Round 23 Crows v Swans

[i'm-uninformed2]

I tend to agree Whateley, who I usually like, is over the top here.

Where he has two points I would agree with is the AFL's investment in technology and vision is half-hearted. The best footage on this kick was a fan's iphone behind the posts. That says alot about the inadequacy of the AFL's gear.

The other I'd have is no soft call. If the umpire is unsure, he's unsure. Let's not then tilt the balance on what could be decided by the burden to get to one answer behind higher or lower than the other. Just send it up and let the ARC decide.

As for this one, it was a mistake. Is it any different to an umpire making a mistake on a HTB decision 30m out in front, with 10 seconds to go? No. So leave it.

[The Big Cat]

I’ve got an idea. Get rid of the goal line cameras and the replays. Let the umpire make the decision and move on. Twenty years ago we were happy with that.

[goswannies]

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?

The umpire is a South Australian and before taking up umpiring, a Crows supporter. As an umpire, he’s as professional and unbiased as you’d come across. No one is beyond making an error. No one. If a tailor makes one, they pick it apart and re-stitch. If a surgeon makes one, it can be pretty bad news. A pilot, potentially catastrophic. A President? Lord forbid, if they’re silly enough. The goal umpire made a mistake. Not intentionally. And he was confident in his call. It was just the wrong call. Crows have moved on (Dawson made a gracious comment about not blaming the umpire). Swans have moved on (Longmire made a gracious comment about feeling for the Crows and the umpire). AFL have moved on (after throwing the umpire under the bus) and saying that the result stands so everyone should move on. 30 years ago this would have been replayed a dozen times on Sports Sunday and then forgotten as the cameras would not have had anywhere near as good a view and the rules - like today - is that the umpire’s decision, rightly or wrongly, is final.

Crows supporters won’t move on. That’s fine too. If the shoe was on the other foot RWO would be in meltdown and Horse would be on the chopping block again for letting a 44 point lead slip.

And cut the umpire some slack. People are paid far more than him to do a job full time and they still make mistakes that are far more costly in the scheme of financial repercussions or human life. The goal umpire part time and if his was the only incorrect call in the game, I’d be astounded.

We won. We’re in. That’s it. On to next week.

[wolftone57]

All this bull@@@@ about the umpires call that lost Crows the match. But there was a decision 20 metres out from their goal that also nearly lost us the game. Gulden was given a free against for a throw. It was not a throw and the umpire should never have made the call because he was not in a position to see. The vision clearly shows he fisted with the hand. Even if you don't fist the whole hand as long as you do not get open fingers to the ball is ok. He fisted the thumb and first two fingers obviously on the replay. Gerrard was wrong in his interpretation the whole fist must be formed. That is not the case. As long as no open fingers hit the ball it is still a handball. He hit it with thumb and forefinger.

This call was made by the South Australian umpire who could not have seen because Gulden's back was to him. It was a definite HOME TOWN CALL

[top40]

The umpire is a South Australian and before taking up umpiring, a Crows supporter. As an umpire, he’s as professional and unbiased as you’d come across. No one is beyond making an error. No one. If a tailor makes one, they pick it apart and re-stitch. If a surgeon makes one, it can be pretty bad news. A pilot, potentially catastrophic. A President? Lord forbid, if they’re silly enough. The goal umpire made a mistake. Not intentionally. And he was confident in his call. It was just the wrong call. Crows have moved on (Dawson made a gracious comment about not blaming the umpire). Swans have moved on (Longmire made a gracious comment about feeling for the Crows and the umpire). AFL have moved on (after throwing the umpire under the bus) and saying that the result stands so everyone should move on. 30 years ago this would have been replayed a dozen times on Sports Sunday and then forgotten as the cameras would not have had anywhere near as good a view and the rules - like today - is that the umpire’s decision, rightly or wrongly, is final.

Crows supporters won’t move on. That’s fine too. If the shoe was on the other foot RWO would be in meltdown and Horse would be on the chopping block again for letting a 44 point lead slip.

And cut the umpire some slack. People are paid far more than him to do a job full time and they still make mistakes that are far more costly in the scheme of financial repercussions or human life. The goal umpire part time and if his was the only incorrect call in the game, I’d be astounded.

We won. We’re in. That’s it. On to next week.

I have memories of a game in 2003 (Round 18) at Football Park against the Crows. A Swans player attempted to kick a winning goal after the siren, but it was controversially disallowed by a South Australian Goal Umpire. The Swans lost that game by 4 goals. Coach Paul Roos made a dry comment at the post-game press conference, wondering out loud which state the goal umpire came from?

On another note, Ben Keays should not have been permitted to kick the ball in the first place. It should have been Shane McAdam, whose pressure had caused Braeden Campbell to kick the ball out on the full.

[Ludwig]

Let's say that Mills hitting the post tricked the umpire into thinking it was the ball hitting the post. Well, it's just like any of the numerous incidents when a player tricks the umpire into giving a free kick, or an obvious free kick missed by the ump, which leads to a goal or loss of goal.

There are so many umpire errors made in the game, but we somehow want to isolate this type of umpire error for extra scrutiny. It's probably because we supposedly have a system in place to fix this type of error by using a review system and technology.

I do feel sorry for the Adelaide fans, because I know how crazy everyone on RWO would be if we were the victim. We've been down this road many times ourselves.

The AFL community have to accept that even with a reasonable system for reviewing goals, errors will still happen, and a few will result in a change in the game result. But we won't accept a result like this, because we love interminably arguing the point the death, and it produces hours of content for the footy media.

[barry]

All this bull@@@@ about the umpires call that lost Crows the match. But there was a decision 20 metres out from their goal that also nearly lost us the game. Gulden was given a free against for a throw. It was not a throw and the umpire should never have made the call because he was not in a position to see. The vision clearly shows he fisted with the hand. Even if you don't fist the whole hand as long as you do not get open fingers to the ball is ok. He fisted the thumb and first two fingers obviously on the replay. Gerrard was wrong in his interpretation the whole fist must be formed. That is not the case. As long as no open fingers hit the ball it is still a handball. He hit it with thumb and forefinger.

This call was made by the South Australian umpire who could not have seen because Gulden's back was to him. It was a definite HOME TOWN CALL

IT was a blatant throw. Let's not be silly now

[Maltopia]

Just get rid of touched, and hit the post, points.

If it goes through, it is six points. Maybe allow an exemption for a defender rushing it through in a controlled manner (holding the ball as they go through, not fisting it through).

How much simpler is that?

For points, we don’t care if it is punched through or if it hits the goal post on the way through, so there is already a similar rule in place.

This would result in:

Much higher scoring games, more desperation to keep the ball out.

More CB restarts instead of the ugly kick out from defence, which often is an ugly boring throw in or ball up, just outside the 50 near the boundary after a kick up the line, to tired players as the game goes on.

Less arguments and replays about whether it flicked a finger or or not on the way through.

Sacrilege I know!

[Ludwig]

Just get rid of touched, and hit the post, points.

If it goes through, it is six points. Maybe allow an exemption for a defender rushing it through in a controlled manner (holding the ball as they go through, not fisting it through).

How much simpler is that?

For points, we don’t care if it is punched through or if it hits the goal post on the way through, so there is already a similar rule in place.

This would result in:

Much higher scoring games, more desperation to keep the ball out.

More CB restarts instead of the ugly kick out from defence, which often is an ugly boring throw in or ball up, just outside the 50 near the boundary after a kick up the line, to tired players as the game goes on.

Less arguments and replays about whether it flicked a finger or or not on the way through.

Sacrilege I know!

The totally sensible thing to do. There doesn't even have to be any exceptions. If the ball crosses the line between the inner posts, it's a goal, the outer posts, it's a point. Basically, it's scoring like soccer. It doesn't matter who it touches or what it touches.

Add last touch out of bounds and the game would be so much easier to umpire.

But could the game stand the lack of controversy? What would Whateley and Robbo have to talk about. AFL 360 could be reduced to a 10 minute program once a week.

[liz]

The totally sensible thing to do. There doesn't even have to be any exceptions. If the ball crosses the line between the inner posts, it's a goal, the outer posts, it's a point. Basically, it's scoring like soccer. It doesn't matter who it touches or what it touches.

Add last touch out of bounds and the game would be so much easier to umpire.

But could the game stand the lack of controversy? What would Whateley and Robbo have to talk about. AFL 360 could be reduced to a 10 minute program once a week.

I had a conversation along these lines with a friend earlier this week and we both kinda suggested this. But I've thought about it more since.

It would fundamentally change the game. Probably in a way so radical that it would no longer be football. A player takes a mark close to the goal square but on enough of an angle that the shot is non-trival. They can now just throw the ball through the goal posts? Or take a run and try to score a rugby try?

Or a long kick to the goal square doesn't need to be marked by a forward, it just needs someone to knock it through?

I certainly see the benefit and logic of no longer worrying if the ball hits the post. But I have reservations about no longer requiring it to last come off a forward's boot.

[Meg]

The totally sensible thing to do. There doesn't even have to be any exceptions. If the ball crosses the line between the inner posts, it's a goal, the outer posts, it's a point. Basically, it's scoring like soccer. It doesn't matter who it touches or what it touches..

Agree. Have long thought we have a silly rule in place now.

[Meg]

. .... They can now just throw the ball through the goal posts? Or take a run and try to score a rugby try?

Only if they are a Bulldogs player ...

[Maltopia]

I had a conversation along these lines with a friend earlier this week and we both kinda suggested this. But I've thought about it more since.

It would fundamentally change the game. Probably in a way so radical that it would no longer be football. A player takes a mark close to the goal square but on enough of an angle that the shot is non-trival. They can now just throw the ball through the goal posts? Or take a run and try to score a rugby try?

Or a long kick to the goal square doesn't need to be marked by a forward, it just needs someone to knock it through?

I certainly see the benefit and logic of no longer worrying if the ball hits the post. But I have reservations about no longer requiring it to last come off a forward's boot.

Make it a goal if it was kicked (contact with ball below the knee) during the "passage of play" (to be defined). We don't care if the ball bounces a few times off the grass after someone kicks it, so also ignore if it deflects off a player or the goal post on the way through. So if defenders need to punch a ball forward or through the behind posts if it is off a kick. If they punch it between the goal posts, it is a goal if it came off an opposition boot.

I am sure there will be some oddities and details to work out, like what if I kick it, and it comes off two different players before going through - should that count?

Still better than the delays now, and the randomness of whether an umpire agree/detects if the ball flicks a defender/goal post on the way through or not. The Melbourne goal two weeks ago would be awarded because the defender's finger flick wasn't enough to stop the ball getting through the goals, simpler for everyone in the majority of cases, as in vast majority of cases, if it is kicked and goes through, it is a goal.

They won't change it, but it is an interesting discussion, which is what forums are for!

[The Big Cat]

What time is the tribunal?

[chalbilto]

What time is the tribunal?

Unfortunately he won't get off. Too much bad publicity, where on talk back today they were still harping on as if the Swans were the villains and rubbish suggestions that they should forfeit and give the match to Adelaide. So they will not be getting any favorable treatment at the judiciary tonight. Dwayne Russell even sarcastically said that they may increase his suspension by a week. Talk about a pile-on. It was a mistake, it has been acknowledged so as per the current rules jut get on with it. I hope that Longmire and the boys use this as ammunition and galvanize the squad.