It's all a plan to make everyone forget about Jeremy Cameron scoring from out of bounds and Petracca's goal being called touched. No better way of moving on from rubbish decisions than to make one far worse.
@@Smegoff84 I don't follow either team but that was not touched. The player afterwards more or less admitted it when he somehow couldn't remember what part of his body touched the ball. And when he said "fingertips" it was clear he was lying; the replay showed *maybe* a forearm but it wasn't near his outstretched arm.
@@HorizonOfHopealso why lie when the damning evidence has already been publicised. It’s like a four year covered in chocolate: he ate the f*ing chocolate. 😂
Not a supporter of either side, but this is definitely something that needs to be fixed in AFL. Crows should've won. Officials need to be held accountable and matches shouldn't be determined through human error as clear as this.
bit of an error in your comment there, even though yes the AFL needs to look at their processes. saying the crows should have won because of a decision made with over a minute remaining isn't correct in the slightest...
Agreed. You never know if Sydney got the clearance and then kicked a goal. We'll never know. AFL needs better cameras and processes to make sure this doesn't happen again
If the Crows took this to a legal situation after listening to the sheep farmers comments I wouldn’t be surprised if they received a favourable decision; they should do it, won’t help relations with the AFL, however they haven’t got good relations now so give it a go.
@@holdingthebullI’m a swans fan, and definitely this was a howler! Needed referring upstairs. I’m also perplexed why, with the amount of money the AFL are getting, we don’t have better goalline/post technology such as multiple high frame rate cameras. In this case that wasn’t the problem - just that it should have been referred upstairs. But how many “touched” balls are not able to be actually worked out because the cameras are only 24 fps - all you see is a blur and try to guess about the finger movement.
Do you guys reckon a hotspot like with cricket would work in the AFL? Would leave heat marks on the ball and post, as well as players hands for these instances
@@barrydobson2283i'm fairly sure hot spot uses a thermal imaging camera (hence "hot spot"). I'm fairly sure the AFL could afford even less exoensive equipment that could solve this problem.
@@greyhairedphantom4038 this is a great idea, that way we don't have to review every shot that goes through, but can still check on moments like this. Also reckon it'd just be a good idea to implement ARC into the ball instead of the post, makes touched balls like Petracca's shot vs Carlton a lot lot easier
Nobody has mentioned what the central umpire closet to the goal umpire said. The central umpire has to give an all clear or a "your call" Can anybody tell me?
I agree with those rules you want in afl it would make afl more better. And the keys shot should of been a goal that umpire doesn’t deserve to umpire again in my opinion he was also the umpire that called that Jenkins goal in 2018 showdown against port and Jenkins was confident it was a behind.
Very well spoken mate, I know what it's like to be robbed, particularly in those dying moments where finals is on the line for both teams. I think I just feel sorry for the umpire, he's only human and this costly mistake im sure he'd never make again could affect him for quite some time.
Everyone is saying that of course they could never reverse the outcome of the game in retrospect, it would be unfair to Sydney, who did nothing wrong, and I thought this way myself initially. There was a minute left, so you could never say for certain that Adelaide would have won if the goal was awarded at the time. But thinking about it, this doesn't hold up, or at least it isn't as clear cut as everyone just assumes. If you break it down, what would have been the odds of Sydney scoring a goal at the end? Normally it would be in the range of 10-15 percent (I'm guessing, but this could be worked out on historical data). But taking into account that the run of play had been so overwhelmingly in Adelaide's favour (13 scoring shots to 1), it seems like even 5% would be a generous assessment. Add to that when Sydney took the kick-in after the behind was awarded, due to the Crows not having set up after celebrating, they got basically a free run down the wing and clean possession into their attacking half and still couldn't score. And the conditions were still slippery, so even if they could get a shot on goal, it's probably only 50/50 that it would be a major. So let's say 5% chance Sydney win the game after the Crows are awarded the goal. That leaves us with the following choice: Don't reverse the result, and be 95% sure Adelaide was robbed of the win and their chance at finals is over, or reverse the outcome and accept a 5% chance that Sydney have been robbed of a deserved win and their chance to make finals is diminished but not ended. The choice seems like a no brainier and totally fair to me. Yes we have to make assumptions and try to evaluate chance and probability, but this is done all the time in courts, business, government etc. Both teams would stay in the finals race, with the team that was very likely to have won taking the 4 points over the team that very likely was going to lose. It's not ideal, but that's what happens when the AFL allows goals to be adjudicated as behinds without a proper review process. Why do the Crows get punished and Sydney get rewarded? Or perhaps they could get creative, give Adelaide 4 points as the likely winners, but give Sydney 2 consolation points for their trouble (a deal they probably would have gladly taken as they watched Ben Keay's kick sail through the goal posts). That way Adelaide are still in the finals hunt, and Sydney are in a better position than if they lost.
