POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 8

[Cards13 5,290]

10 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Given that none of the feral crowd, players or umpires picked up on it, I'm going with it being an optical illusion. 

Mate I was on the hill and went full feral when he kicked it!! Was very quiet around me for some reason... 

[Sir Why You Little 18,355]

9 minutes ago, brendan said:

Yep it looks strange the slow mo, but the camera behind the goals shows it's a clear goal no way it hit the post 

When a video is recorded using Slow Motion, frames are "dropped" not shown. 

Normal speed is 25 frames per sec

so it is quite possible that a frame jump was shown. 

The Video review system as it stands now is very cheap and nasty

the need 4-5k Cameras

it's not as if they couldn't afford them

[DemonOX 5,694]

1 hour ago, Delusional demon 82 said:

Yeah, KB saying it hit the post twice ?? So it's not in his mind goal of the week .... WTF

watching the game on Tv and hearing commentary there was no suggestion that it clipped the post 

me thinks sour grapes from tigerland

I sent a text into sen to tell KB to stop bagging Olivers goal and it was read out too but the little f ockers censored what I sent in. Not happy about that but at least they read it out.

[DemonOX 5,694]

43 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

When a video is recorded using Slow Motion, frames are "dropped" not shown. 

Normal speed is 25 frames per sec

so it is quite possible that a frame jump was shown. 

The Video review system as it stands now is very cheap and nasty

the need 4-5k Cameras

it's not as if they couldn't afford them

I will take ur word for it Sir. 

[jnrmac 10,885]

Its a goal and is therefore eligible for goal of the year. Full stop.

Should win too.

[Wadda We Sing 6,767]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

When a video is recorded using Slow Motion, frames are "dropped" not shown. 

Normal speed is 25 frames per sec

so it is quite possible that a frame jump was shown. 

The Video review system as it stands now is very cheap and nasty

the need 4-5k Cameras

it's not as if they couldn't afford them

Eggzactly. Considering when you watch sports like the F1 for example, the cameras can show rubber on the track tossed up by tires at 300kph in perfect slow motion. You would think a football traveling at 25kph or thereabouts, through a set of stationary white posts, wouldnt be the most technical R&D challenge in the world. Perhaps they could apply for funding.

[sue 5,045]

I'll probably be pilloried, but I don't think any goals from the boundary should be goal of the year unless something spectacular was done to win possession and get the kick away.  They are generally just flukes - kick it 100 times and one will go through -  that one shoudln't get goal of the year.    I'd rather a goal from dead in front that results from some spectacular difficult play than most kicks from the boundary.  That said, there was more to Oliver's goal than just a kick from the boundary.

[Wadda We Sing 6,767]

1 hour ago, Fork 'em said:

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2017-05-15/mark-and-goal-of-the-year-r8

Well I've again reviewed the video tape.
As it only looks like it hit the post in the slow mo replay I reckon Daisycutter's on the money.

You right actually. I was concentrating on the slo mo......in which it seems the ball speeds up, like it ricocheted off the post. But in the real time footage this is not the case. Well spotted.

[DemonOX 5,694]

46 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

I sent a text into sen to tell KB to stop bagging Olivers goal and it was read out too but the little f ockers censored what I sent in. Not happy about that but at least they read it out.

It must be my day I just sent another text to sen and suggested Bernie Vince should have jumper punched the ump (cause he would have got a fine anyway) and the ox just said it on sen but he didn't say it was from a text. 

The stealing little bugger. 

[DemonOX 5,694]

16 minutes ago, sue said:

I'll probably be pilloried, but I don't think any goals from the boundary should be goal of the year unless something spectacular was done to win possession and get the kick away.  They are generally just flukes - kick it 100 times and one will go through -  that one shoudln't get goal of the year.    I'd rather a goal from dead in front that results from some spectacular difficult play than most kicks from the boundary.  That said, there was more to Oliver's goal than just a kick from the boundary.

Go sit in the corner Sue 

[Luther 4,878]

Enjoy.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2017-05-15/rd-8-all-the-goals

 

[Lucifer's Hero 15,504]

Bernie gets a $1,000 fine for a blindsided hit with the umpire - deemed 'careless contact'.

Guthrie gets off for pushing the umpire out of the way and he gets off - deemed "It was the view of the panel the contact was not unreasonable in the circumstances"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-15/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-eight

I'm convinced the MRP has it in for Demon players.

[beelzebub 19,609]

26 minutes ago, sue said:

I'll probably be pilloried, but I don't think any goals from the boundary should be goal of the year unless something spectacular was done to win possession and get the kick away.  They are generally just flukes - kick it 100 times and one will go through -  that one shoudln't get goal of the year.    I'd rather a goal from dead in front that results from some spectacular difficult play than most kicks from the boundary.  That said, there was more to Oliver's goal than just a kick from the boundary.

Can't agree at all.

He took the ball in play and purposefully ( very ) kicked it straight at the goals.

