Match Day Rnd 14 Sydney V Essendon. SCG 19.50 pm.

[top40]

Your above point shows how important Buddy's final miss was.....it allowed the ball to stay in our forward zone via Papley's excellent spoil, for the final thrust which resulted in Rohans mark and goal. If Buddy had kicked it straight, the game would have likely been a draw. Buddy's final point effectively won us the game......

A behind close to the final siren by a Swans forward legend that at the SCG that ultimately results in defeating the Bombers by a point. Sounds very familiar.

[stevoswan]

There was definitely a touch by a finger of the Buddy one but I still think the ball had fully crossed the line.

I do have to laugh at the Essendon supporters complaining that it should have been a free against Naismith and then Rohan ????.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

I can see their argument re: Naismith, but it was barely there....and Rohan was being held and wrestled which is why he had to mark it with one hand! He should have got a free! Geez those Bomber fans are dills.....

[dejavoodoo44]

The finger is bent back. If you take that the ball must have caused the finger to be bent, and even though the hand was behind the line, not all of the ball could have been behind the line, because the ball is, say, 13cm thick, and his hand is not 13cm behind the goal line.

* I'm assuming a goal is only once the entire ball has crossed the line. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, no. At maximum reach, there is a natural tendency for the fingers, especially the index finger, to bend back (try the simple experiment yourself). This because an over-extension of the arm, has a similar effect as a slight contraction of the muscles of the forearm. Also, there could be an involuntary reflex movement of the fingers, as our subconscious neural mechanisms, tend to want to avoid being whacked by hard objects moving at high speed. So, spotting a finger bent back, is not conclusive proof that it's been struck by the ball. Especially when the vision of the ball is a high speed blur.

[dejavoodoo44]

I can see their argument re: Naismith, but it was barely there....and Rohan was being held and wrestled which is why he had to mark it with one hand! He should have got a free! Geez those Bomber fans are dills.....

Yes, and I found it strange, that the same umpire, who was totally zealous in awarding the puzzling 50 against Towers, didn't seem to have a problem with Essendon players standing a few metres over the mark, when Gary ran in to take his kick.

[AnnieH]

Well, no. At maximum reach, there is a natural tendency for the fingers, especially the index finger, to bend back (try the simple experiment yourself). This because an over-extension of the arm, has a similar effect as a slight contraction of the muscles of the forearm. Also, there could be an involuntary reflex movement of the fingers, as our subconscious neural mechanisms, tend to want to avoid being whacked by hard objects moving at high speed. So, spotting a finger bent back, is not conclusive proof that it's been struck by the ball. Especially when the vision of the ball is a high speed blur.

The ball doesn't move from its trajectory.
If the ball is touched, you would expect that the ball will move from that touch.
The ball doesn't move... it goes straight through.

[Beerman]

Well, no. At maximum reach, there is a natural tendency for the fingers, especially the index finger, to bend back (try the simple experiment yourself). This because an over-extension of the arm, has a similar effect as a slight contraction of the muscles of the forearm. Also, there could be an involuntary reflex movement of the fingers, as our subconscious neural mechanisms, tend to want to avoid being whacked by hard objects moving at high speed. So, spotting a finger bent back, is not conclusive proof that it's been struck by the ball. Especially when the vision of the ball is a high speed blur.

In one frame the finger was there, in line with the other fingers. In the next frame that finger was bent back so far you couldn't see it. The other fingers were still in line and hadn't moved. In the third frame you could see the finger bent back, but not as far (moving back into position). Note that this is less than 1/10 of a second. It is not "waggling fingers"

Initially, I thought the same as you - the ball went behind the hand, but those three frames are pretty clear.

It's a good example that goal line technology can help.

[swansrob]

I don't know how or if I can post a GIF, so just click the link
Matthew Storey on Twitter: "What the hell is this? https://t.co/XP69NrZPPm"

[barry]

The ball doesn't move from its trajectory.
If the ball is touched, you would expect that the ball will move from that touch.
The ball doesn't move... it goes straight through.

The ball trajectory change from a tip of one finger would be so small as to be impossible to detect, especially with the dick smith web cams the AFL use.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see their argument re: Naismith, but it was barely there....and Rohan was being held and wrestled which is why he had to mark it with one hand! He should have got a free! Geez those Bomber fans are dills.....

I think you'll find Rohan did a lot of the wrestling in that final mark. He basically wrestled himself to the front of the contest. All above board though.
If you were an essendon fan, you'd be pretty disappointed in the effort of the defender who almost had front position at the time the ball was kicked.

[bloodspirit]

I don't know how or if I can post a GIF, so just click the link
Matthew Storey on Twitter: "What the hell is this? https://t.co/XP69NrZPPm"

Hammy visuals but hilarious just the same! Thanks.

[dejavoodoo44]

In one frame the finger was there, in line with the other fingers. In the next frame that finger was bent back so far you couldn't see it. The other fingers were still in line and hadn't moved. In the third frame you could see the finger bent back, but not as far (moving back into position). Note that this is less than 1/10 of a second. It is not "waggling fingers"

Initially, I thought the same as you - the ball went behind the hand, but those three frames are pretty clear.

It's a good example that goal line technology can help.

Hmmm, I'm not totally sure that it's a clear cut example of technology can help? While plenty of examination of paused frames, seems that it is more likely that the ball was touched before it fully crossed the line: I still don't think that it is conclusive, as the frozen frames are more fields than exact images. That is, each important part of the picture is indistinct. Is the position of the ball the leading edge of the yellow blur? If so, in one of the frames, it seems that the ball has just passed the index finger, but the finger is yet to move? In another frame, the fingers are so varied, that there appears to be six of them. While various bits of the hand are transparent.
Interestingly, a fair bit of the ambiguity is decreased, when the images are not separate freeze frames. Which suggests that this is an example, of our minds constructing a reasonably coherent animation or narrative, out of a really quite ambiguous set of images. As we do.

[barry]

The summary is dejavoodoo, that at best the image is inconclusive, and therefore by the AFL rules, the goal umpires initial call stands.

Which is what happened.

[dejavoodoo44]

The summary is dejavoodoo, that at best the image is inconclusive, and therefore by the AFL rules, the goal umpires initial call stands.

Which is what happened.

Ahhh, it seems like only a few hours ago, that you were arguing that the bent finger was conclusive evidence. Actually, it was only a few hours ago.