The Neal-Bullen non goal

[Gawndy the Great 7,524]

18 minutes ago, No10 said:

I’ve watched it, scrubbed and zoomed. Not there. Not touched.

Who at the club do you expect to hear from? The president? I don’t hear much from her at all.

Whereas Collingwood or Hawthorn in their window, I know you would.

This is precisely the problem, a winning culture. Can not accept less so easily.

 

I can see a deviated wedding ring or middle finger on his right hand on the lower picture. The picture above is 2 frames prior to give you a baseline.

I take no pleasure in trying to prove this point, it’s up to you whether you see the proof or not. 

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by Gawndy the Great

[No10 323]

13 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

I can see a deviated wedding ring or middle finger on his right hand on the lower picture. The picture above is 2 frames prior to give you a baseline.

I take no pleasure in trying to prove this point, it’s up to you whether you see the proof or not. 

 

I know, I uploaded the video. The middle finger is possible. But unlikely. If there was a touch it would’ve bent backwards and separated from the other fingers. All the fingers continue into the same motion blur direction as the ball passes and the hand moves down.

This isn’t proof. That’s why it’s a problem.

[daisycutter 28,604]

20 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

I can see a deviated wedding ring or middle finger on his right hand on the lower picture. The picture above is 2 frames prior to give you a baseline.

I take no pleasure in trying to prove this point, it’s up to you whether you see the proof or not. 

 

well i think the point is that it has to be pretty conclusive to overide

i just can't see anything conclusive and i'm trying to be as neutral as i can

[Turner 1,482]

On 9/18/2023 at 11:17 AM, WalkingCivilWar said:

Then how on earth did the Ben Keays goal vs Sydney remain a behind?

For mine, that was the biggest howler of the season since there was absolutely no question it was a goal, a fact that was confirmed when the AFL came out and apologised for it. At the time someone on here said who cares it’s Adelaide, I hate ‘em anyways. But that’s not the point. Even disregarding the fact that it cost Adelaide a chance to play finals, it was the most outrageous goal decision we’ve seen in a long time. 

i have an insider in the ARC so i know how it works and the process was once the ball is live -so kicked out by the swans defender the arc can no longer jump in and overturn, it's that simple, they saw it but had genuinely no time to get in

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

on the footage above, and watching in slo-mo and frame by frame

i see no finger bending

i see no ball deviation

i can't therefore see any conclusive evidence to overturn all umpires decisions, who didn't even refer it to arc

very surprised the press hasn't picked up on it

cost the game????

the broadcast cuts at a poor time but on the wide angle u can see the ball pop off the hand and change path slightly and the finger definitely flicks on the review unfortunately, i just watched it back

1 hour ago, GBDee said:

Some of the confusion stems from the evidence presented by Ch7 at half-time. Evidence that was flawed. I can’t upload the clip but in the first still below, the 3rd/4th fingers of Kemp’s bandaged left hand appear to touch the ball and, trust me, they did seem to wobble. Ch7 went back and forward in slowmo on this and I was taken in and posted as such on the matchday thread. (Ignore the hands at the top btw, they’re Hewett’s but he’s actually 2m from the ball.)

Shameful smoke and mirrors by Ch7 as the next shot reveals. His left hand was actually nowhere near the ball.

Indeed, the goal was overturned by ARC because it “was touched by the right hand of the Carlton defender” (although I’d argue this was inconclusive so it should have stood as a goal).  

Begs the question though, why did Channel 7 present seriously flawed evidence at HT to support the ‘touched’ narrative? 

coz its their fancy 4k zoom camera new toy that the afl is paying overs for so they wanted to use it even if it didn't add anything

[No10 323]

45 minutes ago, Turner said:

i have an insider in the ARC so i know how it works and the process was once the ball is live -so kicked out by the swans defender the arc can no longer jump in and overturn, it's that simple, they saw it but had genuinely no time to get in

the broadcast cuts at a poor time but on the wide angle u can see the ball pop off the hand and change path slightly and the finger definitely flicks on the review unfortunately, i just watched it back

coz its their fancy 4k zoom camera new toy that the afl is paying overs for so they wanted to use it even if it didn't add anything

This is a nice defence of your friend in the ARC.

But at the end of the day, you’re looking at the same footage as everyone else and I don’t see the finger bending or the deviation.

Honestly, I can be impartial and if the field umpire called touched I would’ve accepted that. But this isn’t even close to a standard for overturning.

[No10 323]

3 hours ago, No10 said:

This is a nice defence of your friend in the ARC.

