The AFL and cheating

[Life Long Saint]

The umpire called for the review.
He said he thought it was a goal, hence the soft call for a goal.
The vision looked like a point to me.

[happy feet]

I don’t know if it’s cheating but I believe the AFL are always very happy when non-Victorian clubs do well in finals.

[Ghost Like]

The only review needed was the look on Lynch's face, there's your evidence. Two goal umpires would have got that correct without the need for technology.

[older saint]

The ARC has different footage to channel 7.

Bottom line is the AFL are tighter than a ducks backside.

I can watch a feather move on an eagle 400 mtrs away on a doco but the AFL make the broadcasters provide the cameras for the goal line and they argue we already paid 100's of millions for the rights you should get the cameras. AFL says no, Channel 7/ fox then do the minimum.
Need to make sure Gil and his mates get paid first

[Sainter_Dad]

It is possible Older Saint is right - it used to be the same vision (just better quality), however:

https://www.afl.com.au/news/37686/meet- ... for-finals

[saynta]

Started watching barracking for the Victorian team, but soon changed as I can't stand their coach, Riewoldt or Lynch. Don't like the Brissie coach either but glad they won in what turned out to be a fairly even game. So suck s*** Richmond.

Couldn't give a toupenny f*** that Lynch's goal was overruled.

[meher baba]

It quite obviously wasn’t a goal, so the outcome was the right one.

Brisbane deserved to win IMO. The Tigers got away with a lot: sure the free kick tally was lopsided to Brisbane, but it should have been even more lopsided.

[The_Dud]

This is definitely not trolling

[CURLY]

It quite obviously wasn’t a goal, so the outcome was the right one.

Brisbane deserved to win IMO. The Tigers got away with a lot: sure the free kick tally was lopsided to Brisbane, but it should have been even more lopsided.

Does it matter that it was the right result? The AFL has a rule that unless the review is conclusive the call is the umpires. You can't make a rule up then only use it some times.

[Impatient Sainter]

If the ARC had different technology they would have released it to justify their decision. IMO with the footage provided it was a very poor decision as they had no way of judging when the ball crossed the goal line. Having said that Richmond were their own worst enemy not tagging Neale, as he slaughtered them.

[ace]

Why did the umpires pay the too far free against Rich? Was that ump not in on the agenda?

The goal review was inconclusive and they went against their own rules.

Cheats

At no time was the ball completely to the right side of the goal post.
It was either a hit post or a behind, both of which are NOT a goal.

[WellardSaint]

Why did the umpires pay the too far free against Rich? Was that ump not in on the agenda?

The goal review was inconclusive and they went against their own rules.

Cheats

At no time was the ball completely to the right side of the goal post.
It was either a hit post or a behind, both of which are NOT a goal.

Insane.
The camera was very much side on, I don't know how you could say that.

[D.B.Cooper]

This is definitely not trolling

Would you like a chuckle?

Type the words ‘blatant cheating’ into the Saintsational search bar and see how many times “Cryjn Curly’s” username pops up

[kosifantutti]

Why did the umpires pay the too far free against Rich? Was that ump not in on the agenda?

The goal review was inconclusive and they went against their own rules.

Cheats

At no time was the ball completely to the right side of the goal post.
It was either a hit post or a behind, both of which are NOT a goal.

He kicked from that side so the ball started off 20m to the right. It's just a matter of when it lined up with the post. Was the ball already over the line? If they had a camera level with the goal line it would sort it all out.

[D.B.Cooper]

Blatant cheating and agenda driven.

WARBURTON RANGES NEWS
LOCAL MAN ARRESTED FOR ABUSING UMPIRES

<1 week ban for trolling. Poster has previously been warned about use of this specific image>

[CURLY]

Blatant cheating and agenda driven.

WARBURTON RANGES NEWS
LOCAL MAN ARRESTED FOR ABUSING UMPIRES

Took you a while oracle. The home not bringing you your things until after line dancing classes?

