Umpiring Umpiring Crows v Demons Round 10

[CrowFan77]

What’s this myth that Jackson was the only Melbourne player who appealed? Hint: Jackson is not appealing in this screenshot.

View attachment 1135438

Also Spargo didn’t touch the ball.

How long did it take to capture that exact frame?
The guy on the left barely lifted his arms above his waist and if you watch the video it lasted barely a second.
The guy on the right is the guy I thought was Jackson - guess I picked the wrong numpty Melbourne forward - oops, my bad.

 

[LBJ6]

How long did it take to capture that exact frame?
The guy on the left barely lifted his arms above his waist and if you watch the video it lasted barely a second.
The guy on the right is the guy I thought was Jackson - guess I picked the wrong numpty Melbourne forward - oops, my bad.

So... you were wrong? Cool.

 

[Cyclonus]

I can understand why Melbourne fans are upset. It may have been touched before it went out, but still.
The Keays htb often gets let go so I'm less concerned about that.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Isn’t that what the entire rule is based on? Guessing the players intent (without psychic powers) ?

But this goes one further. It's guessing the intent (of the second to last person to touch the ball), and then also guessing where the ball would have gone if it wasn't touched. Surely you see that is nonsensical.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Not that it matters as the result is the result, but a few falsehoods have been peddled about this game.

1. Melbourne got an armchair ride from the umpire’s for most of the game. Fogarty free kick and goal? Rowe (I think) touching the ball on the ground while being tackled. O’Brien running through the protected space trailing Gawn by about 10 metres and no 50? Spargo’s insufficient effort when trying to keep the ball in front and run onto it in his forward line? It’s disingenuous to ignore these and say Melbourne had everything their way.

2. The Langdon goal was “clearly” touched. Rubbish. It might have been, probably was, but everyone knows there needs to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the umpire’s call. The replays showed blurs and where contact may have happened was in between frames. I’ve also seen players looking aghast that their calls they touched it were ignored, to see on the replay they touched boot and not the ball - clearly not in this case as the boot was not near the hand, but a player looking upset is not what an umpire goes off for evidence.

3. Spargo “clearly” touched the contentious deliberate OOB. I think it’s highly likely he did, but it’s still hard to tell for sure. Anyone who has watched cricket knows different angles seem to show completely different things of the same action.

4. Only Jackson appealed for deliberate. Not true, Fritsch and another (maybe Melksham) both put their arms out and look at the umpire, Jackson looks at the umpire too although they weren’t that passionate. Spargo was very uninterested, which to me is the “tell” that he touched it.

5. Murray hand balled at right angles to the direction the ball ended up going. Not true. Assuming Spargo touched it, it could only be glancing, and would not have changed the trajectory 90 degrees. Ironically if we accept Spargo touched it, if he didn’t touch it I reckon it goes out of bounds, is deliberate, and on a better angle for Melbourne’s free (unless the umpire just bottled it - see below).

The critical thing with the OOB is whether the umpire didn’t pay deliberate because he thought Spargo touched it. If so, fine. If, as it appeared in real time that it wasn’t touched, and that’s what the umpire thought, then it’s a shocking call. Why the umpire made the call in his mind is more important than the reality when it comes to whether the decision was correct or not (based on what the umpire thought he saw).

I get the mostly Adelaide supporters want their victory to be seen as just and fair and are busy defending that, but making definitive comments that simply aren’t definitive based on the vision, or making up things that are easily disproved, doesn’t make them look good.

Hell, I saw some Adelaide supporters saying the Keays tackle was fine because he handballed it out, others saying fine because it was knocked it in the tackle - can’t be both - and not even commenting on his prior opportunity and the amount of time he was tackled before the ball left his possession which are key elements.

Lol do you want me to point out every decision that went in your favour that was wrong? Because there were multiple in front of our goal.

 

[BarneyBent]

Yes it is ! Even the side on vision is hardly conclusive so the umpire has decided to give the crows player benefit of the doubt. Have u seen the one paid against spargo? If so don’t comment
The umpire has no idea if Spargo touched it or not if he did he’s guessing.