But at the end of the day, you’re looking at the same footage as everyone else and I don’t see the finger bending or the deviation.

Honestly, I can be impartial and if the field umpire called touched I would’ve accepted that. But this isn’t even close to a standard for overturning.

@Turnerthat sounded sarcastic about your ARC friend, wasn’t meant to be. But I mean… if you have a friend in the ARC, maybe there’s something we can offer so these 50/50 calls fall in our favour next year? Demonland membership perhaps?

[daisycutter 28,604]

8 hours ago, Turner said:

i have an insider in the ARC so i know how it works and the process was once the ball is live -so kicked out by the swans defender the arc can no longer jump in and overturn, it's that simple, they saw it but had genuinely no time to get in

the broadcast cuts at a poor time but on the wide angle u can see the ball pop off the hand and change path slightly and the finger definitely flicks on the review unfortunately, i just watched it back

coz its their fancy 4k zoom camera new toy that the afl is paying overs for so they wanted to use it even if it didn't add anything

well show me the footage you are talking about

[Redleg 37,757]

14 hours ago, daisycutter said:

on the footage above, and watching in slo-mo and frame by frame

i see no finger bending

i see no ball deviation

i can't therefore see any conclusive evidence to overturn all umpires decisions, who didn't even refer it to arc

very surprised the press hasn't picked up on it

cost the game????

The media don’t give a rat’s about us.

We are seeing that demonstrated over and again.

So much luck in footy. Carlton have had 7 arc reviews since the Petracca one and won every single one. In the same period we lost all of ours. One different result against Carlton would have had us in the PF.

[jnrmac 19,082]

10 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

I can see a deviated wedding ring or middle finger on his right hand on the lower picture. The picture above is 2 frames prior to give you a baseline.

I take no pleasure in trying to prove this point, it’s up to you whether you see the proof or not. 

 

You cant overturn a goal on that. Nothing definitive whatsoever. No umprire called it. The ARC made its own decision.

 

Its garbage

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,618]

We were basically denied 3 goals…..

The Neal Bullen “touched”.

The obvious front on interference on Smith, directly in front of goal, in Q1.

The reversal after Smith’s good mark in front, when Pickett and McGovern jumper pushed each other in the upper chest.

          Also, but less definite,late in the last quarter Viney was thrown off the ball during a scrimmage in our goal-square.

          Does anyone know what the free was for, against Oliver in Q4, in our forward pocket?(when he was given a millisecond to move back, but penalised 50 metres for not stepping back fast enough.) Compare that to the non-50 metres when he was retarded in the centre after marking in Q4.

It seems we were unlucky repeatedly with 50:50 decisions, so we lost by 2 points and are branded “chokers”, while every Carlton player is a gutsy champion.

[Deesprate 1,168]

9 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

We were basically denied 3 goals…..

The Neal Bullen “touched”.

The obvious front on interference on Smith, directly in front of goal, in Q1.

The reversal after Smith’s good mark in front, when Pickett and McGovern jumper pushed each other in the upper chest.

          Also, but less definite,late in the last quarter Viney was thrown off the ball during a scrimmage in our goal-square.

          Does anyone know what the free was for, against Oliver in Q4, in our forward pocket?(when he was given a millisecond to move back, but penalised 50 metres for not stepping back fast enough.) Compare that to the non-50 metres when he was retarded in the centre after marking in Q4.

It seems we were unlucky repeatedly with 50:50 decisions, so we lost by 2 points and are branded “chokers”, while every Carlton player is a gutsy champion.

The free was against MacDonald not Clarry. Complete BS for to high TMac tried to jump over the guy. The 50 was against Clarry for not moving back the fact it would have been impossible to hear never occurred to the preened 22. We got absolutely screwed on these decisions notwithstanding we shot ourselves in the foot

[monoccular 16,170]

I still can't get an answer - did the guy who was deemed to have touched it protest that he did?  It is (conveniently) absent from the footage.

[YearOfTheDees 3,095]

2 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

We were basically denied 3 goals…..

The Neal Bullen “touched”.

The obvious front on interference on Smith, directly in front of goal, in Q1.

The reversal after Smith’s good mark in front, when Pickett and McGovern jumper pushed each other in the upper chest.

          Also, but less definite,late in the last quarter Viney was thrown off the ball during a scrimmage in our goal-square.

          Does anyone know what the free was for, against Oliver in Q4, in our forward pocket?(when he was given a millisecond to move back, but penalised 50 metres for not stepping back fast enough.) Compare that to the non-50 metres when he was retarded in the centre after marking in Q4.

