The Neal-Bullen non goal

[Wrecker46 2,189]

23 hours ago, Redleg said:

Adopting my MFCSS hat I could say every new ruling always seems to go against us, Moloney weeks for non contact, Trengove 4 weeks for a sling tackle, where victim best on ground next week, Kozzie 2 weeks for a high bump with no injury and victim laughing, Sparrow sling where victim's head didn't contact the ground, etc, etc, etc. I am sure you can all come up with countless more examples.

Don't forget changing the ruck rules so Jeff White couldn't get his run up

Edited Tuesday at 12:03 AM by Wrecker46

[WalkingCivilWar 23,911]

2 hours ago, BDA said:

Because it wasn’t given a goal there was no time to review. Game had restarted 

What’s to stop this happening again?! It’s absolutely outrageous. The goal umpire on this occasion was stood down; cold comfort for Adelaide. 

[Brownie 4,629]

10 hours ago, No10 said:

Frame by frame, zoomed in, I’d have to say not touched.

Doesn’t matter to me in regards to the result, we lost for many other reasons.
But I do care there isn’t the kind of aggressive pushback that would happen if this was a different club. That’s twice in a month (against the same team) that we’ve lost by less than a goal and ARC has made a critical decision against, with questionable evidence. Zero discussion in the media.

Would this happen to Carlton or to Collingwood?

That's the bit that drives me insane.

I understand the media won't highlight it but what about our president speaking out.

There's so many examples of unfair treatment and rule tweaks, MRO decisions to our disadvantage yet you never hear boo from us.

We're way too nice.  

I think that's part of the reason they're comfortable in doing it.

As much as I dislike Maguire, he would not let these inconsistencies, (including Kozzies suspension for Cripps hitting the back of his head) stand.

I would love to see ump 22's for and against frees for us and in particular those paid against us in our defensive 50.

Maybe it's not a conspiracy (I think it probably is to have a pies vs blues granny) but this club is too soft in just copping it.

I knew as soon as that bloke was appointed to umpire a major final that these type of things were just going to make it a little harder for us on the night. He is rubbish.

[BDA 17,713]

10 minutes ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

What’s to stop this happening again?! It’s absolutely outrageous. The goal umpire on this occasion was stood down; cold comfort for Adelaide. 

it was a horror call. the process is stuffed and will be changed going forward i'm sure, but at the time the ARC followed their protocol correctly.

[layzie 26,474]

3 hours ago, BDA said:

Because it wasn’t given a goal there was no time to review. Game had restarted 

They should just give a goal as benefit of the doubt and change it if wrong. 

Will bug the hell out of us fans every time they go back to the middle after we've all celebrated but it least it will be right. 

[jnrmac 18,022]

none of the footage shown on the 7 telecast shows conclusively that it was touched.

For them to overrule on that basis is unbelievable.

Two games we have been dudded and 7 times Carlton have received the benefit of the review in the past 4 games.

The AFL is corrupt to the core.

 

Cripps didn't even have a concussion test until after the game. Nor did Weitering yet he was staggering around like a drunk

Edited Tuesday at 02:11 AM by jnrmac

[Fork 'em 6,067]

15 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

none of the footage shown on the 7 telecast shows conclusively that it was touched.

For them to overrule on that basis is unbelievable.

Two games we have been dudded and 7 times Carlton have received the benefit of the review in the past 4 games.

The AFL is corrupt to the core.

Someone stated in the game day thread early on after a couple soft decisions that the "Fix was in."
As the game wore on the the more obvious it become.
Especially in the last.

But at the end of the day, we forked up.
The game shouldn't have even been close.
Like boxing, if ya KO your opponent the crooked judges are taken out of the equation.

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:26 AM by Fork 'em

[monoccular 14,956]

17 hours ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

No  definite evidence in that footage  that was  enough to overturn the soft call .

Carlton are so lucky so often with adjudications that it really makes you wonder how.

Lucky, or blessed ??  ARC.  MRO.  Tribunal.  Appeals Board.  And some may be lead to believe that there is a corrupt conspiracy?

16 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

In super slow mo frame by frame and blown up very close it looks touched for mine.

I can rest easy on this one at least

The more I look the less evidence for a touch there is.  

Missing is video of any reaction or 'appeal' that it was touched, probably because it wasn't.  Probably that is why such a short, single angled clip was shown.

The Carlton guy's fingers actually flexed, not extended.  From that angle there is not 100%  certainty (which is what is - supposedly - required) that it was touched at all, so the original call should stand.

Some may be lead to believe that there is a corrupt conspiracy.

A Carlton Collingwood GF would be wonderful for AFL marketing.

[Fork 'em 6,067]

7 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Some may be lead to believe that there is a corrupt conspiracy.

A Carlton Collingwood GF would be wonderful for AFL marketing.

