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

[Blue Sun]

I dont think the umpires were unfair to us on goal review. There simple wasnt conclusive evidence to over turn the goal umpires call.
If the goal ump said goal first, they would have been goals.

The problem is the rule and implementation. They simply need high speed camera's to get rid of the bluring. That will enable the reviewer to make a clear call.

It is beyond me why the AFL doesn't use slow motion cameras at the goal line, the latest iPhone can handle slow motion video with ease for crying out loud.

[AnnieH]

That is not correct. Not at home, but tonight I'm going to work out how to pull video from my new pvr and settle this once and for all.

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-06-23/huge-score-review-decision

This is the footage I've been basing MY opinion on, and as you can clearly see, the ball clearly goes BEHIND the hand of the defender.

[Steve]

It seems like the whole goal review process is getting worse and not better. So much is confusing, not clear and inconsistent.

The padding varies between grounds - I noticed at the MCG that there's basically no padding at the back, so it only protrudes at the front. Which is how it should be everywhere.

Also, does the 'it has to be past the padding' apply when the ball goes through past the top of the post? How do they factor in the width of the padding looking up that high?

There's also far less transparency now that the result only goes up on the screen. Previously you at least heard whether a conclusive decision was made by the review, or it was reverting back to the on-field 'umpire's call'.

And they say that each goal is reviewed regardless of whether a referral is made - but I think that is simply untrue, in some cases where a player is claiming it was touched, the ball ends up being bounced in the middle without any delay. There is just no way they could get footage up that quickly and check it a couple of times, let alone from a couple of angles, in that amount of time.

[barry]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-06-...eview-decision

This is the footage I've been basing MY opinion on, and as you can clearly see, the ball clearly goes BEHIND the hand of the defender.

The finger is bent back. If you take that the ball must have caused the finger to be bent, and even though the hand was behind the line, not all of the ball could have been behind the line, because the ball is, say, 13cm thick, and his hand is not 13cm behind the goal line.

* I'm assuming a goal is only once the entire ball has crossed the line. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[stevoswan]

If the goal umpires are biased against any team, they just call a touched point and hope that the evidence is not conclusive and the point stands. This is the approach the goal umpire at our end in the last quarter took. If they like a team, they call a goal. It's simple......and corrupt. There is so many rules in AFL that require interpretation and therefore so much scope for the officials to sway a game one way or the other. Officiating in this game requires absolute honesty and integrity, something the current crop of field and goal umpires seemingly do not possess, besides the fact that too many of them think it's all about them.......unnecessarily imposing themselves on the game and into the 'limelight'.

[top40]

Buddy's goal was clearly not touched.
In the replay, the ball clearly went behind the defender's hand.
It was very incorrectly called.
Another example of the umpires having it in for us.

Big 'IF' here.

IF the goal had been allowed, would Sydney have won the game, or would it have been a draw? Interesting sliding doors question to consider.

[stevoswan]

Big 'IF' here.

IF the goal had been allowed, would Sydney have won the game, or would it have been a draw? Interesting sliding doors question to consider.

Your above point shows how important Buddy's final miss was.....it allowed the ball to stay in our forward zone via Papley's excellent spoil, for the final thrust which resulted in Rohans mark and goal. If Buddy had kicked it straight, the game would have likely been a draw. Buddy's final point effectively won us the game......

[sprite]

The finger is bent back. If you take that the ball must have caused the finger to be bent, and even though the hand was behind the line, not all of the ball could have been behind the line, because the ball is, say, 13cm thick, and his hand is not 13cm behind the goal line.

* I'm assuming a goal is only once the entire ball has crossed the line. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Correct there barry, entire ball must be across the line for a score to be registered and if it deemed OOB.

[Mel_C]

There was definitely a touch by a finger of the Buddy one but I still think the ball had fully crossed the line.

I do have to laugh at the Essendon supporters complaining that it should have been a free against Naismith and then Rohan ????.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[top40]

Your above point shows how important Buddy's final miss was.....it allowed the ball to stay in our forward zone via Papley's excellent spoil, for the final thrust which resulted in Rohans mark and goal. If Buddy had kicked it straight, the game would have likely been a draw. Buddy's final point effectively won us the game......

A behind close to the final siren by a Swans forward legend that at the SCG that ultimately results in defeating the Bombers by a point. Sounds very familiar.

[stevoswan]

There was definitely a touch by a finger of the Buddy one but I still think the ball had fully crossed the line.

I do have to laugh at the Essendon supporters complaining that it should have been a free against Naismith and then Rohan ????.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

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.....

[dejavoodoo44]

The finger is bent back. If you take that the ball must have caused the finger to be bent, and even though the hand was behind the line, not all of the ball could have been behind the line, because the ball is, say, 13cm thick, and his hand is not 13cm behind the goal line.

* I'm assuming a goal is only once the entire ball has crossed the line. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, no. At maximum reach, there is a natural tendency for the fingers, especially the index finger, to bend back (try the simple experiment yourself). This because an over-extension of the arm, has a similar effect as a slight contraction of the muscles of the forearm. Also, there could be an involuntary reflex movement of the fingers, as our subconscious neural mechanisms, tend to want to avoid being whacked by hard objects moving at high speed. So, spotting a finger bent back, is not conclusive proof that it's been struck by the ball. Especially when the vision of the ball is a high speed blur.

[dejavoodoo44]

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.....

Yes, and I found it strange, that the same umpire, who was totally zealous in awarding the puzzling 50 against Towers, didn't seem to have a problem with Essendon players standing a few metres over the mark, when Gary ran in to take his kick.

[AnnieH]

Well, no. At maximum reach, there is a natural tendency for the fingers, especially the index finger, to bend back (try the simple experiment yourself). This because an over-extension of the arm, has a similar effect as a slight contraction of the muscles of the forearm. Also, there could be an involuntary reflex movement of the fingers, as our subconscious neural mechanisms, tend to want to avoid being whacked by hard objects moving at high speed. So, spotting a finger bent back, is not conclusive proof that it's been struck by the ball. Especially when the vision of the ball is a high speed blur.

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.

[Beerman]

Well, no. At maximum reach, there is a natural tendency for the fingers, especially the index finger, to bend back (try the simple experiment yourself). This because an over-extension of the arm, has a similar effect as a slight contraction of the muscles of the forearm. Also, there could be an involuntary reflex movement of the fingers, as our subconscious neural mechanisms, tend to want to avoid being whacked by hard objects moving at high speed. So, spotting a finger bent back, is not conclusive proof that it's been struck by the ball. Especially when the vision of the ball is a high speed blur.

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.