Though I haven't managed to bring myself to watch the replay, the decision that mystified me more than the flailing in the air ones, was the one where Rampe was apparently penalized for shepherding Brown out the marking contest. If I remember rightly, Rampe and Brown were moving towards the ball, but Rampe pulls up, because he sees that Grundy is in a much better position to take the mark. Which Grundy does, while there is a brush of the shoulders between Rampe and Brown.
This was ruled to be shepherding, apparently because Rampe should have went for the ball. Which is ludicrous, because if he flew, there would have been about a 98% chance that he would've clattered into Grundy and spoilt his marking attempt, while possibly injuring himself and his team mate.
I see no reason why Rampe should have been obliged to do that. Nor do I think that he should be under an obligation to leap out of Brown's way, once he had made the sensible decision not to fly.
Yes, I when I read that, I thought that it might be handy, if some journalist was to quiz whoever made that statement, as to what actually qualifies as "definitive evidence". That is, why is one replay that showed the fingers bending back "definitive evidence", while another replay that showed the fingers bending back, is not considered to be "definitive evidence"? I'd be interested to hear an official explaining the difference between the two.
You are missing the point. The AFL doesn't say there was not definitive evidence to overrule the decision. It says "There was not enough definitive evidence to overrule and change the decision in time before the restart of play..." So there may have been plenty of evidence but the evidence wasn't "in time"
Weasel wording par excellence
Well, it's probably a quality of weasel wording, that statements can have, both, multiple meanings and no real meaning at all. But I still think that they were trying to make some sort of distinction between distinctive evidence and some lower form of evidence.
Actually, if they were going to explain what happened honestly, it might sound something like this, "Yeah, the guy in the replay booth was trying to make up his mind, whether the ball had been touched or not, but then he realised that that clown Nichols had already bounced the ball. So then we thought, maybe if we say nothing, then everybody would just forget about it. But hey, no such luck. And really, I don't know you people are still going on about it? I mean, haven't you all got anything better to do? Fake news!"
I think the AFL have deliberately sidestepped the question. Surely the goal review system should be there to correct wrong decisions if they are wrong. If they can't do that in the time available then that doesn't make the original decision right.
I was in the car listening to the call of that match today and heard one of those reviews and it took a way lot longer than Steven Hocking's "20-30 seconds" for it to happen. I was shouting "Oh, you'll review that one today after about a minute! You weren't that courteous last night!!" It makes me so angry......
Why is anyone surprised by the AFL's response.... the most arrogant of arrogant organisations these days. Just needs a wanker banker to run the joint and they'd be completely perfectly set up. They will justify anything to meet their required means.
As for Ben Brown, I've already said my views - I think he does seem to exaggerate contact and make a meal of it at times.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Bookmarks