Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 6121314151617 LastLast
Results 181 to 192 of 199

Thread: #AFL Round 7, Swans vs North, 7:25pm at the SCG #AFLSwansNorth @sydneyswans

  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    "There was not enough definitive evidence to overrule and change the decision in time before the restart of play, so the original decision stood."
    That's a textbook example of weasel wording. Doesn't say there was no evidence is was touched, only not "in time before the restart".

  2. #182
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,567
    Flat out lie!
    Quote Originally Posted by MattW View Post
    It was very strange.
    Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
    We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

  3. #183
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Close to the old Lake Oval
    Posts
    3,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    That response from the AFL is typical - find a way to say it was actually OK, whether it addressed the issue or not. The real problem is that umpires have, and will now do so even more given the edict to try and save time on reviews, justified not using the goal review process on the basis that a decent review occurs anyway after each goal. But that just isn't the case.

    The Ben Brown frees were a disgrace really - just poor umpires getting absolutely sucked in. Only certain players get away with those, and Brown has elevated himself to that level where he has a reputation for being a good mark on the lead and/or overhead, so when he stages in those instances, the umpires take a view that 'he must have been infringed to have gone under the footy like that' - totally ignoring what actual contact was made, if any.
    Sheer arrogance again from AFL. Would win more kudos for admitting mistake was made. Treats people like idiots.

  4. #184
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post
    At times, he looked like a "wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man".

    I was watching the game on TV and on two of his free kicks I kept rewinding and playing over and again multiple times to work out what Rampe had done wrong. I went through each criteria for an infringement and could not detect one. Perhaps if you run around like a flailing tube man people will just assume you have been retarded in some way.
    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.

  5. #185
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    That's a textbook example of weasel wording. Doesn't say there was no evidence is was touched, only not "in time before the restart".
    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.

  6. #186
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    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

  7. #187
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    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!"

  8. #188
    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.

  9. #189
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    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.
    Yep. That explanation is actually absurd. To set a practice by reference to the length of a tv commercial will produce random and thus unsporting results. And for what? No reason related to what's happening on the field.

  10. #190
    Quote Originally Posted by CureTheSane View Post
    Well doesn't Facebook suck again today.

    People complaining not only about plan A but also plan B
    Calling for blood, sooking complaining.
    Goal reviews, umpires etc etc etc

    I'm heading to Canberra for 4 days, in the morning and I'll be too busy while I'm there to bother with Facebook.
    By the time I'm back hopefully it will be a bit better
    Keep a lookout for Roos if you're driving at dusk. I drove to and from Sydney (from Melb) last week. Roos and wallabies everywhere at dusk and I must have seen 300 carcasses.

  11. #191
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    Especially when there two similar incidents in today�s Tigers Freo game which they correctly called touched.
    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......

  12. #192
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    7,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    That response from the AFL is typical - find a way to say it was actually OK, whether it addressed the issue or not. The real problem is that umpires have, and will now do so even more given the edict to try and save time on reviews, justified not using the goal review process on the basis that a decent review occurs anyway after each goal. But that just isn't the case.

    The Ben Brown frees were a disgrace really - just poor umpires getting absolutely sucked in. Only certain players get away with those, and Brown has elevated himself to that level where he has a reputation for being a good mark on the lead and/or overhead, so when he stages in those instances, the umpires take a view that 'he must have been infringed to have gone under the footy like that' - totally ignoring what actual contact was made, if any.
    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."

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO