I have just watched the kayo replay again on my phone and I’m sure the first call is touched
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought the same, and to test my bias had a couple of non-Swans’ fans listen as well. I guess it shows that it’s hard to hear what’s being said past the interminable drivel of the commentators.
At the ground, the crowd was going berserk, and no one could hear a thing. Agree on the karma, after Geelong’s 3 gift goals.
For those who heard 'touched', has anyone considered that it was not an umpire, but rather a player or spectator who called 'touched'?
I heard it too Bloods05. Repeated as you say. Recognisable as the voice of the umpire.
I must say I find this situation quite peculiar. Was the AFL evening up for Geelong's fake victory against the Brions where their joy of victory was undermined, by trying to do the same thing to the Swans? In the Brions game there was no doubt, in this gamer there is no evidence of a wrong call. I don't think the AFL have even spoken to the umpire. I think they are just going by the overdubbed dumb commentary of Richo who was trying to stir up intrigue and controversy from hundreds of kilometres away watching the game on a monitor as far as I can tell. Could it just be dodgy, manipulative marketing tactics by the AFL?
We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!
Are you guys who heard the “touched play on” call sitting in the Swans cheer squad who sit on the fence in that part of the ground?
My mates were also sure it was “touched, play on”. As one of them said today, “not enough syllables happening” for “not 15, play on”. Having done some work in TV in my younger days, I’m now wondering if Fox Footy overdubbed the sequence.
In the end though, whether this is a confected controversy or not, we still won, despite the 3 gift goals the Cats got.
As for AFL360, what was once compelling viewing has morphed into a bit of self-indulgence from the two hosts, and is no longer part of my footy media landscape.
I also heard "touched play on, touched play on, touched play on" when I watched the 'Last 2 minutes' video of the AFL website here: Last Two Minutes: Sydney Swans clinch a thriller
On that video, I there is absolutely no way I could reintepret that audio as saying "play on not 15"
However, the commentator said he thought the umpire said "not 15"
So I wonder if one umpire said "touched, play on", (picked up on Channel 7 broadcast), whereas the other umpire's audio of "not 15" went to the commentators/Fox Footy? If thats the case, and one umpire spotted and called 'touched', regardless of an incorrect call by the other other umpire, Play-on was the correct decision.
In any event, as many others have pointed out, the Cats were beneficiaries of a number of other inarguably incorrect decisions throughout the game that directly resulted goals. So the ourtcome for the game was fair.
Bookmarks