Round 15 Non MFC Games

[Engorged Onion 10,215]

3 minutes ago, Macca said:

Touched off the boot can easily be exploited by a player attempting to smother the ball.  Just flick your fingers back at the appropriate moment.  Easy as pie.  Who is to say it hasn't already happened.

So we now have another grey area which will continue to be a grey area.  Unless it's an obvious touched off the boot I'd pay it as a goal.

But what is an obvious touched off the boot?  Again,  just another grey area without a definitive answer.  Hot spot?  Technology often brings its own issues.  I don't trust the technology in cricket even though the graphics paint nice pictures.  Especially ball tracking. 

I prefer the rub of the green alternative ... take the good with the bad and get on with it.  You want perfection?  You won't get it.

I've been trying for 5 minutes... I assume you must be double-jointed/hypermobile.

[Macca 16,972]

2 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

I've been trying for 5 minutes... I assume you must be double-jointed/hypermobile.

You go in for the smother with your fingers in an almost fist like position ... at the appropriate moment,  flick your fingers back.

[Lucifers Hero 39,870]

Has the AFL introduced a new criteria:  touched 'beyond reasonable doubt'?  Score review

Gil:

"It was reviewed for 40 seconds, the vision using the Hawkeye system which people saw, and they had to make a decision about was that ball touched beyond reasonable doubt..."That's the standard to overturn the decision.

To date I thought the 'standard to overturn' was some evidence of a touch, however slight.  At least that is how it seems to have been implemented.

A new AFL rule invented to justify the outcome they want:  Nothing to see here, walk on...

Edit:  a bit more from Gil:  Gil won't say if decision was right or wrong!

"McLachlan said he had seen the vision but refused to give his own opinion on the call...When asked what the AFL interpretation of the legal concept "beyond reasonable doubt" was, McLachlan deflected".

Gil has no idea how 'beyond reasonable doubt' is to be applied.  Its just more grey; more guesswork; more room for subjective calls!  Amateur hour. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Lucifer's Hero

[daisycutter 29,616]

luci, i must say i have watched the vision (maybe there is more vision i don't know about) and i couldn't say whether it was touched or not. the vision is not good enough quality (for this purpose) and the frame rate is not sufficient for good quality slo-mo. also on other occasions where many have claimed to see a touch (not all cases) i have similarly been unconvinced.

i think the real problem is that our technology is nowhere good enough at this stage for the marginal touch cases.

i agree though that there is certainly a process problem and too many officials/commentators talking bs and jumping the gun

[Demonland 72,217]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Touched off the boot can easily be exploited by a player attempting to smother the ball.  Just flick your fingers back at the appropriate moment.  Easy as pie.  Who is to say it hasn't already happened.

So we now have another grey area which will continue to be a grey area.  Unless it's an obvious touched off the boot I'd pay it as a goal.

But what is an obvious touched off the boot?  Again,  just another grey area without a definitive answer.  Hot spot?  Technology often brings its own issues.  I don't trust the technology in cricket even though the graphics paint nice pictures.  Especially ball tracking. 

I prefer the rub of the green alternative ... take the good with the bad and get on with it.  You want perfection?  You won't get it.

That's a hell of a lot of precise multitasking to do in a split second when you're trying to actually smoother the ball.

[Demonland 72,217]

Only Essendon fans could whinge like this after a game they were gifted by the umpires. 

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Has the AFL introduced a new criteria:  touched 'beyond reasonable doubt'?  Score review

Gil:

"It was reviewed for 40 seconds, the vision using the Hawkeye system which people saw, and they had to make a decision about was that ball touched beyond reasonable doubt..."That's the standard to overturn the decision.

To date I thought the 'standard to overturn' was some evidence of a touch, however slight.  At least that is how it seems to have been implemented.

A new AFL rule invented to justify the outcome they want:  Nothing to see here, walk on...

Edit:  a bit more from Gil:  Gil won't say if decision was right or wrong!

"McLachlan said he had seen the vision but refused to give his own opinion on the call...When asked what the AFL interpretation of the legal concept "beyond reasonable doubt" was, McLachlan deflected".

Gil has no idea how 'beyond reasonable doubt' is to be applied.  Its just more grey; more guesswork; more room for subjective calls!  Amateur hour. 

I heard all of Gillian’s Press Conference. 

I found it to be an embarrassment, he really is a shocking Corporate Head. 