There is also a video on Twitter that was retweeted by Cambell Brown that showed the ball nowhere near the goalpost, that video was taken by a supporter who was sitting behind the goalposts, it was clear evidence that the Umpire not only got it wrong, but got it wrong badly. The main improvement that needs to be made, is that the players also should be allowed to call for a score review, two score reviews per quarter, that is two hard reviews per quarter, and if a review isn't taken, it isn't added in the following quarter, better cameras, yeah I agree with that, that is obvious to everyone, and better Umpires training, yeah, that is something that is sorely needed, in the context of this time in the season, with a lot on the line, this was simply not good enough, and with so much on the line, the umpires simply cannot make these sorts of blunders that could potentially cost multiple teams a chance to play for a finals spot next round. And there is one thing that you got incorrect, the Saints are locked in, they are two games clear of ninth spot, GWS isn't locked in, since the Bulldogs could potentially upset the Cats at the Cattery, unlikely as it might be.
the players should not be able to review things, nor should they get fucken 2 per quarter jesus christ... the AFL simply needs more competent leaders and a more competent AFL umpiring core...
2 weeks in a row umpiring errors have cost a side. I must admit it didn't cost Collingwood win but has cost them valuable percentage. I can't see why the bunker can't review all scores. If a point is scored the full back has to wait until the goal umpire has waved the flag like they used to giving the bunker time to review it
Footy is a funny game. This one reminds me when Jenkins matching winning goal actually hit the post, and in the post match presser Jenkins said his mum always told him to be honest and he thought it hit the post. Also I think the boys celebrating instead of getting ready to defend a potential kick in cost the crows as the swans bought themselves precious time and space due to the disbelief of the decision. However it’s wild it wasn’t reviewed. Feels like they review far more obvious goals
Revisiting this video after seeing the suggestions being made in it. With that, I'll go back to the knowledge I have of the NFL here. 1. Better cameras. That's a complete given. If they are that bad, then they need to be upgraded. I don't see that happening at every AFL venue before the next season starts, so the AFL will be stuck with what they have again for the next season. 2. Coaches Challenge/Captain's call. There is no decent recourse for if the challenge/call is unsuccessful. Up here in the NFL, a coach may challenge a referee's decision: if they are successful, the decision is overruled; if not, the team making the challenge loses a timeout, which would be critical in the latter stages of a game. With the AFL having no timeouts, there is no recourse for if a challenge is unsuccessful, as it is just as wasteful with time as holding someone down after a free kick has been paid, resulting in a 50m penalty. they can't put something in for that recourse, either (for example, losing a rotation, lose a point, etc.), as that would result in giving away a 50m penalty for too many rotations, or change the score of a game. 3. Better training. That's a given. But perhaps they should change the rule for that training, and say that back when, say, Ch. 9 put up the 5 minute warning or something similar, the umpires get a signal in their in-ear monitors that indicates that every score gets reviewed from that point until the end of the match, and if they come under scrutiny before getting the all clear, play stops until that review is finished. Every point, every hit post, every touch on the goal line, every rushed behind, every goal. 4. AI.. even AI can fail at this, because AI may not account for the human factor. The AFL needs to do something, or scrap the entire score review process and recreate it from scratch.
