Certified Legendary Thread The Score Review System

[Geoffa32]

I think there’s still a few laughs to be had out of this. Kern will be having a presso soon, I’m sure he’ll offer up a dot point explanation and slideshow of how events unfolded and triangulation of all perspectives, wind graphs, solar flares and a few of Janus’ heat maps.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[baldandbroke]

I think the solution to the video score review is simple. Two changes and you can get rid of it.

(1) have a goal umpire on each post

(2) If the ball hits the post and goes through, it's a goal.

Goal line decisions are decided by the goal umpires only. If neither are sure... then it's touched.

Touched off the boot must be called by the umpire in real time.

There will be mistakes, but that's the nature of the game.

The upside is that this can be replicated at all levels for the cost of two extra goal umps per game.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[fabs33]

What happens if in the next showdown Jenkins kicks another goal in similar circumstances but says he thinks it's a goal?

Will Port supporters agree with him?

 

[skam85]

The best part is the reviewer that they are honing in on as a Crows' fan actually hates the Crows and was a Geelong fan when we used to work together.

 

[Deaneus!]

Has anyone called the United Nations yet?

 

[AFC3000]

Couple of things from the Port board, I think serious, apparently as a goal kicker you know 100% every time, from anywhere on the ground, you know...

My question is how do you know you're not wrong?

And their solution? Drones.

Yep, great idea, until the first time someone kicks the ball and knocks the drone out of the sky, blades spinning, into the crowd.

If, like Ken said, the review was brought in to stop the misses like the Hawkins "goal" in that grand final, it's working because you can clearly see that one in the footage we had before the goal review was implemented, no new technology needed there.

It's to stop the mistakes we can all see at home on the regular footage but the umpire missed, so the game doesn't continue with a blatantly obvious error, not to spend 2 minutes studying the rotation of a ball that might have had its laces graze the post.

 

[Geoffa32]

The best part is the reviewer that they are honing in on as a Crows' fan actually hates the Crows and was a Geelong fan when we used to work together.

Sneaky Geelong supporters causing havoc at Adelaide Oval again....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[forlols]

trollol

 

[I_Was_There]

you are clearly missing the point though. It's not about whether it hit the post or not, it's about the fact that the goal reviewer was a crows supporter, and on top of that i've just learned from the nufties board that the goal umpire is also a crows supporter. so there you have it. this corruption runs deep man. the whole ball maybe hitting the post thing is the non issue here - just forget about that bit - the focus should really be on how the crows have the AFL so deep in their back pocket to the extent that we have been able to infiltrate every possible outlet to ensure DA PORTZ GETS SHAFTED!!!!!
Goal umpires, goal reviewers, news journalists.... its like the Illuminati man!

We are the team for all South Australians

 

[glenbo]

What about the footage that shows Jenkins kick showing a shadow as it passes the goal post. Suggests a goal doesn't it?? At best it grazed the post and who could tell that?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[chazwazza]

What about the footage that shows Jenkins kick showing a shadow as it passes the goal post. Suggests a goal doesn't it?? At best it grazed the post and who could tell that?

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

That’s pretty well what Blight put to Kerrrrn

 

[Strabro]

So I haven't posted in yonks but being a software engineer with some background in image analysis it would be quite easy to detect say the boundary of the ball for touches and also the trajectory/spin. The only explanation is the AFL are either too cheap to pay for such technology or they are deliberately keeping these decisions ambiguous for "tension".

Another poster on here put it quite right in that if you are going to go down to the millimeters in goal kicking (for touched, goal posts etc) then you need to start reviewing EVERY kick around the ground for the full 4 qrts.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SugarShane]

So I haven't posted in yonks but being a software engineer with some background in image analysis it would be quite easy to detect say the boundary of the ball for touches and also the trajectory/spin. The only explanation is the AFL are either too cheap to pay for such technology or they are deliberately keeping these decisions ambiguous for "tension".

Another poster on here put it quite right in that if you are going to go down to the millimeters in goal kicking (for touched, goal posts etc) then you need to start reviewing EVERY kick around the ground for the full 4 qrts.

In a way, yeah technology might get you more technically correct results, but at what cost? I feel like video replays in general are kind of taking the charm away from sport.

It's kind of like the whole "right to bear arms" thing in America. When footy was invented, if it hit the post it was a point, and if it was touched it was a point. If you couldn't tell if it did either, you got the benefit of the doubt.

When we invented footy, were we worried about a ball shaving 2 electrons off a goal post? Or were we worried about the balls that hit the post and deviate? Likewise were we worried about it clipping a fingernail in a pack of players? It's the whole thing. It's Mabo. It's the vibe of the rule.