Sure, he's making a judgement. But "touched or not" and "deliberate or not" are completely different judgement calls, so you can't say he's being inconsistent. You're comparing apples to oranges. As an umpire, he could be really strict on deliberate and tend towards benefit of the doubt on touched, and in that case he's been entirely consistent.

 

[Crow till I die]

Lol do you want me to point out every decision that went in your favour that was wrong? Because there were multiple in front of our goal.

or that apparently it is wrong for us to challenge the validity of the touched 'goal' given but that we should accept that Murray should be done for deliberate out of bounds even though it came off a melbourne player last before crossing the line..you couldn't make it up

 

[Lampers]

Lol do you want me to point out every decision that went in your favour that was wrong? Because there were multiple in front of our goal.

Yes, please do it.

I didn’t say Melbourne didn’t get some favourable decisions though.

That’s the difference, I can admit if my team is fortunate.

It doesn’t appear you and what seems to be a large percentage of Crows supporters are capable of the same.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Yes, please do it.

I didn’t say Melbourne didn’t get some favourable decisions though.

That’s the difference, I can admit if my team is fortunate.

It doesn’t appear you and what seems to be a large percentage of Crows supporters are capable of the same.

What we see is a bunch of people in the Vic media, and Melbourne supporters, who can't accept that they lost a close match to us. And that the last decision was the correct decision because it was clearly deflected off a Melbourne player.

You can continue to deny it, but it's clear as day.

So get off your high horse making out that you are a gracious supporter, when you are just salty you lost to us.

 

[Lampers]

What we see is a bunch of people in the Vic media, and Melbourne supporters, who can't accept that they lost a close match to us. And that the last decision was the correct decision because it was clearly deflected off a Melbourne player.

You can continue to deny it, but it's clear as day.

So get off your high horse making out that you are a gracious supporter, when you are just salty you lost to us.

Please try to read and comprehend better.

You are making my point for me and I’m sure you are blissfully unaware of the irony.

Thank you.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Please try to read and comprehend better.

You are making my point for me and I’m sure you are blissfully unaware of the irony.

Thank you.

A saw a rant that was a thinly veiled whinge about umpiring decisions, and you criticising Crows supporters for holding their heavily evidenced view.

To even mention the Keays call is laughable. The amount of htb calls and clear throws that weren't called in our favour when they should have counters that. Not to mention that he got a handball out. It's just an attempt to hold your hat on several decisions so that you can move the goal posts.

You lost. The decision was correct. Just accept it.

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

Not that it matters as the result is the result, but a few falsehoods have been peddled about this game.

1. Melbourne got an armchair ride from the umpire’s for most of the game. Fogarty free kick and goal? Rowe (I think) touching the ball on the ground while being tackled. O’Brien running through the protected space trailing Gawn by about 10 metres and no 50? Spargo’s insufficient effort when trying to keep the ball in front and run onto it in his forward line? It’s disingenuous to ignore these and say Melbourne had everything their way.

2. The Langdon goal was “clearly” touched. Rubbish. It might have been, probably was, but everyone knows there needs to be irrefutable evidence to overturn the umpire’s call. The replays showed blurs and where contact may have happened was in between frames. I’ve also seen players looking aghast that their calls they touched it were ignored, to see on the replay they touched boot and not the ball - clearly not in this case as the boot was not near the hand, but a player looking upset is not what an umpire goes off for evidence.

3. Spargo “clearly” touched the contentious deliberate OOB. I think it’s highly likely he did, but it’s still hard to tell for sure. Anyone who has watched cricket knows different angles seem to show completely different things of the same action.

4. Only Jackson appealed for deliberate. Not true, Fritsch and another (maybe Melksham) both put their arms out and look at the umpire, Jackson looks at the umpire too although they weren’t that passionate. Spargo was very uninterested, which to me is the “tell” that he touched it.

5. Murray hand balled at right angles to the direction the ball ended up going. Not true. Assuming Spargo touched it, it could only be glancing, and would not have changed the trajectory 90 degrees. Ironically if we accept Spargo touched it, if he didn’t touch it I reckon it goes out of bounds, is deliberate, and on a better angle for Melbourne’s free (unless the umpire just bottled it - see below).