Okay.. American here, though I've been following the AFL since the early 1990s, so I'm more versed in the AFL than I am of the NFL here. That said, I don't see how there couldn't be some sort of compensation for this. For that, I reference Sirengate: St. Kilda v. Fremantle in Launceston a good 10 years ago. It was clearly obvious that the umpires (let alone the AFL) made a mistake as they kept playing on after the siren sounded and the umpires did not call time that the game was finished. Freo was up by a point when the siren sounded, play went on, a behind was kicked, then taken back because the siren had gone, but due to a free kick being paid due to a poor disposal of the ball back to St. Kilda, another kick was made, resulting in a point, leaving the game tied. Initially both Freo and St. Kilda split the points. 3 days later, the AFL admitted that they screwed up, and awarded Fremantle the full four points. For the AFL to say that there isn't any recourse with this incident while they fully gave recourse to Fremantle is wrong. Now, I'll caveat Adelaide's issue with the fact that they still had over a minute to play in regulation to change the score, but the correlation between mistakes still stands. If the AFL's action of "nothing can be done, move on" stands, think of how much disrepute the game would be brought to, especially if something like this happens and it affects a PRELIM let alone a Grand Final. This does not look good in any way, shape, or form for the AFL.
the goalline camera's framerate have always been deplorable. its quite remarkable considering the latest gopros can do 4k120fps and even 2.7k240fps for about $600 each.
Lasers need to be placed at the top of all goal post so if the ball goes over it the laser flashes or sends a signal to the ARK then the correct decision can be made this was an idea back when tom lynch kicked the ball and it went over the goal post from different angles it looks to be a goal
Don't need a laser, just need a camera facing up to the sky, on the top of the posts. Just a magnetic backing security camera with WiFi from JB that costs $200 each would be enough.
I think the afl should have sensors in the ball to detect if it's been touched/hit the post. Like a little seismograph and coordinates to see where the ball was.
This could be quite a costly investment and possibly unreliable with how much impact a footy takes during a game. Surely they could implement hotspot like in cricket? One thing for sure is that they need an immediate upgrade to their camera technology to support a higher frame rate, and implement better policies to utilise the technology they have so that one umpire isn’t copping the blame for a mistake that could easily be avoided.
@@CAMZ0MAN I mean it could be costly and I'm not saying we shouldn't also put in the hotshot/better cameras idea. I think it's worth bringing it up because player wear GPS trackers on there body during training and during matches so I think that a sensor for the ball isn't that far fetched
@@callumwilliams2172 Soccer has a sensor in the ball, mainly to see when the ball crosses the goal line and for offsides. They dont have the issue of the ball being touched or hitting the post,
The SANFL teams playing port power or Adelaide crows "reserves" team they are regularly ripped off by bad umpiring. Supporters complain and port and Adelaide have actually told SANFL supporters to "suck it up and swallow hard. Well now the crows can follow their own advice.
Gill the Dill is just about ready to clean out his office so he could not care less - as was evidenced with his token acceptance of accountability which means diddly-squat to any footy fan. If this situation occurs in the last moments of a grand final I imagine he'll quietly exit via the back door. What a leader...
Firstly, stating up front that you are a Crows supporter was smart and well done for a fairy unbiased review a very average piece of umpiring. Excellent video, with lots of relevenat points. I'd feel robbed if I was a Crows supporter.
I am neither Crows nor Swans but I was watching this live on Fox. The side on view from the goal line was not available on the live telecast, only the front on view, which more or less, appeared to support the goal umpire's call on first watch. To me personally, it looked too close either way, which warranted a review. The fact it was determining a goal should've been enough reason to review it, also the fact there was 80seconds left to play was another reason, and most importantly, as they'd been ramming it down our throats all night, the Crow's entire season hinged on a win and that was surely THE biggest reason to review it. You'd think one of the field umpires would have sent it upstairs. Also, haven't we always been told that every goal or shot on goal gets reviewed? If so, why didn't the ARC communicate with the field umps to stop the play and wait for it to be properly determined. If not, why lie about every goal being reviewed for the last few years. This monumental cock-up should never have happened, it is a total embarrassment for the league and completely unacceptable at this level. The AFL's response has been predictably pathetic, akin to locking the barn door after the horse has bolted. The offending goal umpire has been made a scapegoat, when really the field umps are equally to blame imo for not calling for a review. Are they going to be stood down too? The fact that nothing was done by ANY umpire to call for a review, makes myself and many other people I have discussed this debacle with, believe that corruption is commonplace among those officiating games in this league, especially considering how closely sports betting has grotesquely latched itself onto the coattails of this hugely profitable industry in recent years, to the point where almost every ad break during a match is riddled with betting promos and live odds. I wonder how many people bet at half-time for an Adelaide victory and what the odds of that were at that point, and whether there was collusion between these betting agencies and the highest echelon of AFL officialdom. It leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. Great video btw.
