Match Day Rnd 14 Sydney V Essendon. SCG 19.50 pm.

[swansrob]

I don't know how or if I can post a GIF, so just click the link
Matthew Storey on Twitter: "What the hell is this? https://t.co/XP69NrZPPm"

[barry]

The ball doesn't move from its trajectory.
If the ball is touched, you would expect that the ball will move from that touch.
The ball doesn't move... it goes straight through.

The ball trajectory change from a tip of one finger would be so small as to be impossible to detect, especially with the dick smith web cams the AFL use.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see their argument re: Naismith, but it was barely there....and Rohan was being held and wrestled which is why he had to mark it with one hand! He should have got a free! Geez those Bomber fans are dills.....

I think you'll find Rohan did a lot of the wrestling in that final mark. He basically wrestled himself to the front of the contest. All above board though.
If you were an essendon fan, you'd be pretty disappointed in the effort of the defender who almost had front position at the time the ball was kicked.

[bloodspirit]

I don't know how or if I can post a GIF, so just click the link
Matthew Storey on Twitter: "What the hell is this? https://t.co/XP69NrZPPm"

Hammy visuals but hilarious just the same! Thanks.

[dejavoodoo44]

In one frame the finger was there, in line with the other fingers. In the next frame that finger was bent back so far you couldn't see it. The other fingers were still in line and hadn't moved. In the third frame you could see the finger bent back, but not as far (moving back into position). Note that this is less than 1/10 of a second. It is not "waggling fingers"

Initially, I thought the same as you - the ball went behind the hand, but those three frames are pretty clear.

It's a good example that goal line technology can help.

Hmmm, I'm not totally sure that it's a clear cut example of technology can help? While plenty of examination of paused frames, seems that it is more likely that the ball was touched before it fully crossed the line: I still don't think that it is conclusive, as the frozen frames are more fields than exact images. That is, each important part of the picture is indistinct. Is the position of the ball the leading edge of the yellow blur? If so, in one of the frames, it seems that the ball has just passed the index finger, but the finger is yet to move? In another frame, the fingers are so varied, that there appears to be six of them. While various bits of the hand are transparent.
Interestingly, a fair bit of the ambiguity is decreased, when the images are not separate freeze frames. Which suggests that this is an example, of our minds constructing a reasonably coherent animation or narrative, out of a really quite ambiguous set of images. As we do.

[barry]

The summary is dejavoodoo, that at best the image is inconclusive, and therefore by the AFL rules, the goal umpires initial call stands.

Which is what happened.

[dejavoodoo44]

The summary is dejavoodoo, that at best the image is inconclusive, and therefore by the AFL rules, the goal umpires initial call stands.

Which is what happened.

Ahhh, it seems like only a few hours ago, that you were arguing that the bent finger was conclusive evidence. Actually, it was only a few hours ago.

[mariachi]

I'm not sure if this has been covered, but what was Newman doing in the goal square anyway? Was he tagging a bombers forward who had gone into defence? Or was he improvising? Either way, I was happy he was there ...

[Meg]

Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.

[Hotpotato]

I really like watching the Houli chap play footy ... looks like he was just trying to break the tag just like Dusty does with his really vigorous fendoffs .

[S.S. Bleeder]

Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.

Houlis clearly guilty. He looks to see where Lamb is before he does it. I don't see how he could possibly argue that it wasn't intentional. As for his arguement that he gets hung onto every week, he's no different to every other player in the AFL, especially our midfielders.

[Beerman]

Houlis clearly guilty. He looks to see where Lamb is before he does it. I don't see how he could possibly argue that it wasn't intentional. As for his arguement that he gets hung onto every week, he's no different to every other player in the AFL, especially our midfielders.

my understanding from skimming the coverage is that he acknowledges the strike was intentional.

I don't see how you can call the footage on the Franklin goal inconclusive. The pvr has defeated me (for now), but it was very clearly touched. There is no other possible explanation for the very clear finger movement.

[dejavoodoo44]

Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.

Yes, and also from the Tribunal, Schofield has been cleared, because it was decided that the contact to the jaw was negligible. Does this now mean that Oliver should be charged with diving? Or are they satisfied, that a negligible blow could cause a player to drop to the ground?

[bloodspirit]

Bachar Houli is currently in front of the tribunal. There has been some discussion about the grading of Houli's strike as intentional. Houli is clearly very upset about any implication that he intentionally hit Lamb to cause serious injury. However from the way the MRP guidelines are currently written, I think technically it is probably accurate to assess the strike as intentional.

It will be interesting to see what the tribunal has to say. I do feel for Houli who seems to be a very decent man. And as he has already said to the tribunal, every week he (and other players) has an opposing player hanging on to him to impede his run.

No idea how this topic has ended up in this forum let alone this thread.

As far as Houli is claiming his strike was not intentional he has apparently either not received or not understood legal advice. He admits meaning to strike Lamb between his shoulder and elbow - there's the intention. The intention doesn't relate to where he intended to strike or what consequence he intended as a result. However, those things are relevant to the assessment of the penalty. If it is accepted (as seems likely) that he did only intend to strike Lamb on the arm and certainly not to hurt him/knock him out, then that goes some way to explaining the lenient sentence. I think combined with his exemplary record over a long playing career and topped up with his 'good bloke' record out of footy, that means the sentence may not be found to be manifestly inadequate. Conversely, it is fair to point out a two week ban is only a week longer than some much less serious offences and where is the consistency? It is also fair to point out that given Houli struck with enough force to knock Lamb out, there was obviously something a long way short of care for his opponent and he does deserve to be penalised accordingly. Just because you have never snapped before doesn't mean there can't be a first time.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and also from the Tribunal, Schofield has been cleared, because it was decided that the contact to the jaw was negligible. Does this now mean that Oliver should be charged with diving? Or are they satisfied, that a negligible blow could cause a player to drop to the ground?

Nice point!

[Meg]

No idea how this topic has ended up in this forum let alone this thread.

My fault - but earlier in this thread we had a very brief discussion of the MRP use of the term 'intentional'. I said at the time that there is a lot of confusion about it. I also commented earlier re Parker being fined for a 'careless' act in the Essendon game (which might have been assessed as 'intentional').

[aardvark]

Afl has appealed the Houli decision as being manifestly inadequate.