That you might' consider it a fluke or question its relative probably is either irrelevant or some might argue weight worth acknowledging in relation to the result.

Your converse ideal is actually what you describe " a piece of play" that might end in a deserving goal. If it was a continuous action it might indeed be worthy of goty. If a kick independent then its just a kick, its merits are its own.

[beelzebub 19,609]

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Bernie gets a $1,000 fine for a blindsided hit with the umpire - deemed 'careless contact'.

Guthrie gets off for pushing the umpire out of the way and he gets off - deemed "It was the view of the panel the contact was not unreasonable in the circumstances"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-15/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-eight

I'm convinced the MRP has it in for Demon players.

Plainly ridiculous. Umpire causes own demise...fine player

Player causes contact ...play on..wtf

[Sir Why You Little 18,355]

13 minutes ago, Luther said:

Enjoy.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/video/2017-05-15/rd-8-all-the-goals

 

Marvellous 7 minutes!!

[Sir Why You Little 18,355]

36 minutes ago, sue said:

I'll probably be pilloried, but I don't think any goals from the boundary should be goal of the year unless something spectacular was done to win possession and get the kick away.  They are generally just flukes - kick it 100 times and one will go through -  that one shoudln't get goal of the year.    I'd rather a goal from dead in front that results from some spectacular difficult play than most kicks from the boundary.  That said, there was more to Oliver's goal than just a kick from the boundary.

You cannot be serious at all please...

[3Dee 1,039]

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

the need 4-5k Cameras

it's not as if they couldn't afford them

Well the AFL just returned from China , heard they got a good deal!

[Jaded 14,555]

9 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Bernie gets a $1,000 fine for a blindsided hit with the umpire - deemed 'careless contact'.

Guthrie gets off for pushing the umpire out of the way and he gets off - deemed "It was the view of the panel the contact was not unreasonable in the circumstances"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-15/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-eight

I'm convinced the MRP has it in for Demon players.

[censored] joke!

The umpire reversed into Bernie! Disgusting. 

[Deeoldfart 3,632]

15 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Bernie gets a $1,000 fine for a blindsided hit with the umpire - deemed 'careless contact'.

Guthrie gets off for pushing the umpire out of the way and he gets off - deemed "It was the view of the panel the contact was not unreasonable in the circumstances"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-15/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-eight

I'm convinced the MRP has it in for Demon players.

Double standards again   Gives me the Tom [censored].

[Luther 4,878]

21 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Bernie gets a $1,000 fine for a blindsided hit with the umpire - deemed 'careless contact'.

Guthrie gets off for pushing the umpire out of the way and he gets off - deemed "It was the view of the panel the contact was not unreasonable in the circumstances"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-15/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-eight

I'm convinced the MRP has it in for Demon players.

Honestly, I thought Bernie was always going to cop a fine for that.

But the fact that Guthrie, who literally pushed the umpire out his way with force gets nothing, is an absolute farce.

[Sir Why You Little 18,355]

40 minutes ago, 3Dee said:

Well the AFL just returned from China , heard they got a good deal!

I know  how much did that rubbish cost us all

4K Go Pro Cameras are not that expensive and the AFL are certainly using eqipment inferior at the moment

 

[Dee Zephyr 6,933]

51 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Bernie gets a $1,000 fine for a blindsided hit with the umpire - deemed 'careless contact'.

Guthrie gets off for pushing the umpire out of the way and he gets off - deemed "It was the view of the panel the contact was not unreasonable in the circumstances"

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-15/match-review-panel-full-statement-round-eight

I'm convinced the MRP has it in for Demon players.

MRP is cooked, something needs to be done about it! The Ox in disbelief on SEN in regards to Cotchin's jumper punch which was deemed careless. He incurs the same penalty as Bernie for accidentally colliding with an ump. I'm lost for words!

[Cards13 5,290]

Isnt the rule that it is the players responsiblity to avoid the umpire? There was a spate of umpires being crashed into at bounces a few years ago so they changed the rule, of course unless they changed it again.

 

[Lucifer's Hero 15,504]

5 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Isnt the rule that it is the players responsiblity to avoid the umpire? There was a spate of umpires being crashed into at bounces a few years ago so they changed the rule, of course unless they changed it again.

Correct which is why it isn't surprising Bernie got a fine even tho he was blindsided and it was the umpires fault.

The problem is Guthrie literally manhandled the umpire and deliberately pushed him out of the way but was cleared. 

The inconsistency of interpretation is the issue. 

Which is what riles me as our players seem to get the raw deal more often than not.

Edited May 15, 2017 by Lucifer's Hero

[Lucifer's Hero 15,504]

Clean sweep of the coaches votes!

• 10  Viney
• 8  Hibberd
• 5  Oliver
• 5  Petracca
• 2  Vince

That is a seriously dominant performance by our midfield (and Hibberd). 

Well done guys.

Btw Oliver is now 3rd on the leaderboard with 36 votes, to Sloane (42) and Yeo (43), leading such luminaries as Ablett, Bontempelli, Selwood and on it goes.