It was very clear to anyone watching live on TV, that it hadn’t hit the post, but rather had hit the padding from just the front on view, even the commentators assumed this.
@wayneperry7413 yeah, sure, the top part of the padding was what I was referring to, sorry for not mentioning that, in the ARC reviewer's eyes any part of the padding is considered part of the post which is why I referred to it as such. If it allegedly hit any part of the post it was the top part of the padding
As a Swans supporter I believe this should at the very least have gone to arc, why, well if the situation was reversed in favour of the Swans, I would want it.
There is a simple no cost fix. A ball that goes through the goal posts regardless of whether it hits the post or not and goes over the line needs to be called a goal. Just like in soccer and rugby. If it hits the post and goes back into play then it is a point.
You got through this a lot calmer than I would have. I can't believe they didn't review it. Snicko would have picked up (or not) that it didn't hit the post. I like the idea of a captain's/coaches call too. I think the other thing they need to do too is get someone in the ARC who has a better understanding of the game. I am a Freo fan and we got robbed of a goal because it touched the defenders arm, but what they failed to realise is that the ball was still in contact with our players foot at the time and after it was no longer touching the Port players arm. My point is they sometimes look at the wrong thing because they don't really understand the game, even though they know the rules.
A clever response from the Swan defenders: they took the kick-out, and played on as quickly as possible. Keep in mind Sydney were leading: normally it would have been in their interest to waste a bit of time. Any pause and one of the field umpires would have called for a goal review. But with the ball in the hands of players running out of half-back, the field umps didn't have the composure and perspective to stop play and call for a review. For all the criticism of the goal umpire, this was also a field umpire stuff-up: hit post or not, a goal review should definitely have been called for, and wasn't, so a field umpire gave the score the all-clear?
@@purplexs2506Yeah spot on about the Sydney players taking off straight away. They would have know it didn't hit anything. This is also a failure of the AFL. They have a policy that EVERY goal is reviewed but there is heaps of times a point is called and they don't review it unless an umpire asks for it. Also how many reviews have they got wrong this year anyway? Heaps....At least judging by what we see in the coverage.
@BorkenGarage the coverage isn't showing every angle, which is annoying, it should showing exactly what the arc is looking at, with arc person describing what they are looking at just like in cricket.
The goal umpire said he heard the ball hit the post wow great hearing he has with the noise of the crowd. That Gill accepted that as a reason shows the naivety of Gill at its best.
Funny how they fucked up so badly and didn’t use score review for the reason that score review was created for in the first place (after Geelong won the 2009 GF for a kick being called a goal that hit the post) Appalling on the AFL and Gil Mclachlans part.
Definitely immediate intervention whether its coaches or a selected official in the screen room watching everything. The people in the screen rooms would have seen it and could challenge it.
1:19 it looked like the goal umpire potentially had some players' arms waving around in his line of sight to the ball. so perhaps there should have been enough doubt there for him to call for a review. and even if there was no arms, obviously he should have called for it regardless! About your coaches challenge suggestion, how much time would he have to challenge it? it might take him at least 15 seconds to realise exactly what's going on and then contemplate challenging it, and by that time Sydney had it half way down the other end already.
Pure robbery. The fact is wasn't even reviewed is baffling. Close games, close situations in important moments MUST be reviewed!! I'm a Blues supporter and we were lucky with the review last week - I felt there was some silly calls that went the Dees way which lead to goals so I feel it's pretty fair (biased obvs) - but the Crows were 110% ROBBED. They were looking to make a bang in finals and was taken away by an umpire needing to go to specsavers.