[The Fireman]

[spert]

Seen plenty of points kicked in my time ,and that was one of them- the Tiger players all looked around like it was a miss when it went through and Lynch knew it was a miss off the boot.

[perfectionist]

Started watching barracking for the Victorian team, but soon changed as I can't stand their coach, Riewoldt or Lynch. Don't like the Brissie coach either but glad they won in what turned out to be a fairly even game. So suck s*** Richmond....

Yes, it was a shame that there had to be a winner!

[Mr Magic]

Seen plenty of points kicked in my time ,and that was one of them- the Tiger players all looked around like it was a miss when it went through and Lynch knew it was a miss off the boot.

I don't believe that's the point Curly's raising.
The rule is quite clear.
Unless the video is conclusive, the goal umpire's original decision stands.
SO, maybe the ARC had different vision to what was shown on tv?
If they didn't, then IMHO the AFL rule was ignored.
Is it AFL cheating?
Not in my opinion. Just another case of rules not being followed.
Just like Sirengate all those years ago, when the AFL Commission chose to ignore the AFL rules and award Fremantle with the 4 points.

[The_Dud]

If three different angles (at a range of at least 90 degrees) all show the ball over the post at the same time it is pretty conclusive that the ball travelled over the post.

Science.

[repta]

frame speed is not up to it

the Brisbane player thought it was a goal .... look at the footage. No one has said anything about his reaction.

My only surprise is that it wasnt StKilda. ... this time ....

[amusingname]

Seen plenty of points kicked in my time ,and that was one of them- the Tiger players all looked around like it was a miss when it went through and Lynch knew it was a miss off the boot.

I don't believe that's the point Curly's raising.
The rule is quite clear.
Unless the video is conclusive, the goal umpire's original decision stands.
SO, maybe the ARC had different vision to what was shown on tv?
If they didn't, then IMHO the AFL rule was ignored.
Is it AFL cheating?
Not in my opinion. Just another case of rules not being followed.
Just like Sirengate all those years ago, when the AFL Commission chose to ignore the AFL rules and award Fremantle with the 4 points.

Curly’s point also includes that the afl are cheating because they don’t want dusty on the podium, they would much prefer upstanding citizen Dayne Zorko receiving the premiership cup as winning captain.

I have no problem questioning the decision as from what was shown on the broadcast there isn’t conclusive evidence of it being over the post, but the ARC reviewers are still humans and are interpreting what they see, so they are making a judgement on what they think is conclusive evidence. My problem is that judgement is then equated to blatant cheating and conspiracy.

[CURLY]

Seen plenty of points kicked in my time ,and that was one of them- the Tiger players all looked around like it was a miss when it went through and Lynch knew it was a miss off the boot.

I don't believe that's the point Curly's raising.
The rule is quite clear.
Unless the video is conclusive, the goal umpire's original decision stands.
SO, maybe the ARC had different vision to what was shown on tv?
If they didn't, then IMHO the AFL rule was ignored.
Is it AFL cheating?
Not in my opinion. Just another case of rules not being followed.
Just like Sirengate all those years ago, when the AFL Commission chose to ignore the AFL rules and award Fremantle with the 4 points.

Curly’s point also includes that the afl are cheating because they don’t want dusty on the podium, they would much prefer upstanding citizen Dayne Zorko receiving the premiership cup as winning captain.

I have no problem questioning the decision as from what was shown on the broadcast there isn’t conclusive evidence of it being over the post, but the ARC reviewers are still humans and are interpreting what they see, so they are making a judgement on what they think is conclusive evidence. My problem is that judgement is then equated to blatant cheating and conspiracy.

The fact is nothing conclusive has come out to prove that was a clear behind. The arc employed by the AFL chose to ignore the rules. Call it what ever you want I call it cheating.

[The Fireman]

Remind me again

Why are the afl cheating?