish mate ... I have seen snicko work multiple times now in goal reviews, and they are consistent. Do you reckon the WIND made the snick. LOL

The more you argue this the more stupid you look, and the more stupid you paint Port supporters to be! Get over it. It was a feather touch of the post.
for fu**s sake tibbs. How much do you want me to explain how a microphone works?

there’s no ball hitting the padding setting on a microphone

it registers sound and nothing else.

the ball bouncing is a sound. The umpire (who was right next to the post) would make a sound.

there was no way of knowing if that register on the edge technology was the ball hitting the post unless they slowed it down to frame by frame with the sound synced and saw the register at the exact moment it appeared to hit the post and there was zero other movement in the vicinity ie the umpire

from what we saw that never happened and I don’t believe that’s what happened behind the scenes. I would need to research but have my doubts that the blokes who watch replays in ******* Commodore 64 potato vision actually have the edge mics synced to the video feed. If they do they have not indicated it at any time.

again, I’m not speaking on this because I’ve read a few articles. I’ve worked with and been trained (to some degree) in the field.

sound is vibrations yeah. At different frequencies. It’s possible to trim out certain frequencies to a point but trying to isolate frequencies that a football makes when it hits padding / or a different section of the post from that ball hitting something else or a similar sound just isn’t realistic.
 
Last edited:

Skindy

Senior List
Sep 18, 2016
174
394
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
I'm happy with the outcome of the review. On the balance of probabilities an audio spike aligning with the ball passing the post so closely that you can't see daylight is conclusive enough for me to conclude it's a behind. The right call was made.
 

sobrave

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 15, 2015
13,056
25,563
42° south
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
for fu**s sake tibbs. How much do you want me to explain how a microphone works?

there’s no ball hitting the padding setting on a microphone

it registers sound and nothing else.

the ball bouncing is a sound. The umpire (who was right next to the post) would make a sound.

there was no way of knowing if that register on the edge technology was the ball hitting the post unless they slowed it down to frame by frame with the sound synced and saw the register at the exact moment it appeared to hit the post and there was zero other movement in the vicinity ie the umpire

from what we saw that never happened and I don’t believe that’s what happened behind the scenes. I would need to research but have my doubts that the blokes who watch replays in ******* Commodore 64 potato vision actually have the edge mics synced to the video feed. If they do they have not indicated it at any time.

again, I’m not speaking on this because I’ve read a few articles. I’ve worked with and been trained (to some degree) in the field.

sound is vibrations yeah. At different frequencies. It’s possible to trim out certain frequencies to a point but trying to isolate frequencies that a football makes when it hits padding / or a different section of the post from that ball hitting something else or a similar sound just isn’t realistic.
To the eye with their sh*t replays it looked like the "snicko" was when the ball bounced. It also looked nothing like how a snick soundwave looks in cricket
 

Top Bottom