The critical thing with the OOB is whether the umpire didn’t pay deliberate because he thought Spargo touched it. If so, fine. If, as it appeared in real time that it wasn’t touched, and that’s what the umpire thought, then it’s a shocking call. Why the umpire made the call in his mind is more important than the reality when it comes to whether the decision was correct or not (based on what the umpire thought he saw).

I get the mostly Adelaide supporters want their victory to be seen as just and fair and are busy defending that, but making definitive comments that simply aren’t definitive based on the vision, or making up things that are easily disproved, doesn’t make them look good.

Hell, I saw some Adelaide supporters saying the Keays tackle was fine because he handballed it out, others saying fine because it was knocked it in the tackle - can’t be both - and not even commenting on his prior opportunity and the amount of time he was tackled before the ball left his possession which are key elements.

You realise the posts those definitive comments are replying to are all definitive posts by Melbourne fans that it was deliberate or even the worst non call ever.

The keays vision shows his arm get free make a fist and swing towards the ball and it comes out.. there were plenty of non call HTB through the match where they were tackled for longer.

 

[Lampers]

A saw a rant that was a thinly veiled whinge about umpiring decisions, and you criticising Crows supporters for holding their heavily evidenced view.

To even mention the Keays call is laughable. The amount of htb calls and clear throws that weren't called in our favour when they should have counters that. Not to mention that he got a handball out. It's just an attempt to hold your hat on several decisions so that you can move the goal posts.

You lost. The decision was correct. Just accept it.

I’m sorry, you’re just missing the point so badly here. I will recap to try and help you out.

My point was not at all about which decisions were correct or incorrect, that’s clouded by bias and subjectivity as you illulistrate so well with your interpretation of events.

My point was that people boldly stating something to be fact or indisputable when it’s not, and not being willing to enter into any possibility of grey.

It’s a false and lazy way to progress an argument - on the assumption someone even wants to progress an argument. My error is to expect someone being genuine enough to do that participating on this thread.

In my post I said I think it’s highly likely Spargo touched the ball based on several factors. Yet you claim I’m saying the decision was wrong, and I need to accept it? I didn’t claim it was wrong. I said the quality of the decision hinges on the factors upon which the umpire made the decision. It’s very different.

What about the factually incorrect claims by one on this thread that only Jackson appealed for the free kick as an evidence point the ball was touched by Spargo? That is actually indisputably incorrect and doesn’t require judgement to be proved? Fritsch and Neal-Bullen clearly appeal.

It’s really hard to take someone seriously when they miss the point being made by so much, invent points I made that I didn’t make, and don’t reply to questions posed that don’t suit their narrative.

All you’re doing is shining the light on you being a prime example of exactly what I am being critical of.

 

[Maddogmetro]

I’m sorry, you’re just missing the point so badly here. I will recap to try and help you out.

My point was not at all about which decisions were correct or incorrect, that’s clouded by bias and subjectivity as you illulistrate so well with your interpretation of events.

My point was that people boldly stating something to be fact or indisputable when it’s not, and not being willing to enter into any possibility of grey.

It’s a false and lazy way to progress an argument - on the assumption someone even wants to progress an argument. My error is to expect someone being genuine enough to do that participating on this thread.

In my post I said I think it’s highly likely Spargo touched the ball based on several factors. Yet you claim I’m saying the decision was wrong, and I need to accept it? I didn’t claim it was wrong. I said the quality of the decision hinges on the factors upon which the umpire made the decision. It’s very different.

What about the factually incorrect claims by one on this thread that only Jackson appealed for the free kick as an evidence point the ball was touched by Spargo? That is actually indisputably incorrect and doesn’t require judgement to be proved? Fritsch and Neal-Bullen clearly appeal.

It’s really hard to take someone seriously when they miss the point being made by so much, invent points I made that I didn’t make, and don’t reply to questions posed that don’t suit their narrative.

All you’re doing is shining the light on you being a prime example of exactly what I am being critical of.

What a bunch of backtracking waffle.

Who tf cares if there was an appeal? Like that means the decision was incorrect?