It seems we were unlucky repeatedly with 50:50 decisions, so we lost by 2 points and are branded “chokers”, while every Carlton player is a gutsy champion.

You could add a fourth, the block in the goal square that allowed Acres. Hands in the air no attempt to mark. 

[Gawndy the Great 7,524]

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I still can't get an answer - did the guy who was deemed to have touched it protest that he did?  It is (conveniently) absent from the footage.

There didn't appear to be much from memory but I was at the ground and refuse to watch any footage of that game other than what is posted here on DL. But I'm sure all clubs have been told that all goals / points will be reviewed, so you could argue that he was confident that it would be picked up via the ARC. 

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,618]

23 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

There didn't appear to be much from memory but I was at the ground and refuse to watch any footage of that game other than what is posted here on DL. But I'm sure all clubs have been told that all goals / points will be reviewed, so you could argue that he was confident that it would be picked up via the ARC. 

Unlikely scenario!

If the Carlton guy got a fingernail to it, he would have desperately gesticulated to the umpire immediately….. not just hoped the routine review would pick it up despite his indifference.

[layzie 29,081]

3 hours ago, Deesprate said:

The free was against MacDonald not Clarry. Complete BS for to high TMac tried to jump over the guy. The 50 was against Clarry for not moving back the fact it would have been impossible to hear never occurred to the preened 22. We got absolutely screwed on these decisions notwithstanding we shot ourselves in the foot

One thing that really peeves me off right now is a free kick deep in the forward line and then a 50 straight after to bring them right out of trouble. The whole thing happens too quickly for comprehension and it's always impossible to explain to someone who doesn't know much about the game. 

[WalkingCivilWar 32,345]

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well show me the footage you are talking about

Dais, Turner is referring to the Ben Keays goal, Adel vs Syd., not the ANB non-goal. 👍🏽🙂

[biggestred 4,326]

4 hours ago, Deesprate said:

The free was against MacDonald not Clarry. Complete BS for to high TMac tried to jump over the guy. The 50 was against Clarry for not moving back the fact it would have been impossible to hear never occurred to the preened 22. We got absolutely screwed on these decisions notwithstanding we shot ourselves in the foot

Clarry had to go back to the 9.

Its been a 50 all season. He didn't. He should have known. 

[daisycutter 28,604]

5 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Dais, Turner is referring to the Ben Keays goal, Adel vs Syd., not the ANB non-goal. 👍🏽🙂

oh, rightio

[mrtwister 650]

17 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

I can see a deviated wedding ring or middle finger on his right hand on the lower picture. The picture above is 2 frames prior to give you a baseline.

I take no pleasure in trying to prove this point, it’s up to you whether you see the proof or not. 

 

I’ve seen plenty of marks paid that are a lot more obviously touched than this. 
Add it to the ‘why is it always us’ list. 

[GBDee 347]

5 hours ago, monoccular said:

I still can't get an answer - did the guy who was deemed to have touched it protest that he did?  It is (conveniently) absent from the footage.

Yes. Kemp immediately tapped his hand to claim a touch but this means nothing as players are now routinely doing this, regardless... A goal was called but ARC will have seen Kemp’s claim which may have influenced them to overturn. 

[Turner 1,482]

11 hours ago, daisycutter said:

well show me the footage you are talking about

for legal reasons im not sure im allowed to

15 hours ago, No10 said:

@Turnerthat sounded sarcastic about your ARC friend, wasn’t meant to be. But I mean… if you have a friend in the ARC, maybe there’s something we can offer so these 50/50 calls fall in our favour next year? Demonland membership perhaps?

trust me mate it was as painful for me as it was for the next person

[Fork 'em 6,537]

11 hours ago, Redleg said:

The media don’t give a rat’s about us.

 
Our brand is boring, monotonous and un-attractive.
 

If I was the media I'd wouldn't either.

Edited September 20, 2023 by Fork 'em

[daisycutter 28,604]

55 minutes ago, Turner said:

for legal reasons im not sure im allowed to

trust me mate it was as painful for me as it was for the next person

surely you are not suggesting the arc is some sort of secretive organisation that doesn't have to be transparent?

if there is nothing to hide why not show the footage?

[monoccular 16,170]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

surely you are not suggesting the arc is some sort of secretive organisation that doesn't have to be transparent?

if there is nothing to hide why not show the footage?

Maybe it will leak out once Collingwood and Carlton are securely locked away onto the GF 🤔