I've reminded people before the AFL is a business posing as a competition.
And in the AFL business the best way to boost profits and therefor trigger various executive bonuses is to have the biggest clubs not only winning, but winning finals.

[leave it to deever 12,658]

It's Carlton.

Gotta have them play Collingwood.

 

[Gawndy the Great 6,006]

I hate to say it but the ARC call saved the game for Carlton. It was touched and it was adjudicated properly. The uproar if it was later found to be touched and not called would have been merited and shown greater incompetence by the AFL.

Don't waste your energy on this. Plenty of other things to be discontent with that we can address in the off season. 

 

[No10 285]

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I hate to say it but the ARC call saved the game for Carlton. It was touched and it was adjudicated properly. The uproar if it was later found to be touched and not called would have been merited and shown greater incompetence by the AFL.

Don't waste your energy on this. Plenty of other things to be discontent with that we can address in the off season. 

 

I’m not sure the ARC call saved the game for Carlton, we proved an impressive capacity for capitulating under pressure.

But to say this was adjudicated correctly and definitively touched is wrong. The ARC footage is locked to the broadcast and when they say “looking at this angle” the footage is in context. I don’t see any touch on the ball.

Extreme to callback a goal, the uproar should be now. But it wasn’t in Q4. And it was Melbourne.

[daisycutter 27,214]

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????

[Clintosaurus 5,721]

8 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

They clearly had conclusive evidence that wasn't available for the broadcaster to show the viewers.

Doesn't the broadcaster provide the footage to the ARC though?

[Clintosaurus 5,721]

34 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

very surprised the press hasn't picked up on it

cost the game????

As if they would say anything that strays from the Carlton Collingwood narrative the AFL wants them focused on.

[Gawndy the Great 6,006]

34 minutes 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????

If there was any doubt it would be in the headlines and Melbourne FC would have made sure of that. Especially because it was overturned. 

[daisycutter 27,214]

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

If there was any doubt it would be in the headlines and Melbourne FC would have made sure of that. Especially because it was overturned. 

well i would just like to see any footage that conclusively shows a touch. enough to overide a hard call by all umps.

i'm open-minded. just want to see the proof.

the so-called proof video (shown above) provided by the mro (supposedly) is simply not conclusive.

over to you

[beelzebub 21,752]

21 hours ago, Undeeterred said:

It wasn’t a soft call. It was a goal and nobody asked them to look at it.

I’m not usually into this kind of thing but it’s a borderline conspiracy. 

 

The word you look for is "corrupt" 

[Gawndy the Great 6,006]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

well i would just like to see any footage that conclusively shows a touch. enough to overide a hard call by all umps.

i'm open-minded. just want to see the proof.

the so-called proof video (shown above) provided by the mro (supposedly) is simply not conclusive.

over to you

I’ve watched it. I see a slight flick of the wedding ring finger. It’s minor but it’s there. Easier to see if you manually scrub back and forth.

I’m sure many club personnel have seen this and would be looking at it much more forensically than i, so if they are not making noise, then I’m happy with that.

[Fork 'em 6,067]

35 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I’m sure many club personnel have seen this and would be looking at it much more forensically than i, so if they are not making noise, then I’m happy with that.

I'd like the club to make less noise in general and just get on with it.
I don't wanna hear what they wanna do.
I just wanna see them do it.
Cause what they're sayin' and what they're doin' are different things.

[GBDee 337]

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? 

[No10 285]

8 minutes 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? 

Great analysis.

That left hand footage might be where some on here have been convinced. Smoke and mirrors absolutely.

Because the footage below, which was what ARC used, doesn’t show a touch. Inconclusive, at best.

[No10 285]

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I’ve watched it. I see a slight flick of the wedding ring finger. It’s minor but it’s there. Easier to see if you manually scrub back and forth.

I’m sure many club personnel have seen this and would be looking at it much more forensically than i, so if they are not making noise, then I’m happy with that.

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.

[Redleg 34,602]

10 hours ago, jnrmac said:

none of the footage shown on the 7 telecast shows conclusively that it was touched.

For them to overrule on that basis is unbelievable.

Two games we have been dudded and 7 times Carlton have received the benefit of the review in the past 4 games.

The AFL is corrupt to the core.

 

Cripps didn't even have a concussion test until after the game. Nor did Weitering yet he was staggering around like a drunk

Cripps nose was bleeding the whole last quarter and no blood rule.

Max was booted off by an overzealous umpire, for a spot of blood on his lip at Geelong, in the last few minutes of a game and with no ruckman, the Cats scored from the stoppage and won the game.

7 Carlton frees to 1 for us in the last quarter of a tight semi final, yeah officials have no influence on games.

 

[Willmoy1947 3,417]

Yes the game has been left in good shape McLaughlin.....