Round 23 Crows v Swans

[ugg]

At last a fair article on the Adelaide finish.

Inside story of the AFL goal balls-up and how it should have played out

Also cast doubt on whether the left footed Keays should have taken the kick in the fist place.

having watched it again, McAdam was the one pressuring Campbell and Keays was within a couple of metres too. I would have given the FK to Keays as he was closer to where the ball went out of bounds

[Markwebbos]

Having had time to think about it, I think the fairest solution for everyone would be to impose a trading ban on the Swans. And run the northern academies under the same bidding rules as the NGA.

Can’t let Swans get off with this cheating Scott-free

[neilfws]

Did you see the montage on AFL360 tonight?

I didn't, but I've seen other footage and angles and yes - it seems pretty clear that neither post nor padding were involved!

I'm starting to wonder how long this is going to run (I guess it's only Tuesday). The latest article on the incident ends with several paragraphs about gambling payouts which - says a lot.

[Roadrunner]

having watched it again, McAdam was the one pressuring Campbell and Keays was within a couple of metres too. I would have given the FK to Keays as he was closer to where the ball went out of bounds

Fair to say that there were only millimetres in it so a degree of luck comes in to play. The goal umpire was in a position to make the call and if he was uncertain, as he may have been seeing the closeness of the ball to the goalpost, in truth he should have called it a behind but asked for a review.

Even if a goal would have been awarded as a result it may not have changed the outcome as the ball would have been bounced in the centre and there was plenty of time for us to kick a goal.

I was impressed by both coaches’ reactions and shows their class. As supporters, we need to emphasise with the Crows, as much as we dislike them after the Rat affair, as we would have felt totally deflated if this were to happen to us. However, we were clearly the better team for most of the game, and were in front apart from a minute or so. The Crows surge in the last quarter was given obvious help from the umps as any unbiased observer could see. So I believe the end result was right, though I said in another post that it felt like a loss on the night.

[lwjoyner]

swans should site McCartins problesm with concussion, Why would Tom deliberately do somwthing that could cause concussion. Pure foory accident .If mcadam has a broken jaw downground it to one week.

[MattW]

Max Laughton for the win:

'They did nothing wrong, but the goal review blunder has given them a massive leg-up.(Maybe that’s a make-good for the Jordan Dawson deal being so one-sided...)'

AFL news 2023: Power Rankings after Round 23, every club ranked, analysis, ladder, predictions, finals contenders

[KSAS]

Been hearing solutions in preventing goal umpiring errors happening again, ranging from every close behind being reviewed by the ARC (which prevents opposition from kicking in quickly), goal umpires having the option of a "I'm unsure" soft call, to having the play and time reset after the ARC have deemed a scoring error after the fact. Apparently the latter system has been in place in various team sports.

I can see the ARC being empowered to correct boundary line call errors, like with the 2 x Jeremy Cameron goals the week before. Might as well get rid of all the human element with the boundary & goal umpiring, which would be a shame imo.

All this will introduce further delays to the play, which fans will be forced to swallow as being for the good of the game. Achieving 100% correct decision making is of the upmost importance in this multi million dollar industry, according to the likes of Whately & co (who I also thought went over the top last night with his sermon on AFL360, like it was the number 1 world problem).

I'm old school, having grown up with the philophsy that the umpire is always right no matter how bad and the consequences. I don't think sporting rules were originally designed to be scrutinised to the degree that they're doing now with technology. May work ok in some sports like Tennis. I bemoath technology is increasingly taking away the continuity of play and spontaneous moments like in cricket where almost every wicket fall is reviewed.

[Markwebbos]

Could they bring in a review system like cricket? Combo of review and timeout like US sports?

[Hotpotato]

The 2006 (new) rule allowing the ball to be kicked in immediately the Goal Ump has signalled was instrumental in this postergate drama.

The signalling of a point is a quicker movement than signalling a goal.
Lloyd was able to retrieve a ball (didnt see from where) and used the rule so efficiently that the time to review was gone in a flash and play was back on.
Regardless of any thing else occurring (the crows celebrating with the fans), he was the smartest man in the chaotic room.
The padding and it’s flaps (when it comes loose) is part of the post so as some others have suggested if the ball touches the post or the padding but gets through without being touched by a player , make it a goal .
But that’s another new rule change .

[waswan]

Whately is over the top as for years he has been saying the current system is unsufficient.
Reality is, if the guy had called a review the current system is fine, for the crows at least.

The other reality, based on where he was standing, some commentators would be saying he was in perfect position to make the call.

Going forward the cameras need to be better on the goal line and they need to remove reviewing touched ball on the kick. That needs to be a field umpires call only, the footage is always useless, just live with the Umpires call

How many marks are paid in a game touched first by others, id say 10+

[barry]

I kind of agree. I think the current system is ok. Its meant to only fix the howlers. And to be honest, the Crows goal was just a mistake, not a howler.

Smart by Mills to slap the post though.

[waswan]

And this is where Whately is wrong his whole arguement has always been about the review footage being inconclusive not about there being alternate ways to review the goal.

The Goal Umpire screwed up, the current system is sufficient to fix his error in judgement but not his non decision to make a call. Whether or not he makes a call has never been an issue.

[neilfws]

I'm old school, having grown up with the philophsy that the umpire is always right no matter how bad and the consequences. I don't think sporting rules were originally designed to be scrutinised to the degree that they're doing now with technology. May work ok in some sports like Tennis. I bemoath technology is increasingly taking away the continuity of play and spontaneous moments like in cricket where almost every wicket fall is reviewed.

I am the same. Sport is played and adjudicated by humans, sometime they make mistakes. I reckon pundits and many fans will complain endlessly about decisions regardless of the process and technology, they see it as part of "the fun".

Throw it all out, make it all umpire's call and suck it up, it's certainly one approach and I wouldn't mind it. Except it's all about money now, hence the lawyers and their cries of compensation for potential lost earnings.

Alright whinge over, back to my usual rational persona.

[redunderthebed]

This is getting ridiculous and , should The Swans win the GF, the media will still be saying we didn't deserve it.
If this 'point/goal' had been in the first three quarters of the game, then nobody would be carrying on.
There were at least ten bad decisions by the umpires that could have effected the result.
Who cares, that's footy.
But DERMIE ( the biggest whinger) is the biggest waste of space ever to grace the media. SHUT TF UP...and Whately (who really should bknow better)

[Go Swannies]

Seriously, what I don't understand was how the goal umpire got it wrong? He was in the perfect position and he was sure it hit the post so didn't hesitate to call it a behind, with no thought of review. The (admittedly blurry) video footage appears to show it missed but the bloke being paid $1000s to judge just that said it hit. It seems beyond a simple mistake so fire up the conspiracies. And didn't Mills(?) slap the other goal post so you'd think the umpire wouldn't get that confused unless he has audible parallax confusion on top of his perceptional blindness? And why hasn't the AFL released the audio from the post microphone?