The problem with coaches challenge is that it stops a game and can be used to slow momentum. The game is continuous when a point is scored. Sydney took advantage of this while Adelaide were celebrating, which is their right. However soccer has already figured it out. In soccer play is continued for offsides, penalty shouts and bad fouls....and is reviewed in the booth while play is going on. They wait until there is a break in the play and then review. In AFL the review in the booth can be done while play is continuing, and If there's an obvious problem the message can be relayed back down to the umpire to change the call. This method is already done in AFL when theres an interchange infringement. Play is continuing until the official from the bench alerts the umpires. This was such an obvious mistake the booth should have been able to alert the officials within 30 seconds....stopped the play....and reversed the original call.
The AFL really need to pull their finger out and address this head on. Otherwise fans are going to slowly loose faith in the credibility of a game we all love to watch. I used to be a footy umpire when I was young and seeing this upsets me. Really hope the AFL find a way to eliminate the chance of this ever happening again.
The call was unfair but the mistake didn't come from cameras, it came from human error. The camera showed the ball crossing clearly. So while improving technology is needed it's going to take time and I think the focus should be on training umpires. They need to know when and when not to take calls upstairs because they obviously failed here, but have at other times in the season too. Anyway, love the video, great summary
Just one comment on the ARC footage - it doesnt look perfectly synchronised. The shadow the ball is casting on the goal post doesn't quite look right comparing top to bottom - top frame has shadow on the side and front, bottom frame has shadow on the side and back. It's only a small matter, and i dont think it influences the outcome - that the ball didn't hit the post - but it does make the evidences possibly slightly less damning
I think cricket has the right ideas with player reviews, two challenges per game allowed with a system that rewards serious reviews and punishes frivolous ones. I think it would be more worthwhile to have the full forwards/full backs designated challenger in the forward/backline rather than it falling to either coaches or captains specifically though, as coaches are always going to be a distance from the ball, and captains positioning is dependent on the position they play. Nicks was right when he said that they lost the game in the first two quarters and not in that single moment, but the fact that the results impact other sides apart from the crows is probably the best reason for the afl to get their shit together on the tech side of things
Considering all the rule changes. Just make it. If it goes through the goals it's a goal. Even if hits the post. If it bounces back into play it's a point.
Tbh it happened in the 2016 gf when JJ kick a goal in the 4th they had got all setup for a ball up but it got revived and change back into a point so they have the power too just didn’t choose too
It affected 4 teams. It knocked Adelaide and Geelong out of the race, and confirmed Sydney and Saints will play finals. We were all robbed of what would have been an amazing final round. 6 teams would have been vying for 3 finals spots. I cant recall any season with so many options going in to the final round. Now its only a battle between 2 teams - either GWS or Bulldogs get in to 8th.
I'm a Crows fan but I'm philisophical about the loss and not making finals, we robbed ourselves this year by poor kicking at goal when we were on a roll, young and inexperienced team than will take huge learnings out of what was an almost season. Having said that the AFL definately has to get better at this, better cameras as you pointed out may help but whatever tech you have is pointless unless you have a process that allows it's use. ALL scores should be reviewed.
Main issue for the Crows is to somehow get a quality defender, Charlie Ballard is a good Sturt boy they should be chasing. Also on the mental side they need to not just presume they will automatically improve next year and make finals.
Just imagine if this was Collingwood!!!!! OMG I would have bet the house the AFL world be in an uproar!! Just another example of an "interstate club" getting treated differently.
@johngoogle8635 you're missing the point, I meant if one of the big 4 Melbourne teams were in the same position....... It's hypothetical mate, surely you can understand the point???
A commercially-available phone has the capability of capturing Slo-mo video in 1080p at up to 240fps, 4K at 60. If the AFL says they can’t do that with professional cameras, I can’t accept that.