And anyone with eyes and a brain can see the ball was touched. And we're sick of the shitty agenda trying to take away our deserved win.

 

[thedank]

Jej didn't take long for the #VICBIAS nonsense to get trotted out

 

[Lampers]

You realise the posts those definitive comments are replying to are all definitive posts by Melbourne fans that it was deliberate or even the worst non call ever.

Two wrongs make a right?

They started it, so it’s OK to do it too?

Why not actually enter a debate where the factors at play can be assessed? I don’t think many of these are clear cut, unlike the not 15 call in the Sydney Geelong game.

The Crows are in the book as winning the game, I would think it should be easier for their fans to take the high road and look at things objectively.

 

[Lampers]

What a bunch of backtracking waffle.

Who tf cares if there was an appeal? Like that means the decision was incorrect?

And anyone with eyes and a brain can see the ball was touched. And we're sick of the shitty agenda trying to take away our deserved win.

Keep going! You’re doing well.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Keep going! You’re doing well.

I am. At calling out your crap. It's a thinly veiled whinge and nothing more.

 

[Maddogmetro]

Two wrongs make a right?

They started it, so it’s OK to do it too?

Why not actually enter a debate where the factors at play can be assessed? I don’t think many of these are clear cut, unlike the not 15 call in the Sydney Geelong game.

The Crows are in the book as winning the game, I would think it should be easier for their fans to take the high road and look at things objectively.

Ah yes. Melbourne supporters saying things, yet your comments directed at Crows responses only.

Like we should just sit back and not respond.

Not to mention the definitive responses are about points that ARE DEFINITIVE. Just because you say otherwise doesn't change that.

Jog on

 

[Lampers]

I am. At calling out your crap. It's a thinly veiled whinge and nothing more.

I’m the only one who knows my motivations and what my point is.

My point is, and remains, that simply stating an interpretation of something subjective as if it is fact or indisputable is lazy or the sign of someone unwilling to accept there could be other possible explanations or interpretations of what was witnessed.

That holds true no matter who is doing it, the football club they support or the circumstances is irrelevant.

If you think that’s a whinge or crap, then that’s your prerogative I guess.

 

[Sentinel]

There are seriously people arguing in this thread that even if Spargo touched it last, it should have still be paid a free for deliberate against Adelaide? Hahaha.

Unlike the deliberate call (which was a great decision) the non HTB decision leading to the Walker goal seemed stiff for Melbourne, but only one of many across the course of the game and with over a minute left you cannot conclusively claim that it cost Melbourne the game.

 

[Jimmybob]

Even if a challenge rule existed it wouldn't have helped Melbourne. No tram would ever have a challenge left 30s from the end of the game!

Well then that’s the captain/teams fault. The onus would be on them to use the challenge at the appropriate time

 

[FyfeToAdelaide]

Two wrongs make a right?

They started it, so it’s OK to do it too?

Why not actually enter a debate where the factors at play can be assessed? I don’t think many of these are clear cut, unlike the not 15 call in the Sydney Geelong game.

The Crows are in the book as winning the game, I would think it should be easier for their fans to take the high road and look at things objectively.

So taking the high road to you is not saying either Keays got a handball out or that Spargo deflected the oob's ball? Just accept the ramblings before the counter argument of it being a travesty and Melbourne were robbed.. pretty convenient.

 

[Topkent]

Saltiest thread on the internet

Yeah and mostly crows fans. Thread wasn't started by a dees Fan but there's a million crows fans desperately trying to justify a decision for * knows what reason?

We should have had a holding the ball decision as well but that's life. The part that I always hate about these is it's 100% guaranteed if it was at the other end these same crows fans would have been calling it a fix AFL bias etc.

 

[Lampers]

So taking the high road to you is not saying either Keays got a handball out or that Spargo deflected the oob's ball? Just accept the ramblings before the counter argument of it being a travesty and Melbourne were robbed.. pretty convenient.

Just wow. My point is about selecting only parts of events and ignoring others, and stating thing as fact or definitively unequivocal when it’s not. You also are doing exactly what my point is. Can you not see that?