Purple7x08_24
President: Galactic Federation
What about the dive by Shuey that cost Port a semi
Play Nice Goal Umpire costs Adelaide a shot at finals, how do you stop it from happening again?
- Thread starter Wosh
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,029
- 46,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
oh - they had a video review system in place for that and a protocol to use it did they? - news to me
Purple7x08_24
President: Galactic Federation
Chill. It was humor
So just breaking down Adelaide's season
9 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 5 wins and 4 losses at a % of 127.26 (Note ALL wins at Adelaide Oval)
6 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 0 wins and 6 losses at a % of 78.14
8 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 6 wins and 2 losses at a % of 138.99
or
11 Away Games for 3 wins and 8 losses at a % of 93.91 (Includes Away Game vs Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval)
12 Home Games for 8 wins and 4 losses at a % of 144.96
So personally, I'd blame the missing of finals on
9 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 5 wins and 4 losses at a % of 127.26 (Note ALL wins at Adelaide Oval)
6 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 0 wins and 6 losses at a % of 78.14
8 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 6 wins and 2 losses at a % of 138.99
or
11 Away Games for 3 wins and 8 losses at a % of 93.91 (Includes Away Game vs Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval)
12 Home Games for 8 wins and 4 losses at a % of 144.96
So personally, I'd blame the missing of finals on
- Inability to win Games against those middle tier teams around them on the ladder (0-6), and
- Poor Away record (37.5% winning percentage and -51.05 in terms of %)
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,629
- 43,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Rankine kicked a goal. But it shouldnt have been. So... seems pretty similar to me.
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,029
- 46,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
what part of having a review mechanism to review a goal decision vs not having one for field decisions goes beyond your understanding?
We understand the technical difference, but we refuse to join your unsubstantiated belief that there's a difference between the two in determining whether a result is fair or not.
Reviewable and non-reviewable decisions both absolutely come into it when arguing if a result was fair.
Ravin Crow
Rookie
- Oct 13, 2014
- 30
- 18
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
What do you mean Rankine’s goal shouldn’t have been a goal against Hawthorn? I’m genuinely curious if there is any footage at all definitively showing the ball out of bounds?
Elmer_Hauser
Future Member of Parliament
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,029
- 46,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
rubbish..there could be 100 'contested' umpire on field decisions through a match - the Rankine possible OOB was just one of them. With no mandated technology to stop the game, go back and check if it was OOB or whether a tackle was high or a trip happened...you get the picture, its a suck it up scenario.
Then there was the goal decision where the technology to review and the protocol to use it is there and it was ignored. Its a totally different circumstance and no matter how you dress it up to try and gaslight otherwise, thats the facts.
Gaslight lol. There was no mandated review if the goal umpire was confident in their decision. The existing process was followed. However, the existing process was flawed and didn't cater for this scenario where they were confident but wrong, so it needs to be improved.
Just one of several umpiring decisions that directly impacted the scoreline.
Gripe about the decision sure, wish that it was called correctly so we had a greater chance of the fairest result sure. But there's plenty of other nonsense being brought up.
So just breaking down Sydney's season
6 Games against Teams finishing 1-6 for 1 wins and 5 losses (only win against Carlton Earlier in the season)
7 Games against Teams finishing 7-12 for 2 wins and 4 losses and a draw
10 Games against Teams finishing 13-18 for 8 wins and 2 losses
So the take away is Sydney are good at beating teams at the bottom of the ladder.
If the score is reviewed the difference between the 2 teams in the middle segment is
1 win 5 losses for Adelaide and 1 Win 5 losses and a draw for Sydney.
You would expect BOTH teams to consistently beat those below them if they were going to play finals.
2 wins and a draw vs no wins against teams in the same band is the difference.
In both cases, the record against the top-6 teams is compelling in that neither would have been considered likely to due much damage in the finals.
FWIW, IF the behind had been reviewed and called a goal, Sydney supporters would most likely have blamed missing finals on;
- 4th quarter fade-outs
- early season injury decimation, and
- losing close games we could\should have won
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,029
- 46,367
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
The field umpire had the power to ask the goal umpire to call for a review and chose not to thus not invoking the technology available which confirms exactly what I was saying.
WHAT DID HAPPEN
Keays was given a free kick for out of bounds on the full, played on and snapped towards goal, with the ball clearing the line with 1:15 on the clock.While he and three other Crows celebrated a kick that would have put their team in front against the Swans, the goal umpire signalled a behind and patted the goalpost.
No field umpires conferred with the goal umpire and while every goal is automatically reviewed, behinds are not.
Sydney’s lead was cut to one point.
“He (the goal umpire) was definitive that it hit the post,” McLachlan said.
“It was a noise and a deflection. And on review, that is not the case.”
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,629
- 43,771
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Play did stop. A goal was scored. The AFL claim to check all goals. Except they dont. They only sort of check all goals.
Etc.
Far out - you dopes bringing up the games that Adelaide should have won, but didn't because of either experience, poor goalkicking , away record or all three does not mean that the Sydney loss, and therefore missing finals, is somehow justified
Crows should still have made finals despite the flaws in their season, and were robbed because an official didn't follow due process
It's as simple as that
Crows should still have made finals despite the flaws in their season, and were robbed because an official didn't follow due process
It's as simple as that
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
As a hypothetical, if this game happened in round 6 with the same circumstances, and the result proved to be the difference between making the finals and missing out, how would you deal with it?
I think that is a false equivalency - at rnd 6 no one is 100% knocked out of finals race - the reason why this non goal has had so much notoriety is because it was the last defining moment that cost a finals birth
We could look back at the Dawson high free kick that should have been paid against Collingwood as something that went against Crows, but that didn't cost us a finals spot at that time so I don't consider it the same (plus that was a missed field ump decision which just goes hand in hand with every game for every team)
They did follow due process, they were just wrong. The process should be changed.
I don't think many of us here are saying Swans will win the flag, like some are re: Crows. Or those seemingly only able to recognise umpiring as a factor in ladder position.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
It wasn't though. Both you and Sydney had another game to play, as did Geelong, St Kilda and GWS who were all vying for those last spots.
You're making the case, with the benefit of hindsight, that because the cards fell your way (if you'd won the Sydney game), it's cost you a finals spot.
Yet, from the time the error occurred, you still had over a minute to play in that game, and then another game to play, plus other results to go particular ways for you to scrape in.
It didn't cost you the game as you had time to score again.
It didn't cost you finals because there was still another round of games to go.
In reality, the mistake really only cost you 5pts score in one game.
Similar threads