As a Tigers Supporter I can tell you reviewing Goals can also bite you on the bum too and the wrong decision still gets made. Last year in 2022 in the Final of Brisbane vs Richmond, we all know about the Arc decision where the field umpire who was standing directly under the goal post calls Tom Lynch's kick a goal. It gets reviewed and the guy reviewing it takes only 30 seconds to overrule. To overrule what the field umpire has said needs DEFINITIVE evidence. Like in this video I have freeze framed the 3 different Arc views of the ball as it passes the post. In that instance the ball went higher than the goal post yet when you put the 3 ARC images together in that instance it actually justifies the on field umpires call of a goal. That reversed decision cost Richmond a final. Last week between Melbourne and Carlton, the goal umpire called Touch for Petracca's goal. They reviewed it. I suspect the reviewer thought it wasn't touched as most people looking at it thought, HOWEVER in this instance he said "Insufficient Evidence to overrule" and went with the field umpires call. That changed the outcome of the match too. Where was that decision for the Richmond V Brisbane final where the nuff nuff reviewing it took less than 30 seconds to make his decision which overruled the umpire believing he had sufficient evidence, which when looking at that footage carefully I can see was wrong. Getting back to this incident, my point is goals that are reviewed still aren't getting the correct decisions made. It is a joke. Can't we get better video technology or even a system where goal umpires have immediate access to a device that tells them what the computer thinks (similar to what happens with serves in Tennis).
Well when Josh Jenkins hit the post and later admitted it, there was no score review and the umpire was made to look a fool. This time the very same umpire was made to look an even bigger fool when he claimed the ball hit the post because he heard it hit with that crowd noise but didn't need to call for a review again shows he is unworthy of being an umpire. How many times does he have to screw up and not learn from his mistakes before sent packing. As a SA based umpire who has cost Port Adelaide and now Adelaide crows a win by his incompetence its back to the sanfl forever as the crowd will never accept him to umpire another afl game at Adelaide oval. He will get a reception like never before seen against an umpire if they were to allow him to umpire another afl game and rightly so if one can't learn from one's mistake.
@@holdingthebullit’s the umpires that make sure certain teams get the doubtfuls at the right time. Under instructions from the AFL who want as many Victorian teams in finals, they (AFL) hate interstate teams.
Billion dollar industry with cameras that aren't even as good as some you tubers.. Either way, perfectly sums up crows season. Should have been solidly in the 8 but pissed away so many games, even this one 4g 8p last quarter.
The field umpires can definitely call for a review if they choose to. HawkEye and GLT (from soccer) is virtually useless in football since the contentious point in football is usually whether the ball has touched a hand or the post and not just did the ball cross the line... I think the score review would have got it right here. The issue was that it wasn't sent. Given that they do review some VERY obvious decisions it is baffling why they didn't review this one.
May be AFL needs a DRS style goal referral system that the team captains can initiate to stamp out these costly howlers, may be experiment with one allocation per team and the referrals are exhausted regardless of outcome with no way to “retain” or “loose” a review.
Saying that it did not cost the crows the game because other misses cost them the game is akin to if my aunty had balls she would be my uncle or if the goal post was a foot wider the other ball that hit the post would have been a goal and won them the game.
Umpiring decisions this year cost the Crows 8 points. This is THE SECOND TIME this year that McLaughlin has apologised to the Crows for incorrect umpiring decisions !!! 😡😡😡😡
Mistakes are made but this one is beyond a mistake...GWS 20 goals in front get a ARC review but a game that hinges on whether or not teams make finals - nothing. And the AFL response tells you everything you need to know. Why can't the ARC ref intervene with a "sorry, wrong call by goal umpire reverse decision."
Even though this should have been a goal and crows were robbed with AFL just telling the club and fans to suck it up, 12 missed opportunities beforehand wasn't sealing the deal. Tough luck with the hopeless review system. Agree that either captain or coach should have a review system like similar to cricket that they can have 3 reviews in a game
Excellent video presentation.... The coaches or the captain should be allowed to question the decision... The crows we're celebrating and the Swans continued playing & the moment had passed us by... If the captain's or coach can intervene what is the harm in stopping play... They were clearly celebrating and had no power to question the decision As for goal umpires anything that close goes to video... Too many times umpires make mistakes.. their human..... & If that is not acceptable then clearly AFL management is not professional
Now going to start with some context. I haven't watched your video yet (hard to at work). Also a Crows diehard. The first thing I want to say is the ump deserves redemption. I think the rest of the season off is way overs (Jesus Christ we give players 1 week for grabbing a player by the junk and eye gouging). He wasn't match fixing. He wasn't trying to give Sydney the win. He screwed up and he deserves a chance. Let's not forget a certain ex captain that got himself into trouble a couple years ago that we all backed in to do better. To the media pointing out that he was involved in the Jenkins post controversy, that time he did what we asked for this time and went to the ARC. There was insufficient evidence to overturn the soft call. We can't have it both ways and tear him a new one for both as an industry. Second. There are more issues than an Adelaide loss and missing the finals. Our loss blew multiple other clubs chances at making it. There is also revenue lost to players and staff in finals bonuses, to the extra people who get memberships because of the strong finish and the potential of making your club more desirable as a trade destination. Multiple clubs will be spewing over this. Third. There is nothing that can reasonably be done about this. Because of how deep this affects the ladder and results, if the AFL do something about it (split points, compensation of some kind... Whatever) someone will be unfairly punished for something out of their control. It's a massive headache for the AFL whether there is action or inaction. Fourth. Rule amendments. The only amendment I can see working was suggested by FOX in having every score reviewed, and winding the clock back for it if there is a change made. While I like this idea, logistically it's a nightmare. Player stats and fatigue in lost time. Also imagine that moment the other way with that rule. We get up by 4 only to have a review change the result. That's heart breaking. My only suggestion? Get rid of the ARC. Umps call is final and there are no cameras on the posts to take the ambiguity away. Ignorance is bliss. Until we have automated umpires just keep it simple. Now I'll watch your video when I get home tonight
Question, what if the cats won against collingwood by less than a goal after those two disasterous dissallowed goals ? one of which was admitted to by the AFL as an umpiring error? There'd be a media riot
I feel Adelaide have been shafted all year, not just this game. Honestly, I'm not making any accusations, but it is at least possible corruption was involved.
Absolute bush league In Ice hockey (NHL), all attempts on goal are reviewed by the league office reviewing all available angles, frame by frame etc. If its determined the refs missed a goal call on the ice, the horn gets sounded and the refs have to roll the clock back to the time of the goal and restart the play in the centre. Basically the exact concept the AFL need to employ and a pretty simple one at that.
Josh Jenkins goal in the showdown, didn’t hear them complaining then, didn’t have the luxury of all the angles back then, poor choice not to review but justice from 2018
@@Pablo-no1lo it did actually, because they rested at the end of the year because they were already gone, The review of all 10 seconds. Not arguing that didn’t review that and I said poor choice not to review in this instance
Adelaide V Sydney. The AFL should make the recent game 'VOID' as concrete evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the final score was incorrect. The AFL cannot award Sydney or Adelaide any points. The game as It stands is VOID! Incomplete! Thus the AFL out of basic common sense must do one of three things. Award the win to Adelaide OR arrange an Adelaide V Sydney replay prior to the finals. The outcome will effect other clubs too. Or replay 1.11 minutes with the corrected score Adelaide 11 12 78 to Sydney 11 8 74. The 1.11 minute game would commence with a centre bounce. It could be played at the end of another AFL game say Hawthorn v Melbourne? I think a complete rematch would be better. If both clubs agree. One of the above solutions would make a good precedent if this sort of thing happens again. It can't be left as it is. That would be unjust. Agree? This is a concern for all clubs as it could happen to any club. What if Adelaide went on to win the premiership? It's possible.
I know you are disappointed, and fair enough. And you did a pretty good job of being objective. But I'd make two comments. First, in a one point game, all critical decisions - including ones in the first five minutes of the game - have a bearing on the outcome. We tend to focus on ones in the dying seconds, but they all matter. Second, I think Adelaide is a long, long way in credit where decisions at the Adelaide Oval are concerned! There have been some horrible home team decisions over the years. The last quarter of this year's Adelaide v Collingwood game comes to mind as a good recent example. So, yeah, it sucks that a poor decision was made, but in the big picture I'm not sure it's that significant.