The AFL should be funding 4K Cameras at every venue to make the review system work as it should. 

Meanwhile Gillian takes home over $2mill a year. 

The AFL are becoming a Political entity rather than Football Custodians. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

7 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I heard all of Gillian’s Press Conference. 

I found it to be an embarrassment, he really is a shocking Corporate Head. 

The AFL should be funding 4K Cameras at every venue to make the review system work as it should. 

Meanwhile Gillian takes home over $2mill a year. 

The AFL are becoming a Political entity rather than Football Custodians. 

Did he mention booming attendances? He seems to think that's a get out of jail card for all that ails the AFL

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

4 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Did he mention booming attendances? He seems to think that's a get out of jail card for all that ails the AFL

But they are not booming.. measured as a percentage of population they are probably falling year on year.

Add to that if you look at removing the four biggest attendance clubs the raw numbers are probably trending down if not staying the same.

And of course the elephant in the room is the next TV deal.

Foxtel’s cost-cutting represents an immediate challenge for Rugby Australia, a crisis for FFA in two years time and a problem for Supercars.

Even the major winter codes, such as NRL and AFL, will flatline revenue wise and be forced to increase attendance, sponsorships and membership sales if they want to sustain players' salaries at current levels.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/australian-sport-s-tv-gravy-train-heading-to-the-end-of-the-tracks-20190514-p51nbq.html

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

4 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Did he mention booming attendances? He seems to think that's a get out of jail card for all that ails the AFL

Yes that old chestnut. Games like last night, really [censored] people off. It was just plain cheating on behalf of the rules. 

I/We can speak here as absolute neutrals, but Essendrugs advantage last night, was bigger than what Meth Coke get in Perth. 

I turned it off in disgust, because there were no rules applied, or not The Australian Rules i grew up with

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

I prefer the rub of the green alternative ... take the good with the bad and get on with it.  You want perfection?  You won't get it.

We're human beings, we understand that we can't have perfection.

That is no reason why we can't strive to improve, though. Nor why we should have to accept something sub-standard.

We want consistency. Even if it occasionally leads to unexpected outcomes, a transparent system where everyone understands what's going on is what is needed. The current system shambles has enormous room for improvement.

 

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Touched off the boot can easily be exploited by a player attempting to smother the ball.  Just flick your fingers back at the appropriate moment.  Easy as pie.  Who is to say it hasn't already happened.

You "just" flick them back?

With your hand eye co-ordination, you should be playing cricket for Australia. Bradman-esque.

 

[Diamond_Jim 12,592]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Gil has no idea how 'beyond reasonable doubt' is to be applied.  Its just more grey; more guesswork; more room for subjective calls!  Amateur hour. 

Wow... that brings back memories of the Essendon supplement case... obviously special rules for those boys... no balance of probabilities for them.

[loges 6,767]

2 hours ago, Macca said:

Touched off the boot can easily be exploited by a player attempting to smother the ball.  Just flick your fingers back at the appropriate moment.  Easy as pie.  Who is to say it hasn't already happened.

So we now have another grey area which will continue to be a grey area.  Unless it's an obvious touched off the boot I'd pay it as a goal.

But what is an obvious touched off the boot?  Again,  just another grey area without a definitive answer.  Hot spot?  Technology often brings its own issues.  I don't trust the technology in cricket even though the graphics paint nice pictures.  Especially ball tracking. 

I prefer the rub of the green alternative ... take the good with the bad and get on with it.  You want perfection?  You won't get it.

Pretty sure the player is more intent on smothering the ball than thinking about any flicking motion, and no you won't get perfection, that doesn't mean you should stop striving for it.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

17 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Wow... that brings back memories of the Essendon supplement case... obviously special rules for those boys... no balance of probabilities for them.

“We need a Strong Essendrug within the Competition...”

Gillian...

[Redleg 40,944]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

luci, i must say i have watched the vision (maybe there is more vision i don't know about) and i couldn't say whether it was touched or not. the vision is not good enough quality (for this purpose) and the frame rate is not sufficient for good quality slo-mo. also on other occasions where many have claimed to see a touch (not all cases) i have similarly been unconvinced.

i think the real problem is that our technology is nowhere good enough at this stage for the marginal touch cases.

i agree though that there is certainly a process problem and too many officials/commentators talking bs and jumping the gun

Rest easy Daisy, it was conclusive and beyond reasonable doubt. The   GWS player has 3 broken and dislocated fingers. 

