SA Footy

Omg these tears are ******* ridiculous

Swans could have taken the ball out of the middle and goaled

"Change the result"

**** off

Armchair expert wrote:Omg these tears are ******* ridiculous

Swans could have taken the ball out of the middle and goaled

"Change the result"

**** off

That's all well and good to say but at the end of the day that decision MOST LIKELY and I'm talking in the high 90 percentages cost the Crows the game, we all know it didn't defintely cost them the game 100%. (And that doesn't even take into account the Crows had all the momentum)
Still plenty of reason to be pissed off by Crows fans.

Wedgie wrote:I witnessed first hand today a goal umpire that was in the best spot and he got it wrong 100%, every player knew it, every spectator behind the goals knew it.
It's no excuse that a goal umpire is in the best spot if they're not the most competent person near it.

The live camera feed from hypothetically said camera source wouldn't lie if the decision was incorrect in this instance, would it?

LaughingKookaburra wrote:There is a clear gap between the ball and post as it goes through. Just needs to be reviewed and was a poor decision not to be.

I could see it didn't touch either, but it's still the best vision for nearly all close decision.

spell_check wrote:

Wedgie wrote:I witnessed first hand today a goal umpire that was in the best spot and he got it wrong 100%, every player knew it, every spectator behind the goals knew it.
It's no excuse that a goal umpire is in the best spot if they're not the most competent person near it.

The live camera feed from hypothetically said camera source wouldn't lie if the decision was incorrect in this instance, would it?

LaughingKookaburra wrote:There is a clear gap between the ball and post as it goes through. Just needs to be reviewed and was a poor decision not to be.

I could see it didn't touch either, but it's still the best vision for nearly all close decision.

Definitely not, not prone to mistakes as much as humans are (and I witnessed this first hand today with no camera's around too).
And I just saw a few more angles and it wasn't even close to the padding which was the only question at the time.

This has been fun

Wedgie wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:Omg these tears are ******* ridiculous

Swans could have taken the ball out of the middle and goaled

"Change the result"

**** off

That's all well and good to say but at the end of the day that decision MOST LIKELY and I'm talking in the high 90 percentages cost the Crows the game, we all know it didn't defintely cost them the game 100%. (And that doesn't even take into account the Crows had all the momentum)
Still plenty of reason to be pissed off by Crows fans.

True but Sydney had the momentum and crows kicked 3 goals in 90 seconds to start the 4th.

Maybe it cost them maybe it didn't. However with the absolute ride they were getting with the umps in the 4th they likely would have won by 4 goals.

woodublieve12 wrote:This has been fun

I need to take a shower after cheering for Sydney

Wedgie wrote:

spell_check wrote:

Wedgie wrote:I witnessed first hand today a goal umpire that was in the best spot and he got it wrong 100%, every player knew it, every spectator behind the goals knew it.
It's no excuse that a goal umpire is in the best spot if they're not the most competent person near it.

The live camera feed from hypothetically said camera source wouldn't lie if the decision was incorrect in this instance, would it?

LaughingKookaburra wrote:There is a clear gap between the ball and post as it goes through. Just needs to be reviewed and was a poor decision not to be.

I could see it didn't touch either, but it's still the best vision for nearly all close decision.

Definitely not, not prone to mistakes as much as humans are (and I witnessed this first hand today with no camera's around too).
And I just saw a few more angles and it wasn't even close to the padding which was the only question at the time.

That's right, there wasn't even a need to go to that angle for this one, but I still believe there's plenty of others where it would have been the decisive angle. The fact goal umpire cam was first seen in the SANFL 22 years ago, and how cheap it would be to implement it now staggers me that they don't.

Jim05 wrote:The sooner they get AI and robots to umpire the game the better

Easier way is make it like soccer, if it flicks the post but still goes through the big sticks, GOAL!. If it's touched on the line and still goes through, GOAL!

No different to the half dozen times a game where a mark is touched prior to taking it.

The fact you have goal umpires with vision impairment doesn't help.
Seriously, if the guy needs glasses in his 20s then perhaps getting him to call things moving in fast time touching or not touching something isn't wise.
Give him a run on the boundary and get people with 20/20 vision behind the goals please.

Wedgie wrote:The fact you have goal umpires with vision impairment doesn't help.
Seriously, if the guy needs glasses in his 20s then perhaps getting him to call things moving in fast time touching or not touching something isn't wise.
Give him a run on the boundary and get people with 20/20 vision behind the goals please.

Whatever the problem is, I just like sinking the boot into the AFL for not doing things properly - no independent doctors, no proper tech, making the game way too complicated, for example.

spell_check wrote:

Wedgie wrote:The fact you have goal umpires with vision impairment doesn't help.
Seriously, if the guy needs glasses in his 20s then perhaps getting him to call things moving in fast time touching or not touching something isn't wise.
Give him a run on the boundary and get people with 20/20 vision behind the goals please.

Whatever the problem is, I just like sinking the boot into the AFL for not doing things properly - independent doctors, proper tech, making the game waty too complicated, for example.

They need to get Steve Hocking involved, everything was good then!

Crows can have th3 moral victory if they want

Sportsbet have paid out on bets on the Crows.

Shouldn’t have played crap for the first three quarters


That’s our season in a nutshell, can mix it with the best but just not for a full game

.

woodublieve12 wrote:.

Don’t think there is anyone that denies the 2 decisions, however at least the Jenkins one was reviewed and since then technology has improved and there is a different process - For that exact reason. Still blows my mind how that decision last night didn’t get at least looked at considering how many blatant outcomes get reviewed.

Crows don’t miss easy set shots in the first half this isn’t even a discussion point

Brodlach wrote:Shouldn’t have played crap for the first three quarters


That’s our season in a nutshell, can mix it with the best but just not for a full game

Spot on

The only choice the AFL has is to replay the match in the bye week before finals