Match Thread. Swans v Geelong.

[neilfws]

I'm impressed! Once you've cleared out the peripheral noise, you'll have to share the final product with us.

Alright. Let's wrap this up as it's getting a bit obsessive and nerdy, even by my standards

Here's the commentary as the ball is kicked to Cameron. Processed a little to dial down the crowd noise, but still similar to the original.

Here's a second version, processed more heavily to remove all the crowd noise. So in this one the voices are rather distorted and some of the umpire voice is lost.

In both cases after Darcy shouts "boot to ball", I hear "play on" followed by a short sound, which sounds like the same voice. The word is indistinct but it's too short to be "not 15" and the right length to be "touched".

(note Soundcloud has an annoying "auto-play the next track" feature that I haven't figured out how to disable yet)

And here's a slowed-down animated GIF video of the kick. You'll see Ryan Clarke go left, then lunge to the right in front of Menegola (27) as the ball comes off the boot. And Nicholls raising an arm - though it's not clear if it's to signal.

[Sandridge]

Just loving your work neilfws !

[Hotpotato]

My mate was yelling all night at the ground :
PAY THE TACKLE , PAY THE (Swans) TACKLE

I said that they (the umps) would have to find a way to even things up even a little bit purely for basic fairness in the contest over the whole game.

[bennyfabulous]

I dont know if this will work but, i filtered it too and cut it together over and over https://soundcloud.com/user-62803341...afl-conspiracy swans afl conspiracy by bennyfabulous | Free Listening on SoundCloud

[bloodspirit]

Well, I don't know that I'm enlightened. But great efforts!

[Industrial Fan]

It’s funny that’s what I heard with the coverage (touched, play on) but the afl show (360?) had very clear audio of the ump saying not 15 and really nothing else.

I guess there won’t be hysteria to justify a clarification of this but I had the same though of whether they’d isolated just one ump mic for the broadcast.

I guess that’s the point of being a rabid fan that these things are hard to let go of.

[sharp9]

There is clearly a “play on” before Darcy says “boot to ball” - careful listening on the last 2 minutes. About the 360 - was that all the umpires on one track?

[neilfws]

It’s funny that’s what I heard with the coverage (touched, play on) but the afl show (360?) had very clear audio of the ump saying not 15 and really nothing else.

Interesting! One thing I have learned from this is that it is very easy to hear what you are "primed" to hear.

Honestly, I don't know exactly what was said by whom. All I know is that someone yelled "play on" immediately after the kick to Cameron, and Clarke may have been in a position to touch it (but don't know if he did).

I note that Cameron was much closer to the ball when it was kicked and ran some distance to catch it. So maybe an umpire saw him close, saw the ball go high in the air and reflexively called not 15, even though it was by the time he got to the ball.

[dejavoodoo44]

Interesting! One thing I have learned from this is that it is very easy to hear what you are "primed" to hear.

Honestly, I don't know exactly what was said by whom. All I know is that someone yelled "play on" immediately after the kick to Cameron, and Clarke may have been in a position to touch it (but don't know if he did).

I note that Cameron was much closer to the ball when it was kicked and ran some distance to catch it. So maybe an umpire saw him close, saw the ball go high in the air and reflexively called not 15, even though it was by the time he got to the ball.

Yes, chances are that some of us, including me, experienced an interesting example of cognitive priming. That is, Nicholls going early with his play on call (more or less temporally where a touched call would be) and a fair bit of random noise, caused us to hear a touched call, that probably wasn't there.

One bit of priming that pops up occasionally, concerns foreshortened camera angles. For instance, I might see an incident, where an arm moves rapidly towards a head, the head swings back and I think, 'He's going to get weeks for that'. Then they show a couple of other angles, which reveal that the swinging arm missed by about 10cm and that the head movement was just a small natural reaction. But because the original slightly unnatural angle, essentially removed the distance between arm and head, the incident was mentally processed as contact being made.

And that is why I'm a little bit the uncertain, about the replays that judge whether a shot for goal has been touched or not. Especially the ones where the side on angles don't show a touch, but the front on angle shows what might be a touch. In these, it could be that because we don't perceive any distance between the ball and the hand, as the ball passes by, that we then see a finger move, because that's what we expect to see, and not because that what has actually occurred.

[Mark26]

Interesting! One thing I have learned from this is that it is very easy to hear what you are "primed" to hear.

Honestly, I don't know exactly what was said by whom. All I know is that someone yelled "play on" immediately after the kick to Cameron, and Clarke may have been in a position to touch it (but don't know if he did).

I note that Cameron was much closer to the ball when it was kicked and ran some distance to catch it. So maybe an umpire saw him close, saw the ball go high in the air and reflexively called not 15, even though it was by the time he got to the ball.

The bias is inherent in all of us ... which makes me think that wasn't a player of ours done for holding the ball during the match when they thought they took a mark, but the umpire called play on? I can't remember who that was. Maybe McInerney? Cameron was caught holding the ball by Paps. Should have been a free to us if there was any consistency, but I'm happy with the end result.

[Scottee]

Its amazing how we have not seen any other camera angle footage to do with this. It must exist, but it has been withheld.

I personally am in no doubt about the ball being touched. The amount of time between the "Play on" calls is too short for "Not fifteen" but just right for "Touched" . The fact that Ryan's hands seem very close to the ball adds weight to this. And the reason you would hear Play on called immediately after the kick is what you would expect from a "touched" call rather than the umpire anticipating a short kick.

I think that there has been some skulduggery going on here; that could have something to do with the previous mistake in the Lions-Geelong game. I suspect that the AFL made a call on the decision being wrong with proper investigation. Its only if you watch the replay and get pre-programmed by Richo who is sitting hundreds of kilometres away from the action, that the, "not fifteen" becomes a thing. Adding weight to this is the sudden departure of the umpires coach with any real explanation days after the incident.

I am not by nature a conspiracy theorist but there is something dodgy going on here imho.

[snajik]

The bias is inherent in all of us ... which makes me think that wasn't a player of ours done for holding the ball during the match when they thought they took a mark, but the umpire called play on? I can't remember who that was. Maybe McInerney? Cameron was caught holding the ball by Paps. Should have been a free to us if there was any consistency, but I'm happy with the end result.

Are you thinking of Hayward, where it was clear he hadn't heard the umpire's call?