So does the score review that allowed Pink to score a goal come up under this thread? Can’t believe that they kept on repeating the same camera angle 100x, cut away to the other angle that clearly showed a massive gap from his foot then back to another 50 replays of the first angle.
And they considered that footage to be conclusive enough to overturn the umpires call!
Complete incompetence.
It’s complete something, but that something is NOT incompetence.
An organisation actually needs to display a high degree of competence to get away with such blatant cheating.
Comes up as a video highlight. Of course they edited out the vision from the other angle that showed clear daylight from foot to ball:
This is the distance the foot is from the ball when it looks to bounce differently. The point when Brad Johnson thought it hit his foot:
And this is the spot slightly earlier where I think they thought he got a foot to it. Clear daylight.
The majority of people remember your ■■■■ “da uumPzzzs” posts when clearly the umps were crap tonight.
I thought they had established it made contact with Pink’s foot a few frames earlier and the vision that you are highlighting is whether 2MP touched it after that.
Either way…if you need to see replay footage for 2 minutes then surely it’s inconclusive and umpires call
I was genuinely confused as to what holding the ball was after today. How much prior opportunity do players get these days
That’s case in point to my original post which you’ve quoted.
Yep, it should have been umpires call. There was no clear touch that should have changed the umpires decision.
They tried to gift North the win today. I could feel it… not only that review, multiple holding the ball… there were so many holding in the marking contests and at centre bounces on our mids. Clarko bonuses I suppose.
Those blocks on Goldstein and the block on Wright were unforgivable.
The holding the ball decision or, more accurately, lack of decision is driving fans crazy. The two tackles in a row with Jones and Guelfi were both instances where the player took possession of the ball and had a chance to get rid of it but chose to take on the tackler. Either one should have been called.
The instructions to the umpires this year is to allow players a chance to fight through the tackle. But there is extents to which the umps seem to not want to award the tackle.
Second week in a row we’ve been hedged against by the umps. Hope that’s not a continuing thing. I don’t know, maybe it will be like resistance training and make us stronger?
I think about corruption in sport and match fixing (gambling), and what checks and balances might be in place to counteract this in the AFL - certainly not an objective media (AFL accreditation). I mean if it’s happened in other bigger sports…
The more the umpires allow the player time to fight through the tackle, the more likely you are to get more sling tackles.
I don’t know how this hasn’t been more widely discussed in the media.
The non reporting of any faults in the umpiring of games or anything else footy related, would most likely be attributable to AFL journalist accreditation.
It’s only a scam if you are not in on it!
I agree. If umpires let opponents fight through tackles then the alternative is to get them to ground ASAP.
I wonder if police ever have a hard look at AFL and gambling like they have just done with soccer. I swear sometimes that ARC looks fudged . never looks convincing to me. always seems a bit made up
Bump
