The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

[hujsh]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

Fair enough.

I just had a closer look, frame 1 is what they used to say it was in control and hadn't crossed the line.

Frame 2, you can clearly see the ball has spun from the previous frame and that his hand isn't completely on it so there's enough doubt for me that you can't definitively over rule.

It might have been a mark. Considering the goal umpire called a point, and the evidence is suspect i think its a mistake.

I'd like to see clarification on exactly at what point a ball is controlled if it's something that's going to be reviewed with this below par video review technology. Is it as simple as if the ball is in the players hands and they end up controlling it that counts? Does the control need to be complete before the ball crosses the line? If the ball is spinning is it still 'controlled'. Feels like there's a lot of grey area here once you start deviating from the umpire and going frame by frame instead

[Sedat]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

I'd like to see clarification on exactly at what point a ball is controlled if it's something that's going to be reviewed with this below par video review technology. Is it as simple as if the ball is in the players hands and they end up controlling it that counts? Does the control need to be complete before the ball crosses the line? If the ball is spinning is it still 'controlled'. Feels like there's a lot of grey area here once you start deviating from the umpire and going frame by frame instead

Pretty simple, if it is not 100% definitive the umpire's call has to stand. No way was it 100% conclusively controlled before the whole of the ball crossed the line - ARC made an error and it needs to be formally acknowledged, but in true AFEL makey uppey fashion that will not be happening.

We were already punished by not being able to run it out quickly from the restart.

[azabob]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

Ball was still spinning WD over the line wasn't it?

Both Stengle and Cameron were laughing their heads off after he kicked the goal, both knew he was very lucky.

[Mofra]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

If we're talking footy robbery this weekend, Fremantle have a stronger argument than we do.

[Mofra]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

Both Stengle and Cameron were laughing their heads off after he kicked the goal, both knew he was very lucky.

Cameron kicked a goal last year when he was so far out he needed a ground pass to get back to his position.
Ironic considering their home ground has no wing on one side of it

[Sedat]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

If we're talking footy robbery this weekend, Fremantle have a stronger argument than we do.

They sure do, but you never give a sucker an even break and Treacey fluffed 2 simple chest marks to retain possession on the wing with under 4 minutes left when they were a goal and a half in front. Should never have lost from there and Longmuir knows it.

[GVGjr]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

[Bornadog]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

The home teams must play each other, otherwise they end up with an extra home game each

[SquirrelGrip]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

I'm yet to go, but I think it's a great as long as they keep it about the fans, not the corporates. It's in school holidays which is perfect for kids and families, plus South Australia is pretty accessible to most states, especially Victoria.

As for as equity goes for the competition, it would be fairest for Adelaide to play Port Adelaide, as this is an extra round which is not meant to disadvantage anyone. However as far as maximising crowds goes, you want home games for each of Adelaide and Port Adelaide. But given the AFL never really has equity at its heart, as long as we don't play one of those teams I selfishly don't mind who else does.

The concept of the "Expansion Cup" between GWS and Gold Coast being played each year in a cow paddock in the Adelaide Hills is one I quite like, so I hope they continue that each year.

For South Australia, it's a definite win and I'd be interested if economically it's more attractive to them than hosting an AFL Grand Final. I suspect it is.

[Happy Days]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

The home teams must play each other, otherwise they end up with an extra home game each

Mind blowing that this is allowed and never even seems to get raised. Having a showdown as the headline game is such an obvious slam dunk anyway.

[JanLorMill]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

After it's 2nd year of games in SA what's everyone's thoughts if Gather Round is a success or not?
I'd prefer a better 2nd venue was made available because that one at Norwood Oval is a genuine compromise but I'm warming to the concept as being a good one for football.

If you play a non Southern Australian side that weekend, that should be the only time that season(apart from finals) you play them, once at a neutral venue is fair enough. The sides that play Adelaide and Port, them must play again at the their venue(ie be it Victoria, WA, NSW, QLD).

[ledge]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

I can’t believe they didn’t play both Adelaide games on the Sunday. It makes sense to make them wait and still be hungry for previous games . We all know a lot of supporters aren’t interested in the rest of the games if their side loses.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

Geelong. I hate them to a visceral level.

I think I'll skip watching our games v Geelong in the future. My heart (and dog) will thank me for it.

But just to be clear, I ****ing hate everything about that over entitled, long haired, smug shitstain of a club.

[jeemak]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

Geelong. I hate them to a visceral level.

I think I'll skip watching our games v Geelong in the future. My heart (and dog) will thank me for it.

But just to be clear, I ****ing hate everything about that over entitled, long haired, smug shitstain of a club.

****en Dempsey's ****en face.

It's not even his fault, but his face is Geelong.

[Scorlibo]

Re: The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

I was almost ready to move on from this, but seeing as it's the soapbox thread...

From my viewing I'm happy he had control of it. Again, I acknowledge that I'm an outlier on this one.

Depends on your definition of controlled I suppose. The ball had literally only just made contact with his hands. How many marks would be paid if simply touching both hands is the criteria?

What happens after the line is irrelevant - it's out of play. So I think we have to look at it in the same way that we would look at a defender making a spoil at the moment the ball crosses the line. Imagine there is a defender's fist exactly a ball's width behind the line. Is there any chance at all that it gets paid a mark when it's spoiled a split second after making contact with Stengle's hands? Why is the goal line different?

In fact there were several non-marks within the game (Dale on the wing was one, Geelong had a couple) that were spoiled after being in the hands for somewhere between 10-20x longer than Stengle's attempt, and play on was called.

But of course the far easier argument to make is: if everyone's debating whether it was controlled in time or not, then that is not definitive, and therefore not able to be overturned.

The arrogance from the ARC (and the AFL) is what irritates me so much here. They've called for a review themselves for the first time ever, and then overturned the decision on footage that (to me) suggests a clear behind.

On the call Richo saw how bad the decision was but then Jason 'Vanilla' Bennet starts banging on about how all of the ball must be across all of the line. DUH no one is disputing that he made contact with the ball before it crossed the line!