Bang on, all this talk of the AFL compensating the crows is outrageous! On that basis, all teams that lose should be compensated for a bad umpiring call. You have nailed it with your analysis here.
I feel the rules of the game put the umpires under stress they need to judge whether if hit the post and cross the line. It would be better they change the rule that if it hits and still goes through it a goal. Only when the ball hit the post and lands back in play that a poster is given
@@chadchadderton I don't think it that idiotic, tell me which other sport that hitting the post stops it from being a score. Its an AFL thing, that instead of throwing technology (which your local comp don't have) could be solved it a different way.
@@barrydobson2283 you might not think it is idiotic, but unfortunately for you... it's idiotic. Tell me which other sport in the world is australian football? go on champ, tell me which non australian football sport around the world is actually australian football... I'll wait.
I've got a FREE and faster solution. In ice hockey there is wording in the rules such as "obvious" So for example you can't score a goal off your skate "with an an obvious kicking motion" this means that if there is any legit debate then by simple logic it wasn't 'obvious', and therefore a goal. I think the AFL needs this kind of thing, like "a behind is scored if the ball obviously touches the goal post" strong emphasis on the obvious. This could be used for touches etc as well like the carlton/dees game. The other plus is skipping a lot of tedious reviews.
That's quite interesting. Sometimes it does just graze the goal post so that means its a behind. So what you're saying is those ones would remain a goal and not a behind? Does that still come down to the umpire?
@@holdingthebull yeah it's the ump that decides but the emphasis is on the obvious. I'm not gunna lie this still causes arguments when people dont understand that aspect of the rule, but if there is doubt its a goal, no looking for bumps in the audio and slowing it down 50 times, if that's needed then straight away it's not obvious right? Of course the specific rule I'm referring to is something hard to define (the kicking motion) but I think it could work, they could cover themselves more by adding something about the ball must visibly deviate or something.
Imagine next season the same thing happens but the crows get the win over sydney then they use this new tech that Holding The Bull has mentioned and reverses it and sydney win by a goal aha. double wammy two years in a row to the same team aha.
The cameras are bad which is unforgivable given the technology available. The technology in Soccer is 100% better.This whole issue points to manipulation by the AFL. The crows probably would have made the finals but now not. How much potential for income, membership etc has been lost because of this "Mistake", could be in the millions.
I lost 14k not making the 8..crooked game, why couldn't the game be replayed. No integrity in this competition. Teams dont play each other twice, games are scheduled to ensure better tv ratings, ive cancelled my kayo subscription, i urge all other crows fans do likewise. Cartel like run corporation. Hopelessly crooked
It looked like the ump was wearing glasses....ban goal umpires that wear prescription eyewear... how can you have an impairment to a body part so essential to your job and still be in it? The video resolution/framerate is shameful to the point of negligence. I think if not for the slippery ball we would've SMASHED Sydney. A frustrating season, but way better than I thought it would be? All care factor gone for the rest of the season. Ruined by incompetence.
honestly ur fine to be biased here, anyone on the wrong side of this would be but it’s really shocking how not only u guys but now geelong and richmond can’t make finals.
The AFL would be smart if they took a leaf out of the way the Soccer World Cup was played…. First they had a team of people watching the angles, and if anything contentious happened, that team picked the eyes out of it….AS THE GAME KEPT GOING! If something was found, a message went out to the Ref who stopped the game, AND DEALT WITH IT…. No arguments, then the game kept going….. Another thing too, adverts…. Didn’t get them until half time… in AFL, it after every goal, plus quarter time, and halftime…. Let’s put this into perspective, that’s at least 45 minutes without an advert in the world, not withstanding random banner running at the bottom of the screen or edges……
why is this decision any more or less important than the many other decisions in the game. Someone running to too far, non throw call, any other infringement? The massive focus on this is entirely misleading. The Umpiring is never going to be perfect. Peopel should accept that. Not everything needs to be fixed.