 

[mtbkym]

That’s pretty well what Blight put to Kerrrrn

He also asked Kern if he'd since seen any footage that definitely showed that the ball hit the Post. Kerns response "No I haven't". But Kern??? Monumental Mistake?????

 

[AFC3000]

In a way, yeah technology might get you more technically correct results, but at what cost? I feel like video replays in general are kind of taking the charm away from sport.

It's kind of like the whole "right to bear arms" thing in America. When footy was invented, if it hit the post it was a point, and if it was touched it was a point. If you couldn't tell if it did either, you got the benefit of the doubt.

When we invented footy, were we worried about a ball shaving 2 electrons off a goal post? Or were we worried about the balls that hit the post and deviate? Likewise were we worried about it clipping a fingernail in a pack of players? It's the whole thing. It's Mabo. It's the vibe of the rule.

I don't mind the technology for the ones we can all see, the ones like the Tom Hawkins Grand Final goal that we could see even without the new review system, that it bounced off the post, no debate, but for whatever reason, the umpire missed it, a mistake.

Not the ones where the umpire probably never would have seen it anyway, but if you zoom in and slow down the footage and look at it for long enough you'll be able to convince yourself the stitching might have brushed the post and caused the ball's rotation to slightly change.

If we go down the path of reviewing every goal down to the millimetre, and I'm sure they could get the technology to do it now, I have no doubt Ken will soon be whinging something along the lines of "if we can apply 100% accuracy to Robbie Grays shot at goal kicked on the run from the boundary, 45 metres out and call that back, why was Josh Jenkins paid a goal 10 metres out from a mark after he admitted he didn't touch it first in the marking contest, the AFL should be ashamed"

Then it will move from the marking contest, reviewing touched off the boot, entering the forward 50, then we start reviewing the kick that leads to that one.

You can't do one without room for error, unless you do them all, it would be like having the technology to call the lines on tennis, but not doing the serves, even though the technology exists.

Actually, using the tennis example, another thing I've found funny is Ken/the Port board claiming that because it's late in the game and a close one you need to spend more time on it. That would be like only reviewing potential match points, if you win by a goal, it doesn't matter when it is kicked.

Keep it as it is, I don't disagree we should probably have the same cameras at every ground, but we don't need Hawk-Eye or Snicko or drones (Port board...)

 

[beartoo]

...but we don't need Hawk-Eye or Snicko or drones (Port board...)

The drones are on the Pear Board....

 

[SugarShane]

If we go down the path of reviewing every goal down to the millimetre, and I'm sure they could get the technology to do it now, I have no doubt Ken will soon be whinging something along the lines of "if we can apply 100% accuracy to Robbie Grays shot at goal kicked on the run from the boundary, 45 metres out and call that back, why was Josh Jenkins paid a goal 10 metres out from a mark after he admitted he didn't touch it first in the marking contest, the AFL should be ashamed"

Then it will move from the marking contest, reviewing touched off the boot, entering the forward 50, then we start reviewing the kick that leads to that one.

You can't do one without room for error, unless you do them all, it would be like having the technology to call the lines on tennis, but not doing the serves, even though the technology exists.

Actually, using the tennis example, another thing I've found funny is Ken/the Port board claiming that because it's late in the game and a close one you need to spend more time on it. That would be like only reviewing potential match points, if you win by a goal, it doesn't matter when it is kicked.

That's the thing I guess. Where do you call the line? If we're being so pedantic about goals, why aren't other costly decisions looked at. All good to claim a "dodgy" goal review has derailed their season, but if the umpires pay Tex's mark against Freo in the goalsquare on Quarter Time instead of a BS free against, we win that game too and are a game out of the 8 instead of 2.

 

[subaru]

That's the thing I guess. Where do you call the line? If we're being so pedantic about goals, why aren't other costly decisions looked at. All good to claim a "dodgy" goal review has derailed their season, but if the umpires pay Tex's mark against Freo in the goalsquare on Quarter Time instead of a BS free against, we win that game too and are a game out of the 8 instead of 2.

This is why it is useless to start wah wah wah ing like the port flogs have over this

It is what it is and we wait for Footy Gods to right the wrongs!

(Be handy if they hurried up a bit this year though !)

 

[fabs33]

Port's Law: As a thread on the Port board grows longer, the probability of a conspiracy against Port approaches 1.

 

[Vader]

Port's Law: As a thread on the Port board grows longer, the probability of a conspiracy against Port approaches 1.

I gave you a like... and then thought of the number of times I've read tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories on this very board.