Toast Your game plan

[PapaJ]

What about something similar to the hotspot technology like they use in cricket when they're trying to figure out whether batsmen are caught behind or didn't knick the ball at all.

I'm no expert so without going into the finer mechanics of it, the positioning of the cameras would still be the issue. Cricket is all set up so that you can place the cameras exactly where the batsmen are going to play the ball because there is only a small area and a set angle of attack of the ball from the other end. Basically two infra-red cameras and you've got it covered.

Footy would need a multitude of angles and much much bigger area covered. It would be very hard to do. I'm sure there is technology that can come down the pipeline to work it out, but I doubt the basic setup used for cricket would work.

EDIT: Just did a quick search. 2 cameras each end in Cricket (4 total) at around $10,000 a day to operate . Given the amount you'd need for it to work in AFL, even if it could ... it ain't going to happen.

 

[dockshark]

Surely they could come up with some kind of vibration sensor system in the goal posts to confirm a post strike??

 

[Go the Guts]

I think he meant "probably not" to Adelaide not making the finals

Yep, geez you've got some touchy ones here ain't you.

 

[purplepassion82]

Don't take offence GTG, 19 years of near zero success will do that to you! We are a touchy bunch sometimes....

 

[Go the Guts]

Don't take offence GTG, 19 years of near zero success will do that to you! We are a touchy bunch sometimes....

Yep. This could be your year.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Surely they could come up with some kind of vibration sensor system in the goal posts to confirm a post strike??

Or snicko like in cricket

 

[Tazmania]

But then you'd have players whacking the post as it went through to try and fudge it so that wouldn't work.

The infra red thing probably wouldn't work either as unlike a cricket all doing 130kph or whatever a footy wouldn't have the energy to cause sufficient heat during impact.

 

[freo84]

Just a thought -

I find it amusing that we are assigned the tag "Defensively orientated" when we spend MORE time in the oppositions FWD 50 than they spend in ours. Wouldn't that make us an attacking team by definition? We are always attacking their players, attacking the ball and locking it forward. Sure we defend our goals well, and scoring against us is hard but it would be hard when you spend most of your time defending your OWN goals.

 

[Dockernut]

I'm no expert so without going into the finer mechanics of it, the positioning of the cameras would still be the issue. Cricket is all set up so that you can place the cameras exactly where the batsmen are going to play the ball because there is only a small area and a set angle of attack of the ball from the other end. Basically two infra-red cameras and you've got it covered.

Footy would need a multitude of angles and much much bigger area covered. It would be very hard to do. I'm sure there is technology that can come down the pipeline to work it out, but I doubt the basic setup used for cricket would work.

EDIT: Just did a quick search. 2 cameras each end in Cricket (4 total) at around $10,000 a day to operate . Given the amount you'd need for it to work in AFL, even if it could ... it ain't going to happen.

Don't actually understand what all the hubbub is about with that decision. The commentators called it straight away, the Ump was confident he saw or heard something, so there must have been something to review, and the review result was correct. Just seems like another reason for Damian Barrett to blow some more hot air out of his pinched sphincter of a crumpet face.

 

[magnus34]

I know I'll get banned but who cares.
Your game plan is a disgrace, you had three loose men in defence and everyone around the ball. Umpires robbed us. Enjoy your gameplan with the interchange cap next year flogs, you'll be s**t

 

[PapaJ]

Don't actually understand what all the hubbub is about with that decision. The commentators called it straight away, the Ump was confident he saw or heard something, so there must have been something to review, and the review result was correct. Just seems like another reason for Damian Barrett to blow some more hot air out of his pinched sphincter of a crumpet face.

Sure thing. I agree, a lot of hot air for nothing.

I was just replying to an earlier post suggesting snicko type technology. My point was that it's not practical, probably not possible with current tech, and if it was it would cost a small fortune.

I posted on the main board that I reckon the boundary umps should come right into the goal posts for set shots. It's only a minor adjustment and they're making calls anyway, they may as well get in a better position to do it.

Other than that, I don't think we have to go into national enquiry all about it. Total over-reaction in some quarters no doubt.

 

[sij1981]

Whatever. Your team was crap. Not hapy with 10 extra free kicks?

What's even sad is one of their players was complaining
About the review system when danger field goal hit the post.
Is there no honesty or integrity in Adelaide? I wish they loose because of a review

 

[Arcassius]

Just a thought -

I find it amusing that we are assigned the tag "Defensively orientated" when we spend MORE time in the oppositions FWD 50 than they spend in ours. Wouldn't that make us an attacking team by definition? We are always attacking their players, attacking the ball and locking it forward. Sure we defend our goals well, and scoring against us is hard but it would be hard when you spend most of your time defending your OWN goals.

We attack by defending. nowait

It is amusing though isn't it - it's more because we plonk 1-2 players behind the ball a kick out of play to mop up instead of being front runners.

 

[sij1981]

Ah we'll who cares what the opposition think nothing we can control. As Ross says
Our destiny is in our own hands lets just work on what we can control which is winning