Oppo Camp Other Games Rolling Thread (2023)

[Dubaimagpie]

Isn’t the ARC supposed to review every goal just to make sure that there are no issues?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

Disgraceful from the AFL. I'm actually embarrassed to be so emotionally invested in this sport when that kind of stuff happens. God help us if the AFL ticks it off tomorrow.

On SM-G981B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

If we make the GF then it's gonna be like boxing overseas - make damn sure of it , cos if it comes down to the wire you know it's all set up for something like tonight

 

[Jen2310]

Isn’t the ARC supposed to review every goal just to make sure that there are no issues?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Something to do with they couldn't given a swans player hit the point at the same time.

 

[JOELY]

Isn’t the ARC supposed to review every goal just to make sure that there are no issues?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Apparently they do review every goal in the time it takes to restart, but in this case it was signaled a behind so no review. What made this whole thing worse was Sydney were able to eat up the remaining time by chipping it to free players along the wing because half the Adelaide team were on the other side celebrating! What a stuff up.

 

[60 Yards Out]

Bloody hell, imagine if that happened to us!

Conversely, imagine if that happened to Carlton

Oh, I am.

 

[No SPIN]

I seriously don’t get this angst.
I’d take Video review everyday, than reverting back to the dark ages relying on a Goal umpire.
Would Rocca’s goal have been missed in the GF if the Video review was available - definitely not.
End of debate - no system is perfect.

 

[jmac70]

Every close goal should be reviewed, regardless of the umpire. Absolute disgrace.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Isn’t the ARC supposed to review every goal just to make sure that there are no issues?

I thought so too, but I guess the reason they didn’t review it in this case is because it wasn’t a goal?

 

[Vicky Park]

I believe that the Cats have not made the finals. I’ve looked at the result of their game, and I’ve checked the ladder, and that’s what my eyes tell me.

But is it true? Has this really happened? I’m not dreaming?

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

I believe that the Cats have not made the finals. I’ve looked at the result of their game, and I’ve checked the ladder, and that’s what my eyes tell me.

But is it true? Has this really happened? I’m not dreaming?

How times change with our affection

Ross Lyon so salty about Our Luke Ball

Ross Lyon driving a pike through the heart of sour Chris Scott

Gives me hope ottoman will do something useful with his life

 

[jmac70]

I thought so too, but I guess the reason they didn’t review it in this case is because it wasn’t a goal?

It’s a shame they didn’t review it, given it was a goal.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Geezz, you’d be feeling crook if you were a Crows supporter …

• they’ve lost 2 games by a point
• they’ve lost 1 game by 2 points
• they’ve lost 1 game by 4 points
• they’ve lost 1 game by 6 points

Win all of those and they’d have cemented top 4. Instead they’re not going to make finals.

(It’s kinda the opposite to us- we win close games, crows lose them)

Same thing happened to us in 2017

In 2018 we won those 6 games and made Top 4

 

[KrispyKremePie]

I seriously don’t get this angst.
I’d take Video review everyday, than reverting back to the dark ages relying on a Goal umpire.
Would Rocca’s goal have been missed in the GF if the Video review was available - definitely not.
End of debate - no system is perfect.

The issue is that they didn’t do the video review.

If the video review was available in 2002 and they didn’t bother to use it… yes, it still would have been missed.

What’s the point of having access to the video review, if they’re not going to use it?

 

[76woodenspooners]

It’s a shame they didn’t review it, given it was a goal.

How would that work?

Given that the goal umpire didn’t call for a review, it meant that it was a kickout with a minute left on the clock.

Does the ARC call the field umpire in the middle of play (or even after the final siren) and say “Hey, stop the game” (or even “restart the game”), “we’ve reviewed that previous Adelaide point and found it was a goal.” Take the ball to the center and we’ll contact the timekeeper to set the game clock back to XX:YY”?

 

[jmac70]

How would that work?

Given that the goal umpire didn’t call for a review, it meant that it was a kickout with a minute left on the clock.

Does the ARC call the field umpire in the middle of play (or even after the final siren) and say “Hey, stop the game” (or even “restart the game”), “we’ve reviewed that previous Adelaide point and found it was a goal.” Take the ball to the center and we’ll contact the timekeeper to set the game clock back to XX:YY”?

Yes. The ARC folk should review every score and call the game back if there is an error.
Obviously that would require a change in policy.

 

[60 Yards Out]

How would that work?

Given that the goal umpire didn’t call for a review, it meant that it was a kickout with a minute left on the clock.

Does the ARC call the field umpire in the middle of play (or even after the final siren) and say “Hey, stop the game” (or even “restart the game”), “we’ve reviewed that previous Adelaide point and found it was a goal.” Take the ball to the center and we’ll contact the timekeeper to set the game clock back to XX:YY”?

Agree that would be strange, but still better than what actually happened.

 

[sr36]

Was it conclusive enough to have been overturned on review?

 

[gouki88]

Was it conclusive enough to have been overturned on review?

I would say so

 

[jmac70]

View attachment 1779464


I would say so

That umpire should be sacked.

 

[sr36]

Yes. The ARC folk should review every score and call the game back if there is an error.
Obviously that would require a change in policy.

Nah. Just accept the errors. The problem with review systems is that we expect them to get it right 100% of the time and they don't. But we then become furious.

 

[sr36]

View attachment 1779464


I would say so

Neither of those shots by themselves are conclusive. Do they review with two separate angles simultaneously trusting that they are perfectly in sync?

I think it was a goal and the umpire got confused because the Swans player hit the padding and it would have moved as the ball went past it. But I'm not convinced it would have been overturned.

 

[Eric Shin]

The AFL are going to try find some bullsh*T vision like the one they found for Jezza’s out on the full mark and claim that the ball did indeed hit the post


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[gerryg400]

Nah. Just accept the errors. The problem with review systems is that we expect them to get it right 100% of the time and they don't. But we then become

I agree. However, accepting these errors means that betting should not be allowed on AFL. It is impossible to be sure in this case that this isn’t corruption.

 

[doofdoof]

Nah. Just accept the errors. The problem with review systems is that we expect them to get it right 100% of the time and they don't. But we then become furious.

What is farcical is that they typically call for a review of anything even remotely close.

This was clearly a potential issue given not only the score line and timing, nor what call was being made, but also how the crowd and, especially, the players reacted.

The real problem here is that there was no review