End of story.

[Redleg 40,944]

15 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

“We need a Strong Essendrug within the Competition...”

Gillian...

29-14 frees and several terrible marking and holding calls back up your statement.

This has been a terrible year for the AFL and I think Gill will take up a role with another organisation that is out of the public eye, before next season. 

I cant wait for some has been to be dug up for the GF entertainment or some rapper that no one over 18 has heard of.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

10 minutes ago, Redleg said:

29-14 frees and several terrible marking and holding calls back up your statement.

This has been a terrible year for the AFL and I think Gill will take up a role with another organisation that is out of the public eye, before next season. 

I cant wait for some has been to be dug up for the GF entertainment or some rapper that no one over 18 has heard of.

Memberships are not cheap anymore. If the AFL continues to allow blatant cheating to happen within games, a lot of people won’t be interested in “The AFL Brand”

When i was a kid in the 70’s, the idea of turning off a game of Footy on The TV ? was never contemplated, not once. 

Last night i turned it off, because it was so obviously biased towards the home team. 

[Macca 16,972]

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

That's a hell of a lot of precise multitasking to do in a split second when you're trying to actually smoother the ball.

Not really ... quite a simple exercise in fact.

Would take a bit of practice but like a lot of faking that goes on in footy,  can be done.

Not everyone can do what Selwood does with regards to accentuating high contact,  but not everyone has to do it for it to be a problem

It's like a 5% - 7% PED use in any sport ... the whole sport is therefore compromised becaise of that 5% -7% PED use.

[Macca 16,972]

43 minutes ago, loges said:

Pretty sure the player is more intent on smothering the ball than thinking about any flicking motion, and no you won't get perfection, that doesn't mean you should stop striving for it.

Yes and no.  It is entirely possible to have a number of different outcomes depending on the action.

You are still flinging back your fingers ar the right moment to smother the ball (if practised enough)

The sport is full of cheats and cheating if you really analyse things

[Macca 16,972]

1 hour ago, Mazer Rackham said:

You "just" flick them back?

Yeah ... precisely as I outlned.

I have run this past about 50 people in the last few years (since the technology appeared) and the reaction is always the same

"I never thought of that,  good point" (or words to that effect)

These players only really do one thing in their lives and that is to train and play footy

So if my idea hasn't crossed their minds I would be surprised.  The sport is full if cheats and cheating so why not?

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

25 minutes ago, Macca said:

Yeah ... precisely as I outlned.

I have run this past about 50 people in the last few years (since the technology appeared) and the reaction is always the same

"I never thought of that,  good point" (or words to that effect)

These players only really do one thing in their lives and that is to train and play footy

So if my idea hasn't crossed their minds I would be surprised.  The sport is full if cheats and cheating so why not?

A high quality 4-8k camera running at 1,000 f/ps will give a precise answer as to whether a ball is touched or not. 

It is entirely up to the AFL as to whether they are prepared to spend the money on such technologies, or whether it goes to the AFL Executives as bonuses. 

 

[Age 485]

2 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I heard all of Gillian’s Press Conference. 

I found it to be an embarrassment, he really is a shocking Corporate Head. 

The AFL should be funding 4K Cameras at every venue to make the review system work as it should. 

Meanwhile Gillian takes home over $2mill a year. 

The AFL are becoming a Political entity rather than Football Custodians. 

3.1 to be a little more precise...

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

1 minute ago, Age said:

3.1 to be a little more precise...

Even more of a con job if correct Age. 

That makes me really angry ? 

[Macca 16,972]

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

A high quality 4-8k camera running at 1,000 f/ps will give a precise answer as to whether a ball is touched or not. 

It is entirely up to the AFL as to whether they are prepared to spend the money on such technologies, or whether it goes to the AFL Executives as bonuses. 

 

Great point Wyl but if you had to put a substantial wager on whether the AFL will invest into that technology you'd be betting against it

So we'll just have to live with anothet grey area spitting out mixed results (no consistency)

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

Great point Wyl but if you had to put a substantial wager on whether the AFL will invest into that technology you'd be betting against it

So we'll just have to live with anothet grey area spitting out mixed results (no consistency)

The Clubs and fans must demand it, otherwise the competition is in danger. 

Don’t forget many people now watch the game on large HD Televisions now. 

I hope last nights game is the catalyst. It was unwatchable as a neutral supporter